open polity

Category: Opinion

  • What Orwell’s 1984 Teaches Us about the Dangers of the Trump Administration’s Lies

    What Orwell’s 1984 Teaches Us about the Dangers of the Trump Administration’s Lies

    “The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.” —George Orwell, 1984

    This quote from George Orwell’s 1984 has been doing the rounds across social media in light of the actions taken by the Trump administration following the killings by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents in Minneapolis. 1984 is one of the quintessential works within the dystopian genre, as it expertly depicts propaganda, extreme surveillance, totalitarianism, and the erosion of truth. The book follows Winston Smith, a low-ranking member of ‘the Party’, who is frustrated by the pervasive eyes of the party and its ruler, Big Brother. In the book, Orwell depicts a hypersurveillance state, where truth is whatever the Party or Big Brother says it is. 

    ICE in Minneapolis

    Following the Trump administration’s response to the murder of Alex Pretti, more equivalences are being made to Orwell’s novel. 

    Alex Pretti, a 37-year-old American intensive care nurse for the United States Department of Veterans Affairs, was shot multiple times and killed in broad daylight by an ICE agent in Minneapolis. This is the second ICE killing in Minneapolis, as it comes just weeks after Renee Good, a 37-year-old American woman, was also shot and killed by an ICE agent, Jonathan Ross. In both incidents, ICE agents acted out of control and took fatal measures that were not necessary. 

    The Ministry of Truth

    Following Renee’s killing, a statement by the White House deputy chief of staff, Stephen Miller, was reiterated by the Department of Homeland Security account on X. In the statement, Miller says, “To all ICE officers: You have federal immunity in the conduct of your duties. Anybody who lays a hand on you, tries to stop you or obstructs you is committing a felony. You have immunity to perform your duties, and no one—no city official, no state official, no illegal alien, no leftist agitator or domestic insurrectionist—can prevent you from fulfilling your legal obligations and duties”.

    The Trump administration was also quick to label her a ‘domestic terrorist’, with the president taking to Truth Social to claim that she was ‘very disorderly, obstructing and resisting’ and then ‘violently, willfully, viciously ran over the ICE agent who seems to have shot her in self-defence’. Video footage from the incident, however, shows that this was not the case; in fact, the last thing Renee said was “That’s fine, dude. I’m not mad at you”. Renee Good presented no threat, and neither did Alex Pretti.

    Contrary to the defamatory claims made by the Trump administration, Pretti was holding his phone, not a gun, before he was beaten down and pepper sprayed. Alex Pretti was defending a woman who was being manhandled by ICE agents. There are several videos from witnesses that multiple, credible news sources have analysed and verified, which do not support claims made by the administration; in fact, they leave no room for deniability or a different version of events. 

    There are stark parallels between the actions taken by Big Brother’s ‘Ministry of Truth’ and the Trump administration’s response to the ICE killings. In the novel, the Ministry of Truth concerns itself with lies; it is a deliberate contradiction. It is responsible for the propaganda of the Party through rewriting history and controlling the news media, entertainment, education, and the fine arts.

    Trump is a known liar, but what we are seeing here is the erasure of truth at a systemic level. Much like the Ministry of Truth, the entire administration is promoting the same lies that brandish the victims of these shootings as ‘domestic terrorists’ and thus justify the actions taken by these ICE agents. Vice President JD Vance reposted a statement by Stephen Miller claiming that Pretti was ‘an assassin’ who ‘tried to murder federal agents’. 

    What’s worse is that we live in the digital age, governments and law enforcement have great means of surveillance at their disposal, but citizens can also surveil them when things like this happen with their phones. Instead of waiting for bodycam footage from the perpetrator, victims and witnesses can have their own footage. There is an abundance of credible evidence from the people who witnessed Alex Pretti’s execution that contradicts the version of events that the administration has concocted. This strategy of plausible deniability is merely an attempt for ICE as an agency to escape accountability to ensure it can continue carrying out Trump’s mission. 

    Arendt in Orwell and Reality

    Hannah Arendt can help us understand this tactic of lying. She talks about facts being fragile because they are contingent, which means that there is always a possibility for alternative realities. For example, in her book ‘Between Past and Future’, she states: “Since everything that has actually happened in the realm of human affairs could just as well have been otherwise, the possibilities for lying are boundless, and this boundlessness makes for self-defeat”.

    With regards to the ICE killings, the administration is able to lie because many people can conceive an alternative story where the ICE agents were acting in self defense, where Alex Pretti did pull again, where Renee Good was a hired agitator part of a wider left wing conspiracy tasked with assaulting law enforcement. Though the evidence shows that this was the case, it still could have been, the very possibility of it enables this alternative reality to take off.

    We see it in 1984 when the Ministry of Truth constantly contradicts itself through altering historical records, changing wartime alliances from Eastasia to Eurasia, fabricating the existence of “Comrade Ogilvy,” and revising economic forecasts. This is all possible due to the contingency of facts. 

    In 1984, Orwell takes it further by eroding what Arendt labels a rational truth. A rational truth pertains to mathematical, scientific or philosophical truths that are actively discovered and independent of opinion. These truths are harder to erode because there is no alternative imagination. In 1984, Big Brother coerced the citizens in Oceania into believing the mathematical falsehood that 2+2=5. 

    Now the administration has not gone to such extremes yet but it is not hard to imagine a world in which they do because the scale at which they are already twisting the truth is a very slippery slope. The administration cannot be allowed to lie about these killings; ICE agents and the organisation must face accountability. 

  • 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.

  • Opinion: Do Andrew Tate Supporters Pose a Threat to Society ?

    Opinion: Do Andrew Tate Supporters Pose a Threat to Society ?

    Data from YouGov in 2023, on male opinions of Andrew Tate by age group, shows that while the majority remain unfavourable, increased awareness is associated with a higher likelihood of favourable views, even as overall unfavourability remains largely unchanged. Greater exposure to social media increases the likelihood of encountering harmful content, particularly for younger users who spend more time in digital spaces and have fewer cognitive and social safeguards against it. Australia’s decision to ban under-16s from social media therefore comes at a salient moment. It reflects growing impatience with platforms that continue to roll out new features, such as X’s Grok, while regulatory frameworks struggle to keep pace.

    Furthermore, a growing body of research links high levels of screen time in children to poorer outcomes in language development, attention, memory, and problem-solving. These concerns are increasingly reflected in clinical practice. The Academy of Medical Royal Colleges (AoMRC), which represents 23 medical royal colleges and faculties, has reported repeated testimony from frontline clinicians encountering severe harms associated with technology use across primary, secondary, and community healthcare settings. Doctors have described rising cases involving impaired concentration, reduced attention spans, and cognitive difficulties observed across multiple medical specialties. In response to the scale and consistency of these cases, the AoMRC has begun formally gathering evidence on the recurring cognitive and psychological impacts that may be attributed to prolonged exposure to digital platforms and devices.

    Therefore, the case for meaningful change to laws on social media no longer rests on the behaviour of a marginal group or a handful of extreme personalities. It is increasingly grounded in concern about how digital environments shape cognition, attention, and susceptibility to simplified narratives at scale. When platforms reward repetition, emotional intensity, and binary thinking, they do more than contain harmful ideas. They create the conditions under which those ideas can move beyond private digital echo chambers and begin to cohere into movements, campaigns, and political identities.

    So, when do these views break out of personal digital echo chambers and into movements and campaigns?

    The link between Andrew Tate’s appeal and wider political dynamics becomes clearer when placed in the context of research on populism and sexism. Recent work by Marcos-Marne, Inguanzo, and de Zuñiga (2024) demonstrates that sexist attitudes are not merely adjacent to populist views but are positively correlated with them, even in cases where populism is otherwise weak. This suggests that misogyny is not simply tolerated within right-wing populism, but is integral to the psychological and ideological worldview it promotes. 

    Tate’s worldview closely mirrors the core components of right-wing populism. Populism is defined by 

    1. People-centrism, which draws a sharp boundary between a morally pure “people” and corrupt or illegitimate outsiders; 
    2. Anti-elitism, which frames institutions, experts, and cultural authorities as immoral or hostile; 
    3. A Manichean logic that reduces politics to a struggle between good and evil. 

    In its exclusionary forms, populism often fuses anti-immigration sentiment with rigid gender hierarchies, positioning feminism and gender equality as threats to social order rather than advances in justice. Tate’s rhetoric follows this template almost perfectly, casting men as victims of a corrupt elite order and women as both prizes and problems within that system.

    Crucially, this ideological package thrives on simplicity. Research from Erisen et al. show that people’s “need for cognition” differs and thus helps explain why such messages resonate unevenly. 

    Individuals with a low need for cognition tend to prefer simple explanations and clear moral narratives over complex, multi-causal accounts of social problems. They are more receptive to slogans, blame attribution, and binary thinking, precisely the style of content that social media algorithms reward and amplify. By contrast, those with a high need for cognition are more likely to tolerate ambiguity, engage with structural explanations, even when they hold strong views.

    This helps explain why Tate’s influence does not persuade the majority, but does consistently mobilise a minority: his ideas offer emotionally satisfying, cognitively economical answers to real feelings of alienation, status anxiety, and loss of control. Social media does not create these dispositions, but it accelerates their formation and hardens them through repetition, affirmation, and isolation within digital echo chambers.

    From this perspective, a simple ban on social media for young people is best understood as a starting point rather than a solution. It may reduce exposure during formative years, particularly for those most vulnerable to simplistic and exclusionary worldviews. But it also forces a more difficult question: if harmful ideas flourish because they are easy, emotionally resonant, and constantly reinforced, then countering them requires investment elsewhere. That means building environments (educational, cultural, and civic) that enrich young people cognitively, rather than merely restricting them technologically. It means fostering critical thinking, media literacy, and social belonging that does not rely on grievance or domination.

    The risk posed by Andrew Tate’s supporters is not that they form a majority, nor that they will inevitably coalesce into organised extremism. It is that a digitally amplified minority can normalise exclusionary ideas, seed broader populist movements, and shape political discourse before institutions are ready to respond. Responsibility therefore lies less with individual users than with the platforms that design, reward, and monetise these dynamics. A social media ban may not solve the problem, but it signals a shift in seriousness. As long as outrage, grievance, and extremism remain profitable, platforms will continue to host them. Regulation is not about silencing speech, but about forcing accountability where market incentives have consistently failed.

  • 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