open polity

Author: Imani Adesanya

  • The 2016 Nostalgia Trend: Why Gen Z’s Internet Throwback Reflects Political Anxiety in 2026

    The 2016 Nostalgia Trend: Why Gen Z’s Internet Throwback Reflects Political Anxiety in 2026

    Since the beginning of the year, the internet has been flooded by 2016 nostalgia. From rose-tinted filters to viral Musical.ly sounds and users sharing personal 2016 photos, a strong desire to return to the past has dominated digital platforms. This trend is not limited to Gen Z; people of all ages and backgrounds have participated, underscoring how widely this sense of nostalgia isfelt. 2026 marks a decade since 2016, so it is understandable why people are looking back and reminiscing. However, the scale of this nostalgia trend was not seen last year,  when a decade had passed since 2015. This suggests that what appears at first to be a harmless internet trend may reflect something deeper. Widespread nostalgia often signals dissatisfaction with the present and a longing for a mythic past. It suggests that something has gone wrong in our current reality.

    Scrolling through social media feeds, amid videos and pictures referencing 2016, it has been hard to escape more serious content depicting ICE brutality in the US, widespread protests in Iran and even discussions of Trump potentially invading Greenland. Many people around the world live in constant fear and uncertainty, so it makes sense for them to retreatto a time when life felt better. When people are nostalgic, often, what they remember is not the full historical reality of that year, but how life felt. Many people participating in this trend were younger at the time and so, more shielded from economic instability, rising living costs, climate anxiety, digital overload, and constant exposure to global crises through social media. Therefore, life felt a lot easier for them.

    However, 2016 was, in many ways, the beginning of the political reality we are living in today. 2016 was the year Donald Trump won his first U.S. Presidential election, an event widely viewed as the catalyst for the intensification of the political polarisation that’s plaguing America today. Through his divisive rhetoric and politicisation of nostalgia, he mobilised millions of voters by framing the present as a decline and the past as something that needed to be restored. He promised to “Make America Great Again” by building a wall to curb migration levels. However, given America’s deeply contested history marked by slavery, Jim Crow laws and gender inequality, many commentators questioned what period this “greatness” referred to. 

    2016 also had major political implications in the UK. This was the year of the Brexit referendum, which resulted in the UK leaving the European Union after 52% of the country voted to “take back control”. The leave campaign, like Trump, also used the tactic of politicising nostalgia, as they framed EU membership as a loss of national sovereignty, promising a return to an earlier period of independence and control. For some individuals, this period is remembered as a time of greater cultural familiarity and less visible diversity. The leave campaign exploited this sentiment by strongly emphasising immigration.

    This recent trend seems to have forgotten this, instead focusing only on the positives of 2016. This is significant because it highlights that, if overindulged, nostalgia can produce a paradise that never has and never will exist, but that is pursued at all costs, taking away all joy and potential from the present. The danger of nostalgia, therefore, lies in its ability to move politics away from solving current issues towards attempting to recreate a mythic past. When this happens, progress is framed as decline, and so societies become more vulnerable to divisive rhetoric, exclusionary policies, and authoritarian leaders who promise to “restore” rather than “reform”. 

    Whilst this recent wave of nostalgia has mainly been felt by young people focusing on internet culture and memories of childhood, rather than something as explicitly political as national history, the underlying sentiment can align with wider political narratives. The past becomes a symbol of comfort and safety, while the present is the opposite and something we need to leave. This feeling can be manipulated into making people believe that society has moved in the wrong direction. Consequently, instead of a politics of progress and democratic debate, we get a politics of division and democratic decline.

    If we look through history, we can see that authoritarian and fascist movements have often drawn on similar emotional dynamics. Leaders of these movements employ nostalgic rhetoric to highlight their country’s past greatness for their own political gain. This past greatness is often characterised by economic stability and cultural purity, which fascists/ authoritarian leaders promise to restore if given power. Fascist parties leverage this nostalgia to mobilise the working and middle classes by appealing to a shared sense of loss, exploiting cultural anxieties and economic insecurities. Walter Benjamin argued that fascism invokes a mythical past not to genuinely recover it, but to reframe the present in ways that justify oppressive policies.

    In emphasising the greatness of the nation in the past, fascist nostalgia is selective and ignores significant moments in the history of the nation. Things such as colonial violence, gender and racial inequality and class exploitation are omitted from the narrative of the nation’s past, instead presenting a homogenous society that never existed in reality. By manipulating cultural memory, fascism seeks to align popular discontent with its agenda, diverting anger away from the capitalist system and toward fabricated enemies of the state, such as immigrants or different cultural influences. The rise of far-right politics across Europe and America has coincided with an increase in this political tactic. 

    The 2016 nostalgia trend is an important reminder that a longing for the past can be exploited and manipulated for political gain. What begins as a desire for old trends and memes can evolve into a broader belief that the past was inherently better than the present. History illustrates how easily this feeling of longing can be redirected toward exclusion, blame, and promises of national restoration. Nostalgia itself is not a dangerous emotion to feel. It reflects humans’ natural desire for stability and security. The risk arises when these desires are directed toward chasing a version of the past that never truly existed.

  • From Abuse to Activism: Celta Vigo Tackles Homophobia and Toxic Masculinity in Football

    From Abuse to Activism: Celta Vigo Tackles Homophobia and Toxic Masculinity in Football

    Photo by Wesley Fávero on Unsplash

    During a match against Sevilla in January, Borja Iglesias was the subject of horrific homophobic abuse. Opposition fans weaponised the striker’s creativity by making derogatory references to his painted nails. In a powerful stand against this discrimination, Celta Vigo players and supporters wore nail polish in the following game against Rayo Vallecano to show solidarity with their player and also to demonstrate that homophobia has no place in football. Rainbow flags were also waved in the stands. After the game, Celta posted a picture of their players with their nail art with the caption: “Against Hate, Together.” This is significant because it demonstrates that football clubs can redirect something negative into something positive.

    Iglesias has painted his fingernails for years. In past interviews, he has said that he began doing it to highlight important social issues and stand against injustice and intolerance in society. The fact that something as small and simple as nail polish provoked such hostility highlights just how fragile and archaic ideas of masculinity are within football and, more broadly, sports culture. Since its inception, football has been characterised as a sport for men that demands toughness and aggression. 

    These are traits that are typically viewed as masculine. For decades, these rigid expectations excluded women from playing the game and also men who do not act in accordance with hyper-masculine norms. Football continues to confine anyone who attempts to step outside of the very narrow ideas of masculinity and gender norms. Whilst there have been attempts to eradicate these stereotypes and welcome the LGBTQ+ community, these have mainly been symbolic rather than transformative.

    Campaigns such as rainbow laces are symbolic acts that do well to signal awareness and discussion of the issue, but they often fail to confront the deeper cultural attitudes that are strongly ingrained within fan behaviour, locker room norms and footballing institutions. They have not done enough to change the narratives within football. The positive response of the Celta Vigo supporters and players shows that, in some instances, symbolic acts can become acts of resistance, reshaping the narrative by challenging entrenched ideas of masculinity in football. 

    A week before the Celta Vigo incident, Josh Cavallo, the first man to come out as gay while playing elite football, accused his former club Adelaide United of “internal homophobia” before his exit in 2025.  In a statement, he wrote: “It’s hard to swallow when I realised my own club was homophobic. I was angry because people thought I was sidelined based on injuries, when in reality, it was internal homophobia that kept me on the bench.” A spokesperson for the club said it “categorically rejects” these claims. 

    However, the fact that this was how he was made to feel is significant in itself. It illustrates that even when institutions publicly align themselves with inclusion and equality, the internal structures of these institutions prohibit any real progress. It also highlights that homophobia in football is not simply limited to chants in the stands. Football is supposed to be a unifying sport that brings people together, but instead, we still see attempts to keep those who do not confine themselves to traditional ideals of football culture pushed out. 

    The abuse that Borja Iglesias was a victim of only reinforces this. Its institutions and cultures often reproduce the same exclusionary politics taking place in society, showing that sport doesn’t escape politics, it reflects and magnifies it. As football is a microcosm for society, it reflects the wider political and cultural shift which has seen progress stalled for a return back to a more fixed, traditional social order where conformity is rewarded and difference is treated as a threat rather than something to be celebrated. 

    In the past few years, across Europe and America, there has been a significant rise in right-wing populism. Appeals to traditional social norms have marked this. Policies and rhetoric from these growing movements have framed LGBTQ+ rights as a threat. The effect of this has been seen through fan behaviour and institutional hesitation. Recent years have seen backlash to rainbow armbands, hostility toward women’s football gaining legitimacy, and abuse toward players who don’t fit hyper-masculine norms. The rise of the right doesn’t just influence what governments do; it shapes what is socially acceptable, who is celebrated and who is marginalised, on the pitch, in stadiums, and across the global fanbase.

    A cultural shift is unlikely if powerful institutions do not challenge this, and if inclusion continues to be treated as a symbolic performance rather than astructural necessity. Moments like Celta Vigo supporters painting their nails in solidarity show that progressive politics is still an option. Until governing bodies and institutions move beyond risk-avoidance, progress will continue to be uneven and vulnerable to backlash. 

    Imani Adesanya

  • Opinion: By-elections should be automatically triggered when MPs defect to another party

    Opinion: By-elections should be automatically triggered when MPs defect to another party

    When an MP defects, it means that they leave their original party to join another or become an independent. With Reform UK leading in the polls, many Tory MPs feel like the Conservative Party is getting pushed out of electoral relevancy. In the 2024 general election, the Conservative Party suffered their worst ever electoral defeat, winning just 121 seats. This number has since decreased, with several MPs abandoning the party by defecting to Reform. For so long, the two party system has ensured electoral success only for the Labour and conservative Parties. However, with the declining popularity of the two main parties, many believe that the two party system is fragmenting.

    The past week reinforced this as the Conservative Party was hit with several defections. On Sunday, the MP for Romford, Andrew Rosindell, became the latest Tory to defect to Reform. He stated that Reform UK is “ the only political movement that is genuinely willing to fight for the best interests of the United Kingdom”, and said that he now believes “the Conservative Party is irreparably bound to the mistakes of previous governments and unwilling to take meaningful accountability for the poor decisions made over so many issues”.

    This move came after Robert Jenrick, the former shadow justice secretary and main rival to Kemi Badenoch in the conservative leadership contest, dramatically defected to Reform on Thursday. Jenrick became the most senior Tory MP so far to switch allegiances. Jenrick was unable to announce his defection in the way he had hoped. This is because, earlier in the day, Kemi Badenoch suspended him from the party and removed the Conservative whip after finding “irrefutable evidence” that he was planning to defect. Jenrick became the most senior Tory MP so far to switch allegiances.

    Prior to Jenrick’s defection, on Monday 12 January, Nadhim Zahawi, the former Tory chancellor was the most senior MP to have switched allegiances. Despite criticising Nigel Farage in the past, Mr Zahawi said: “I’ve made my mind up that the team that will deliver for this nation will be the team that Nigel will put together and that’s why I’ve decided that I’m joining Reform.” These events have raised questions about the future of the Conservative party. This is because, if more MPs defect to Reform UK, then Reform UK may take the mantle as the main centre right party in British politics, putting an end to the two party system.

    They have also sparked debate about the wider consequences of political defection. This is because the act of defecting contradicts democratic ideals, as it violates the mandate upon which the defector was elected and betrays the will of the voter. During their campaign they would have promoted party policies and ideas. Ideally, when an MP decides that they want to defect to another political party, a by-election should be automatically triggered to allow the constituents the opportunity to have their democratic right to agree or not with their elected official. It should go both ways. However, there is no rule forcing them to. There is currently a petition, with over 100,000 signatures, for this very issue to be debated in Parliament. 

    Those who oppose this idea point to the way our electoral system works. In theory, at a general election, the electorate votes for an individual, not a political party, to be elected as a member of parliament to represent their constituency. Therefore, individual MPs should be free to develop their own arguments once elected, until it is time to face the voters in the next general election. As Edmund Burke argued, members of parliament are a representative of their constituency, rather than a delegate of a particular party. However, in practice, most of the electorate votes for a political party. Typically they vote for or against the two main political parties. The nature of the two party system forces people to vote tactically for the party they would rather see form government. They form this decision based on the main policies of each party.

    Therefore, it isn’t really fair for an MP to suddenly switch allegiances during a parliamentary term when they would have been elected on a different policy platform from the one they later choose to support. An X post from 2019 shows that Reform UK, who now benefit from these defections, used to hold the same opinion.

    In 2019, the Reform UK X account posted “We need a complete political reform. Voters should be able to use the existing recall system to force by-elections on MPs who change parties mid-parliament.” As it is no longer to their benefit, Reform UK seems to have abandoned this belief. However, in order to ensure accountability and representation are sufficiently upheld, it is imperative that this issue is more widely discussed and considered by Parliament.

    This is a political debate that will not go away. As the petition circulating online has reached 100,000 signatures it will be considered for debate. Ultimately, in a system where party identity plays a pivotal role in shaping the outcomes of elections, sudden changes in party loyalty can be seen as breaching the trust of the electorate and undermining the principle that political power should derive from the informed consent of the electorate.

  • Iran protests slow after brutal crackdown by the regime 

    What has happened?

    Since 28 December 2025, Iran has been marred by unrest, as a series of protests, aimed at the Islamic Republic Government, erupted across the country. Whilst it is now being reported that protests have slowed, it is important to recognise that this is due to the callous crackdown, as opposed to citizens having their voices heard and demands met. 

    According to the US-based Human Rights Activists News Agency, more than 3000 people have been killed in the regime’s violent response to anti government protests. This brutal response has suppressed many Iranians, silencing dissent through fear and force, while leaving their grievances unresolved. This ruthless attack on freedom of expression underscores the authoritarian character of the regime and highlights the urgency needed to address the country’s deep social and political issues.

    Protest and uprising have been prominent features of Iran, shaping the political structure that it acquires today. The Islamic Revolution that occurred in 1979 is fundamental for understanding Iran’s current political landscape. This revolution was a widespread uprising against the Western backed autocratic monarchy of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. After successfully removing Pahlavi, Iran became an Islamic theocracy led by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. This significantly changed Iran’s political structure and ushered in decades of clerical rule and significant geopolitical shifts. 

    Why are Iranians protesting?

    Decades on from this, Iran finds itself in another unstable political climate. The recent protests have been described as the most serious bout of unrest the government has faced since the 1979 revolution. But what sparked such a movement in the first place? As with any large scale uprising, there are a multitude of factors that intersect to cause it. The catalyst for this movement, however, has strong roots in economics. 

    Many Iranians began taking to the streets after a sudden collapse in the value of the country’s currency. Over the past few years Iranians have been suffering with deep economic issues. Their purchasing power has fallen by more than 90 percent and food prices have soared by an average of 72 percent. Due to this, public frustration only intensified further. It is this frustration that culminated in shopkeepers and bazaar merchants in Tehran staging a strike as a response to the Iranian currency hitting an all-time low against the US dollar. These strikes led to the protest movement that has spread to all 31 provinces. These protests initially focused on the economic crisis, but quickly expanded to demand political reform and an end to the rule of Iran’s supreme leader.

    The Iranian government has called the protests “riots” backed by Iran’s enemies. The regime’s response has been marked by a significant scale of violence which has so far succeeded in quashing protests and driving people off the streets. Protesters were met with lethal force and videos of security forces shooting at protestors have been authenticated by the BBC. Many relatives overseas have been slow to find out whether their family members are victims of this abhorrent violence, as the Iranian regime shut down the internet. 

    Why has the regime shut down the internet? 

    The significance of the internet shutdown cannot be understated. It represents a deliberate attempt by the regime to cut off a vital tool that has, in the past, stimulated mass mobilisation, the documentation of power abuse and global solidarity. The Arab spring is often referred to as the “Facebook Revolution” because social media platforms acted as a pivotal tool for organising demonstrations, spreading information and building international awareness of uprisings that were happening. Social media platforms, therefore, remain a vital tool for resistance. The Iranian regime recognised this and imposed a near total internet and communications shutdown to regain control of the narrative and to stop first hand accounts of what’s going on.

    This is not the first time that Iran has adopted this strategy. During the demonstrations in 2019 and 2022 there were nationwide internet shutdowns. Freedom campaigners at Access Now say Iran has consistently used shutdowns as a way to mask mass violence and brutal crackdowns on protesters. However, the current internet blackout has lasted longer than any previous shutdown.

    Will there be US intervention?  

    The events in Iran have been met with significant international scrutiny. In the past few weeks US President Donald Trump has spoken a lot on the matter. He threatened “very strong action” if the Iranian authorities executed 26-year-old protester Erfan Soltani. On Tuesday 13 January, Trump urged Iranians to “keep protesting”, telling them “help is on its way”. Many people suspected that there would be military intervention from the US. However, 24 hours later, the US President told reporters that he had received assurances that planned executions of protesters would not now proceed and so retreated from military intervention in Iran. 

    Despite Trump’s aggressive foreign policy at the start of this year, US intervention works directly against Trump’s promise to not engage the US in new wars. It is important to note that Iran is not Venezuela. Iran has significant military capabilities, allies who are very anti-US and they have already stated that if the US intervenes they will retaliate and target military bases. It also goes without saying that US intervention would not necessarily benefit Iranians as the US has little credibility when it comes to protecting innocent lives in the middle east. Whilst it may be in Trump’s interest to not intervene, many Iranian protestors feel abandoned as killings have continued.

    On Saturday 17 January, Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamene, publicly acknowledged the thousands of killings that have occurred during the protests and blamed them on the US. “Those linked to Israel and the US caused massive damage and killed several thousand,” Khamenei said, quoted by Iranian state media. He also labelled the US President a “criminal” for the “casualties, damages and slander he inflicted on the Iranian nation.”

    In Iran, many protesters remain unsure about taking to the streets again. The future of the country remains uncertain. Reza Pahlavi, the son of Iran’s former pro-western monarch, has predicted the fall of the Islamic regime and has claimed he is “uniquely” placed to head a successor government. However, this has been questioned s has not been in Iran since his family fled the country at the beginning of the 1979 Islamic revolution. A wide range of paths exist, from continued stagnation and authoritarian consolidation, to prolonged instability or, eventually, meaningful transformation.

  • TRUMP’S GREENLAND MISSION

    TRUMP’S GREENLAND MISSION

    Home to just 56,000 people, Greenland finds itself at the centre of a geopolitical storm. After carrying out a controversial military operation in Venezuela, which resulted in the capturing of Nicolás Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores, President Trump has renewed calls for the US takeover of Greenland. This has raised questions about the future of NATO and the rules based international system that has facilitated global cooperation since the end of World war two.

    Speaking to NBC News on Monday evening, the US president said “We need Greenland for national security.” He said, “It’s so strategic. Right now, Greenland is covered with Russian and Chinese ships all over the place.” He stated that he is “very serious” in his intent of acquiring the country. The White House has further reinforced this stance, saying that Trump has been discussing “a range of options” to obtain Greenland, including military action. While Trump has previously expressed interest in acquiring Greenland, these latest remarks are being treated with greater seriousness due to his recent actions in Venezuela.

    Greenland is a region that sits off the northeastern coast of Canada, and has more than 80 per cent of its territory lying within the Arctic Circle. It is an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark, governing its own affairs while Denmark retains control over defence and security. As Denmark is a member of NATO– the intergovernmental military alliance whose purpose is to guarantee the freedom and security of its members through political and military means- Trump’s ambitions are especially concerning. 

    Article 5 of the treaty dictates that “an armed attack against one or more” in Europe or North America shall be considered “an attack against them all”. But what happens if the threat comes from the treaty’s most powerful member? The US explicitly and forcibly challenging the historical sovereignty of Denmark, an ally, would surely signal the US’s departure from, and potentially the end of, the alliance. It would create a highly unstable international system that would only benefit rival powers such as Russia and China. Russia may feel emboldened to make further advances in Europe while NATO is in chaos. The Danish Prime Minister, Mette Frederiksen, has expressed this and has also made it clear that the US has no right to Greenland.

    The Prime Minister stated, “If the U.S. chooses to attack another NATO country militarily, then everything stops, including NATO and thus the security that has been established since the end of the Second World War”. She also said, “the US has no right to annex any of the three countries in ​the Danish Kingdom.” The Danish Prime Minister and Greenland has received the support of several European leaders including French President Emmanuel Macron and United Kingdom Prime Minister Keir Starmer, who issued a joint statement on Tuesday saying that “Greenland belongs to its people. It is for Denmark and Greenland alone to decide on matters concerning Denmark and Greenland”.

    Given Greenland’s small population and relatively low profile in global affairs, some might ask why Trump is so interested in it and why the issue has gained such attention. The answer lies in its strategic location and natural resources, which make it attractive to the US. It is strategically located in the Arctic Ocean, between the US and Russia, in the midst of major shipping routes. Climate change is causing the Arctic ice to melt, potentially creating a Northwest Passage for international trade and reigniting competition with Russia and China. Greenland is also rich in natural resources. It has rare earth minerals that are a key component of mobile phones, computers, batteries and other hi-tech gadgets. As well as this, it has billions of untapped barrels of oil and a vast supply of natural gas that used to be inaccessible but is becoming increasingly accessible due to melting ice sheets caused by climate change. Therefore, this is not solely a matter of national security, but also one of economic security.

    Ultimately, Trump and the US are acting as powerful states traditionally do under realist theory. 

    Realism holds that states are power seeking actors, operating in an anarchic world, with no central authority to enforce rules. This compels states to prioritise survival, security, and the accumulation of power. Whilst there are international organisations that attempt to enforce international norms and rules, as realist theory argues, these institutions remain subordinate to state interests and power politics. Trump’s latest actions and comments reinforce this idea.

    His desire to acquire Greenland reflects a rational attempt to strengthen strategic positioning in the Arctic, secure access to emerging trade routes and resources, and prevent rival powers such as Russia and China from gaining influence. 

    Trump’s behaviour can therefore be understood as a continuation of great-power politics, where strategic advantage outweighs legal norms, alliances, and the rules-based international order.

    It appears that the rules-based international order is increasingly giving way to a system governed more by capability than by law. This shift risks accelerating great-power competition and undermining international security.

    Imani Adesanya

  • TRUMP ATTACKS VENEZUALA: Is this the end of the rules based international system?

    TRUMP ATTACKS VENEZUALA: Is this the end of the rules based international system?

    When questioned by a reporter what his new year’s resolution was, President Trump responded “Peace. Peace on Earth”. Three days later he launched an unprecedented attack on Venezuela. On Saturday 3 January, the FIFA peace prize recipient announced a large-scale US strike on Venezuela and the capturing of Nicolás Maduro, and his wife, Cilia Flores. The couple have now been indicted in New York on terrorism and drugs charges. Trump says the US is going to “run” Venezuela “until such time as we can do a safe, proper and judicious transition”. The attack saw at least 40 people, including civilians and Venezuelan soldiers, die. Therefore it appears Mr Trump is going to have to find another new year’s resolution.

    No one will mourn the removal of Nicolas Maduro. In fact, many Venezuelan immigrants in the US and the UK have celebrated his capture, saying “it is impossible not to feel relief”. The Venezuelan leader is seen by many as a dictator as he relied on the secret police, disappearances and persecution to keep his grip on power. He has run an authoritarian state since 2013 with the help of elections widely regarded as rigged and fraudulent. Over seven million Venezuelans fled the country during his rule. So now there is one less dictator in the world terrorising its people. Whilst some people may consider this to be a victory, it cannot be denied that the manner in which he was removed is deeply troubling and raises significant geopolitical concerns about international law and state sovereignty.

    This military operation appears to have little to no legal or constitutional authority. The US has ultimately invaded a sovereign nation without UN authorisation, kidnapped a sitting head of state and has done so acting not on the basis of international law but on its own domestic law. State sovereignty is the principle that a state holds supreme and independent authority over its territory and people, free from external control. The US’s actions, therefore, are a serious cause for concern because it sends a message that as long as you have the military clout you can do what you want, to whoever you want, on the international stage. It highlights the erosion of the rules based international order, where law is increasingly overshadowed by power. The geopolitical implications of this are very dangerous. Other powerful nations such as China may feel empowered to pursue their own territorial and strategic ambitions by force.

    The public justification of this military operation by the Trump administration has been about drugs. Trump has been focused on fighting the influx of drugs – especially fentanyl and cocaine – into the US. He has framed this attack on Venezuela as a broader war on narcotics and has accused Maduro of running a “narco terrorist organisation”. Without providing evidence, Trump has also accused Maduro of “emptying his prisons and insane asylums” and “forcing” its inmates to migrate to the US. From the justification some may argue that Trump is simply acting in the national interest to protect the American population from the alleged flow of drugs and criminal networks linked to Maduro. Framed this way, the operation can be presented as a defensive measure aimed at safeguarding public health and domestic security, rather than as an overtly aggressive act against a sovereign state.

    However, it would be illogical to think that this is the only reason for the attack. In fact, many of Trump’s claims about drugs have been criticised as there is little evidence.

    For example, counternarcotic experts have explained that Venezuela is a minor player when it comes to global drug trafficking. Cocaine is mainly produced in Colombia and most of it is said to enter the US through other routes, rather than Venezuela. Fentanyl, the other drug that Trump has raised concerns about, is mainly produced in Mexico and enters the US almost exclusively via land through its southern border. 

    Therefore, it would appear that the central basis of justification for this attack is very weak. Realist international relations theory teaches us that states are self-interested, power-seeking actors driven by survival in an anarchic world. This means that they will use any means necessary to achieve their aims. In this case, the US has ignored the principle of state sovereignty in order to achieve its objectives. For some, its objectives extend beyond the stated aim of combating drug trafficking. Maduro and political commentators have accused the US of using the so-called “war on drugs” as a pretext to secure access to Venezuela’s vast oil reserves. Venezuela has the largest proven oil reserves of any country in the world, making it an especially attractive target for external influence and intervention. Therefore, it is hard to believe that the rationale behind this military operation was drug-related.

    Analysis from Sky News highlights exactly why Trump may be seeking access to Venezuelan oil. Whilst the US is the world’s largest oil producer, it primarily produces light crude. However, most of its refineries are designed to process heavy oil. Because upgrading refineries would cost billions, the US remains heavily dependent on imports of heavy crude, exporting much of its own oil while importing thousands of barrels daily for refineries in Texas and Louisiana. Venezuela, therefore, is strategically important because it holds some of the world’s largest reserves of heavy oil.

    The significance of oil in this whole situation was reinforced by President Trump during his press conference on Saturday in which oil was referred to more than a dozen times. Trump said Venezuela had “stolen” oil from the US and that it would now be taken back. This belief that the oil had been stolen is based on Venezuela’s nationalisation of its oil industry between the 1970s and the 2000s, forcing most US oil companies out. The president also claimed US occupation “won’t cost a penny” as the country will be reimbursed from “money coming out of the ground”. He explained that he plans to have major American energy multinationals invest “billions and billions of dollars” to rebuild the country’s “rotted” oil infrastructure.

    Clearly, this has never been solely about drugs. The US’s actions therefore set a dangerous precedent. Whilst the fall of a dictator may offer short-term satisfaction, when achieved at the expense of state sovereignty and the rules based international system, it risks contributing to a more dangerous and unpredictable world.

    Imani Adesanya
  • Opinion: Britain Isn’t Becoming America — It’s Importing Trumpism

    Opinion: Britain Isn’t Becoming America — It’s Importing Trumpism

    Reform UK and the Mainstreaming of Far-Right Discourse

    Mirroring trends in the United States, the UK has become increasingly polarised along lines of culture and politics. Far right movements have gained significant ground as the Overton window has shifted away from the political centre, normalising rhetoric that was once considered extreme. In the UK, the Reform Party is at the heart of this shift as they continue to campaign on issues such as immigration, national sovereignty and opposition to what they term as “woke” politics. With their ideas being platformed by the mainstream media they have been able to shape political discourse and stamp influence on the Labour Government’s policy agenda. 

    With the Reform Party leading both the Conservatives and Labour in the polls, there is a strong possibility of them forming the next government. Concerns continue to grow about what this would mean for the UK, because the Reform party and the far right have become increasingly synonymous with the kind of divisive politics that defines Trump’s America. Nigel Farage has adopted a political strategy that strongly ascribes to Trumpism, and the wider far right in the UK has mobilised around issues imported from American culture wars. Discourse around ‘wokeness’, free speech, immigration and religion has become increasingly American in character.

    The Americanisation of the far right in the UK, therefore, is an ongoing process whose influence is becoming more apparent as there has been an erosion of the boundaries between extreme and mainstream politics by normalising imported culture-war rhetoric. This has been driven by a variety of forces in the political and media landscape. The Reform Party is one of the key driving forces, particularly when it comes to the issue of immigration. The climate crisis, global conflicts and global inequality mean that immigration will always be at the forefront of political discourse. There are many arguments on both sides of the immigration debate and it is not inherently wrong to advocate for less or more controlled levels of immigration. But it is how these arguments are framed that matters. When presented through fear, cultural grievance, and criminality, exclusionary narratives are reinforced, which sows even more division.

    Trump’s Immigration Agenda and Its Political Impact

    Central to Donald Trump’s electoral success in the 2016 Presidential election was his pledge to build a barrier along the U.S.-Mexico border and to enforce stricter controls on immigration. ”Build the wall” became a prominent slogan of the 2016 Presidential election. His first Presidential term saw travel bans on predominantly Muslim countries and anti immigrant rhetoric that framed all illegal immigrants as criminals. During his second term he has intensified this rhetoric and has implemented even more extreme measures, further reflecting the shifting Overton window. In March 2025, the Trump administration invoked the U.S. Alien Enemies Act to deport dozens of Venezuelan immigrants to El Salvador. They were detained in a notorious mega-prison used for the country’s most dangerous criminals. In 2025 immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) significantly intensified its enforcement operations, with large-scale workplace raids and neighborhood sweeps becoming a regular occurrence. This has perpetuated a culture of fear in America.

    These policies and actions have become a model for Nigel Farage and his party who also advocate for hardline immigration policies, frequently using similar rhetoric regarding mass deportations and border control. In some instances Farage is outright copying Trump’s policies. For example, in July last year, he announced that any future Reform UK government would try to send prisoners overseas to complete their sentences- including to El Salvador. Given the UK’s lack of geographical and political ties to El Salvador, Farage’s proposal appears symbolic, designed to emulate Trump’s, spectacle-driven immigration policies rather than reflect a practical plan. This can also be seen through his party’s pledge to deport up to 600,000 people over a five-year parliamentary term, which has been dubbed as Operation Restoring Justice. This plan feels strikingly similar to Trump’s ICE raids as it includes detaining anyone who arrives illegally (including children) in disused military bases.

    The significant rise of Farage’s party has seen the Conservative Party also adopting a Trump style policy agenda as they confront the reality that, as in the U.S., the center appears to have disappeared. During the Conservative Party conference last year, Kemi Badenoch pledged to deploy a new “removals force” with powers to detain and remove 150,000 undocumented migrants, with her top team crediting the U.S. president’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency as their inspiration. This clearly demonstrates that American style approaches to key political issues are growing in influence. Given the recent events surrounding ICE this is a serious cause for concern. 

    On 7 January 2026, 37-year-old Renee Nicole Good was fatally shot by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent in Minneapolis. Despite video footage clearly suggesting otherwise, the Trump administration has justified the actions of the agent by saying that Good tried to run over the officer. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem claimed that as she drove away from ICE officers, she “weaponised her car” in a “domestic terror attack”. This brutal campaign of intimidating immigrants also has severe consequences for American citizens. If a campaign with similar aims were to happen here under a Conservative or Reform government  it would raise serious concerns about the expansion of state power, the erosion of civil liberties.

    Importing US Culture-War Debates into the UK

    Another policy debate that has been imported from America by the Reform Party is DEI. American culture war narratives around ‘wokeness’ and diversity are beginning to frame debates and policies about equality and inclusion in the UK. In the early stages of Trump’s second Presidential term there was significant backlash against DEI programmes in government and the private sector, with executive actions aimed at restricting diversity and equity initiatives across federal agencies and contractors. Trump even went as far as blaming DEI on a deadly plane crash in Washington DC early last year. It was not too long after this that the Reform Party started to attack DEI, despite it not technically existing in the UK. What was previously discussed under the UK legal term EDI (equality, diversity, and inclusion) has increasingly been framed in the American-imported language of DEI and culture-war critique.

    Other far right figures in the UK like Tommy Robinson who held a “Unite the Kingdom” rally are also becoming more American in their tactics and discourse. Despite this rally supposedly being about English patriotism and national identity, Robinson used it to honour US right-wing activist Charlie Kirk and the South African billionaire Elon Musk joined via video link encouraging violence and further division. Tommy Robinson was also supportive of “Operation Raise the Colours“, a campaign that encouraged the public display of the UK’s national flags, particularly the St. George’s Cross and the Union Jack. The campaign saw activists tying flags to lampposts and street furniture, and in some cases, painting red crosses on roundabouts and zebra crossings. This campaign borrows directly from American tactics and symbolism. 

    The UK is heading further away from the centre towards the right and is on a similar trajectory to America. Nonetheless, the fundamental differences in political structures between the UK and the US places limits on how far this trajectory can be replicated.

    Imani Adesanya