Byline Times Audio Articles

The World Upside Down: How a Top Official at Trump's FBI Laundered Far-Right Disinformation

Read our Digital & Print Editions And support our mission to provide fearless stories about and outside the media system SUBSCRIBE TODAY In the past week a top official at Trump's FBI helped to launder a right-wing disinformation narrative, claiming at a congressional hearing that the antifascist movement known as "antifa" is the biggest domestic terrorism threat in the United States. Michael Glasheen, the director of operations in the FBI's National Security Branch, told lawmakers that antifa is the agency's "primary concern" and "the most immediate violent threat that we're facing." However, when questioned, Glasheen was unable to provide any evidence to back up his claim and could not answer lawmakers' inquiries when they pressed for more information. To those who study extremism and disinformation, what happened was immediately clear: the FBI, under Donald Trump's renewed political influence, is now publicly endorsing a narrative born not out of genuine threat assessments but from right-wing propaganda. In fact, Glasheen's statement can be traced directly to a years-long disinformation campaign - one cultivated by Trump officials and Republican lawmakers, as well as right-wing media - that has aggressively portrayed "antifa" as a nationwide organised terror network despite the lack of any real evidence supporting such an assertion. The claims made by Glasheen offer a striking reminder of how the dominant disinformation narrative surrounding antifa continues to infiltrate and distort US national security priorities by legitimising far-right extremist propaganda while suppressing and even criminalising legitimate dissent. Glasheen's testimony echoes previous statements made by Trump and his allies, who for years have coordinated with right-wing outlets like Fox News and a long list of pro-Trump social media influencers to launder and propagate a false narrative aimed at portraying antifa as a leading terrorist threat in the US, even though the evidence flatly contradicts this. Nigel Farage's Russian Influence Advent Calendar Byline Times has compiled a festive offering of the prize moments when the Reform leader has gifted the political agenda to Vladimir Putin and Russia Byline Times Team Distorting Reality The facts are clear: right-wing extremists are by far the greatest domestic terror threat facing the US, and it's been this way for quite some time. Over the past decade, right-wing extremists were responsible for 76% of all extremist-related killings, compared to 4% attributable to left-wing extremists. Going even further back, in an analysis of 900 politically motivated attacks and plots in the US since 1994, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) found just one deadly attack attributable to antifascists - and the single fatality was the perpetrator himself. During the same time period, right-wing extremists carried out attacks that left 329 people dead. In multiple recent years, including 2022 and 2024, right-wing extremists were responsible for every single recorded extremist murder in the country. Looking at those statistics, it's pretty clear where the threat is coming from - and it's not antifa. But that clarity has been muddied in recent years thanks to a coordinated and persistent disinformation campaign propagated by the Trump administration, right-wing media, far-right social media influencers, and even Russia. This disinformation campaign dates back to at least 2016 and has accelerated significantly since then. Over the years, antifa has been falsely blamed for starting wildfires, busing in violent protesters, looting, making bomb threats towards politicians, coordinating nationwide riots, carrying out mass shootings, and more. On repeated occasions, conspiracy theories about antifa have even duped law enforcement agencies, resulting in everything from unnecessary shutdowns of major highways and panic among the public, to armed vigilantes showing up to defend their towns from a threat th...

What Putin Really Wants From Trump's Ukraine 'Negotiations'

Read our Digital & Print Editions And support our mission to provide fearless stories about and outside the media system SUBSCRIBE TODAY Talks about negotiations over Ukraine have now become a daily fixture in the public sphere - not only among experts, but also in the media and in official statements. Dozens of analysts discuss diplomatic moves by Russia, the United States, Ukraine, and European leaders every day, closely tracking new meetings between special envoys, official drafts of peace plans, and the responses to them. At the same time, frustration has been voiced repeatedly in the White House over the length and complexity of the negotiating process. Donald Trump himself has stated that the endless discussions are exhausting him. Meanwhile, the Ukrainian side has delivered to Washington its response and proposals regarding the latest draft peace plan developed jointly with European leaders. In Moscow, that response was evaluated instantly - even before it had been read. Vladimir Putin's foreign policy aide and one of Moscow's chief negotiators, Yuri Ushakov, commented that he was confident the document would contain no constructive proposals. However, before even discussing the substance of a possible end to the war, it is essential to state a simple but uncomfortable reality upfront: Vladimir Putin is not negotiating in order to end the war. For him, negotiations have become a tool to lock in the results of his aggression, buy time, and restore a degree of international legitimacy - without abandoning his core objectives. EXCLUSIVE Trump Envoy Has Financial Ties With Former Adviser to Putin's 'Money Man' Now Leading Kremlin Peace Talks Steve Witkoff's real-estate empire is bankrolled by a former adviser to Kirill Dmitriev, head of Russia's sovereign wealth fund and a key architect of Moscow's Ukraine negotiations Philip Haworth There is another equally simple reality that must be acknowledged: from the Kremlin's perspective, negotiations are not a search for compromise, but a literal continuation of the war by other means, with diplomacy embedded directly into the military backdrop. Not long ago, Vladimir Putin openly admitted that he is satisfied with the current state of affairs - referring to the war and all the consequences associated with it. I see no reason to doubt his sincerity here. The American administration appears increasingly willing to pursue compromises with the Kremlin in the hope of halting active hostilities in Ukraine. This became even clearer after the publication of a leaked recording of conversations between Trump's representative, Steve Witkoff, and Putin's aide Yuri Ushakov. That recording offered a more explicit picture of Washington's current approach to the process - one in which the U.S. representative appears prepared to accept virtually any compromise with the Kremlin in order to reach some form of outcome. And today, against the backdrop of the bombardment of Ukrainian cities, missile and drone strikes on both sides of the front line, and bloody battles for populated areas, we hear less about any concrete progress and more about the fact that the parties continue contacts, working meetings, and diplomatic consultations. These are then presented as "results of negotiations" in and of themselves - even though they are not. So What Does Putin Actually Want? Putin's primary objective is the recognition of a new status quo - which can be described as his minimum plan. This does not necessarily imply the formal, legal recognition of the occupied territories. The Kremlin likely understands all too well how toxic such recognition would be for Western governments. What matters far more is de facto acceptance of a frozen front line and the transfer of the remaining part of Donetsk region under Russian control without armed resistance. Any ceasefire that locks in the current situation works in Russia's favor. It allows Moscow to consolidate control over occupied territories, restore logistics, ...

'The Trump Administration Must Abandon Its Delusions About Destroying the EU'

Read our Digital & Print Editions And support our mission to provide fearless stories about and outside the media system SUBSCRIBE TODAY Members of the Trump administration are guilty of making the same mistake as backers of Brexit in the UK, in assuming other people share their own prejudices about the European Union. This perception bias has led the administration to conclude that Europeans are yearning to be "free" from the "shackles" of the EU, and that the US has a crucial role to play in achieving this. In its recent National Security Strategy, the administration blames what it calls Europe's decline on the supposedly malign "activities" of the European Union, which it accuses of undermining political liberty and sovereignty, and imposing stifling over-regulation. It hints at its desire to break the bloc apart, in order to restore European nations' "individual character and history." According to the defense analysis organization, Defense One, this aspiration is made even more explicit in a longer unpublished version of the NSS which it claims to have seen, which lists Austria, Hungary, Italy and Poland as countries the US should "work more with…with the goal of pulling them away from the [European Union]" However, recent opinion polls confirm that across the EU, a majority of people still have a broadly positive view towards it, even in countries like those above targeted by the US. An opinion poll conducted by the Pew Research Center in September revealed that among the nine member countries surveyed, seven-in-ten or more in Sweden, Germany and the Netherlands, and over half in Spain, Italy, Poland, France and Hungary, have a favourable view of the EU. The only country where views were more negative than negative was Greece. Nigel Farage Accepts Another £135,000 From Gold Bullion Firm for Just 12 Hours Work The Reform UK leader has pocketed £415,500 so far this year to act as the company's "Brand Ambassador" Russell Scott The same poll revealed that even in countries outside the EU many held a broadly positive attitude towards the bloc. In Canada, Nigeria, South Korea and Australia, roughly three-quarters had a favorable opinion of the EU. Six-in-ten or more agreed in five other nonmember countries, including the United Kingdom, and even the United States itself. Views were more finely balanced in Argentina, Brazil, Israel, Mexico, Turkey and South Africa. A similar poll conducted EU-wide earlier this year by the EU's in-house surveyor, Eurobarometer, revealed that over 74% of respondents think that their country benefits from EU membership - the best result ever recorded since this question was first asked in 1983. Figures ranged from a staggering 92% in Malta, over 90% in Ireland, Lithuania, Estonia and Denmark, to the lowest percentage in Bulgaria, at a still solid 61%. In the same survey, 89% said they believed that more unity was crucial to tackle global challenges, with 75% or more citizens agreeing with this in every Member State. Another poll conducted by the same organization this year found that over 70% of respondents in the 20 euro member states also believed that the euro was a good thing both for the EU and for their own country. In a third poll, a majority of correspondents in nearly every EU member state supported further EU enlargement, with Ukraine the most favoured country for accession, provided it can meet the membership criteria. Amongst those more sceptical about enlargement, concerns included uncontrolled migration (40%), corruption, organized crime, terrorism (39%) and the cost to European taxpayers (37%). This suggests that the US administration may be onto something, when it highlights concerns in its NSS about Europe's stagnating economy, migration policies, and loss of self-confidence. But, just as Brexit was never the right solution to the UK's genuine domestic problems in 2016, when the Brexit referendum took place, so, breaking apart the EU would not resolve Europe's current ills. Emp...

Nigel Farage Accepts Another £135,000 From Gold Bullion Firm for Just 12 Hours Work

Read our Digital & Print Editions And support our mission to provide fearless stories about and outside the media system SUBSCRIBE TODAY Nigel Farage has accepted another £135,000 from a firm selling gold bullion, for working just four hours per week over a three month period. The latest register of interests published by the House of Parliament shows that the Reform UK leader continues to earn huge sums of money from second jobs outside his role as the MP for Clacton. Farage, who acts as the companies "Brand Ambassador" is pocketing an eye-watering £11,250 per hour to push "tax-free gold". This isn't the first time payment Farage has accepted from the Mayfair registered Gold merchants, Byline Times previously reported on two previous payments. £91,200 was paid to Farage in February 2025, which followed a a £189,300 payment from the same company in December 2024 - again for working a "maximum" of four hours per month, with some of the fee paying for some work "undertaken prior" to his election to Parliament. In total the Reform UK leader has declared payments totalling £415,500 from Direct Bullion, a Mayfair-registered firm, which claims to be "the UK's No.1" Gold bullion dealer. The firm also had a large stand in a very prominent position inside Reform UK's recent party conference held in September and the Reform UK's logo has been affixed to the firm's website. It comes on top of hundreds of thousands of pounds in payments for Farage's role as GB News presenter, revenue sharing payments from Elon Musk's X platform and earnings from his profile on the Cameo personalised video message platform. The latest available accounts published on Companies House in October 2025 for DB London Ltd ,which trades under the name Direct Bullion shows the firm had just five employees as of 31 January 2025 and operates out of a shared office space in London, where over 100 other companies are also registered. In June this year, DB London informed Companies House that the firm was now majority controlled by another company called Eleven Intl Ltd. The registered address of Eleven Intl Ltd is in Ilford, and appears to be an accountancy company based above a supermarket. According to accounts filed in September 2025, Eleven Intl Ltd has no employees and only £96 cash in the bank as of 31 January 2025. 'If Nigel Farage's Racism Is Forgotten It Will Give Him Permission for Far Worse' When someone tells you who they are, over and over again, it is wise to listen, argues Clive Lewis MP Clive Lewis MP In a recent interview with The Observer, Paul Withers the Co-founder of Bullion Direct said: "I like Reform because I believe in what Nigel stands for. I worked bloody hard, and see a lot of what I worked hard for go to waste. The majority [of people are] seeing this - it's nationwide, and when I look at the proper alternatives, there's nothing there." Withers told the paper that Farage was "a real goldbug" and "bringing the customers to us," claiming "It's done better than I ever anticipated." Online customer reviews appear to support this claim, with some suggesting Farage's endorsement of Bullion Direct was the reason for them investing in gold. However, some customer reviews appear to be duplications despite being posted under different names and on different dates. The Bullion Directory, which provides online reviews of Gold and Silver dealers in the UK currently lists Direct Bullion as the "top rated" seller in the country, however in some instances these reviews also appear to be duplicates. Two separate entries from April 2025 both use identical sentences to boast about their investments increasing by 50% in value and both repeat the same spelling mistakes. Both Nigel Farage and Direct Bullion were approached for comment. ENJOYING THIS ARTICLE? HELP US TO PRODUCE MORE Receive the monthly Byline Times newspaper and help to support fearless, independent journalism that breaks stories, shapes the agenda and holds power to account. PAY ANNUALLY - £3...

Grenfell Fire: Up to a Million People Still Living in Tower Blocks With Flammable Cladding Eight Years Later

Read our Digital & Print Editions And support our mission to provide fearless stories about and outside the media system SUBSCRIBE TODAY Up to a million people are still living in UK tower blocks covered in dangerous flammable cladding, some eight years after the Grenfell Tower fire, a damning report by peers reveals today. The failure to resolve the issue, almost a decade on from the tragedy that killed 72 people in the tower block in West London, is partly blamed on failures by the new Building Safety Regulator (BSR) to speedily approve renovations. The new agency was set up following the inquiry into the fire by Dame Judith Hackitt in 2018. However, instead of taking eight to twelve weeks to approve renovations to tower blocks, many cases take nine months and in one case 62 weeks -highlighted by lawyers Irwin Mitchell in written evidence to peers. The Lords report also blames the building industry for the huge delays, saying there has been a shortage of newly trained skilled housing inspectors. The peers say: "We heard consistent and repeated complaints that the BSR could take more than nine months to make decisions on whether construction projects should be allowed to go ahead, significantly longer than the statutory target of twelve weeks for these decisions. "In many cases, this has delayed or disincentivised refurbishments, safety upgrades and the remediation of dangerous cladding in high-rise buildings, leaving residents in unsafe buildings for longer and increasing costs for leaseholders." Keir Starmer's Government Is Funding 'Violence and Death' on the French Border, Say Human Rights Groups Billions of pounds is being spent on anti-migrant measures which campaigners warn are contributing to dozens of deaths of vulnerable people seeking to come to the UK Nicola Kelly "Many applications are being rejected or delayed due to basic errors and applicants' inability to evidence how they are considering elements of fire and structural safety, which reflects poorly on the construction industry." The campaign group Grenfell United told peers that up to one million flat dwellers are impacted by these delays and still living in unsafe conditions. Labour Chair of the Industry and Regulators Committee, Baroness Taylor of Bolton said: "The tragic loss of 72 lives at the Grenfell Tower fire laid bare the urgent need to reform building safety regulation in England, particularly for high-rise buildings. The introduction of the Building Safety Regulator was a necessary and welcome step. "However, the scale of the delays caused by the BSR has stretched far beyond the regulator's statutory timelines for building control decisions. This is unacceptable. We welcome that the Government and the BSR are now acting to try and make practical improvements, but this will not address the anxiety and frustration that residents and companies have experienced. "It does not improve safety to delay vital remediation and refurbishments, nor to deter the delivery of new housing in high-rise buildings. We expect to see further action from the Government and the BSR to ensure that construction projects in high-rise buildings can be brought forward more quickly, without compromising on vital safety improvements." The delays are bad news for the Government's plans to build 1.5 million homes by 2029, particularly in big cities where there are a large number of tower blocks., Peers were told The Greater London Authority's statistics on housing found that residential starts in London dropped from 48,745 new homes in 2022-23 to 27,543 in 2023-24. Residential starts in London fell further in 2024-25 to 21,026 - just 43% of the 2022-23 figure. Some of the blame for these figures falls on the safety regulator. Matt Voyce, Executive Director of Construction at Quintain, which is developing an 85-acre estate in Wembley Park, said that his experience of the BSR had been "challenging, frustrating and costly". ENJOYING THIS ARTICLE? HELP US TO PRODUCE MORE Receive th...