.jpeg)
.jpeg)
Há 1 dia
sábado, 31 de janeiro de 2026
Based on data from early 2026, Chinese automakers, led by BYD, have taken over the global supremacy of electric car manufacturing.
.jpeg)
Based on
data from early 2026, Chinese automakers, led by BYD, have taken over the
global supremacy of electric car manufacturing, following a period where
Tesla’s sales declined and they pivoted away from traditional car production.
In 2025,
China strengthened its position as the global leader, accounting for roughly
50% of global EV production and exports, with that share expected to grow.
Here is a
breakdown of the current situation:
1. The
Shift in Leadership (2025-2026)
BYD
Overtakes Tesla: In 2025, Chinese manufacturer BYD officially surpassed Tesla
to become the world's top-selling electric vehicle manufacturer. BYD reported
sales of over 2.2 million battery electric vehicles (BEVs) in 2025, while Tesla
delivered roughly 1.6 million.
Declining
Tesla Sales: Tesla’s global car sales slipped for a second consecutive year in
2025, falling roughly 9% from 2024.
Production
Pivot: While Tesla has not closed down all production, it is significantly
changing its focus. In late January 2026, Elon Musk confirmed that Tesla would
wind down production of the Model S and Model X to focus on artificial
intelligence, autonomous driving (Robotaxi), and humanoid robots.
2.
Chinese Supremacy Factors
Dominance
of Supply Chain: China controls a significant portion of the global EV supply
chain, including rare earth elements and lithium-ion battery production.
Affordability
and Variety: Chinese companies like BYD, NIO, and XPeng are offering a wider
variety of models at competitive prices that undercut Western manufacturers.
Rapid
Expansion: Chinese EV manufacturers are expanding globally, with companies like
BYD setting up significant, thousands-strong dealership networks in Europe and
expanding into Latin America and Australia.
3. The
Future of the Market
China’s
Market Share: China is expected to maintain its leadership, with projections
suggesting Chinese EV manufacturers could capture 40–50% of the global EV
market by 2030.
Trade
Barriers: While China has taken the lead, its rapid growth faces challenges,
with 100% tariffs on Chinese EVs in the US and up to 35.3% tariffs in the EU.
While
Tesla remains a major player, particularly in its Shanghai factory—which
produced 52% of its global deliveries in 2025—the era of undisputed,
high-volume production leadership for Tesla has ended in favor of Chinese
manufacturer
What is happening with Tesla?
what is
happening with Tesla?
Tesla is
currently undergoing its most radical transformation yet, pivoting from an
electric vehicle (EV) manufacturer into what CEO Elon Musk calls a
"physical AI company."
1. Major
Product Strategy Shift
Killing
the Model S & X: Tesla is discontinuing its flagship Model S sedan and
Model X SUV to reallocate factory space and resources toward robotics and AI.
Optimus
Robot Factory: The Fremont factory is being converted to manufacture the
Optimus humanoid robot, which Musk predicts will eventually be the core of
Tesla's business.
Cybertruck
Goes Autonomous: Following a 48% plunge in sales in 2025, Tesla plans to
transition the Cybertruck line to a fully autonomous fleet for localized cargo
delivery.
2.
Financials and Investment
$20
Billion Spending Spree: Tesla has flagged a massive $20 billion capital
expenditure for 2026—more than double its 2025 spending—to build out AI
infrastructure, including domestic battery and chip manufacturing
("Terafabs").
Revenue
Decline: For the first time, Tesla's annual revenue fell (down 3% to roughly
$94.8 billion), as profit dropped 46% year-over-year due to intense competition
from Chinese rivals like BYD.
Investment
in xAI: Tesla recently invested $2 billion in Musk's private AI startup, xAI,
which is helping develop the AI brains for Optimus and the Cybercab.
3. Future
"Musk Empire" Consolidation
SpaceX
Merger Rumors: Significant buzz has emerged regarding a potential merger
between Tesla and SpaceX (or xAI) ahead of SpaceX's planned IPO in mid-2026.
While speculative, the rumors have helped buoy Tesla's stock price despite the
weak automotive results.
Robotaxi
Fleet: Musk claims a "widespread" network of driverless Tesla
robotaxis will be active in the U.S. by the end of 2026, though the service has
faced repeated delays and regulatory scrutiny.
4.
Headwinds and Challenges
Market
Share Loss: Tesla lost its title as the world's top EV seller to BYD and is
facing significant consumer backlash in the U.S. linked to Musk's political
involvement.
Legal
& Regulatory Pressure: The company is under investigation for its
"Full Self-Driving" (FSD) marketing and faces lawsuits regarding
safety and privacy concerns.
Would you
like more details on the SpaceX merger rumors or the specific timeline for the
Optimus robot public launch?
Starmer vows to take UK deeper into EU single market
Starmer
vows to take UK deeper into EU single market
Seemingly
buoyed by a positive reception and a smaller-than-anticipated backlash, the
British PM is now doubling down on his Brexit reset.
January
30, 2026 6:00 pm CET
By Dan
Bloom and Jon Stone
https://www.politico.eu/article/keir-starmer-vows-take-uk-deeper-into-eu-single-market/
BEIJING —
Keir Starmer wants to take the U.K. deeper into the European Union single
market — if Brussels will let him.
Speaking
to reporters during a visit to China, the British prime minister said he wanted
to “go further” in aligning with the European market where it is “in our
national interest.”
In May
last year Starmer effectively agreed to take the U.K. back into Brussels’ orbit
in two sectors: agriculture and electricity.
Those
agreements, which are currently being finalized, will see the U.K. follow
relevant EU regulations — in exchange for more seamless market access.
Seemingly
buoyed by a positive reception and a smaller than anticipated Brexiteer
backlash, Starmer is now doubling down.
“I think
the relationship with the EU and every summit should be iterative. We should be
seeking to go further,” the prime minister told reporters.
“And I
think there are other areas in the single market where we should look to see
whether we can't make more progress. That will depend on our discussions and
what we think is in our national interest.
“But what
I'm indicating here is — I do think we can go further.”
The
comments are a significant rhetorical shift for the Labour leader, whose 2024
election manifesto promised that “there will be no return to the single market”
— as well as the customs union or free movement.
While the
Labour government has softened on the single market in office, it has arguably
hardened on the customs union.
Starmer
told reporters that “the place to look is the single market, rather than the
customs union,” arguing that joining the latter would require unpicking trade
deals struck under Britain’s newly independent trade policy.
Going
Swiss?
While EU
officials say they are always open to concrete U.K. proposals, rejoining the
single market sector-by-sector might not be entirely straightforward.
Brussels
agreed to British access for agriculture and electricity in part because of
pressure from European industry, which will arguably benefit from the new
arrangements as much as the British side.
But the
dynamic is different in other sectors, where some European firms have been able
to thrive at the expense of their locked-out British competitors.
There
will also be debates in Brussels about where the bloc should draw the line in
granting single market access to a country that does not accept the free
movement of people — a requirement other states like Norway and Switzerland
must respect.
Officials
are also wary that the EU-U.K. relationship may come to resemble the worst
aspects of the Swiss one, a complicated mess of agreements which is subject to
endless renegotiation and widely disliked in Brussels.
Chemical
attraction
The prime
minister would not elaborate on which sectors the U.K. should seek agreements
with the EU on, stating only that “we're negotiating with the EU as we go into
the next summit.”
British
officials say that for now they are focused on negotiating the agreements
promised at last May's meeting.
One
senior business representative in Brussels, granted anonymity because their
role does not authorize them to speak publicly, said alignment in sectors
including chemicals, cosmetics, and medical devices could be advantageous to
businesses on both sides of the English Channel.
As well
as the agreements on electricity and agriculture, the U.K. and EU last May
agreed a security agreement to cooperate more closely on defense, and to link
their emissions trading systems to exempt each other from their respective
carbon border taxes.
They also
agreed to establish a youth mobility scheme, which will see young people get
visas to live abroad for a limited period.
Starmer
reiterated the U.K.’s position that “there has got to be a cap” on the number
of people who can take advantage of the scheme and “there has got to be a
duration agreed.”
“And it
will be a visa-led scheme. All of our schemes are similar to that. We are
negotiating,” he added.
Dan Bloom
reported from Beijing. Jon Stone reported from Brussels.
UK and EU to explore renewed talks on defence cooperation
UK and EU
to explore renewed talks on defence cooperation
Following
the collapse of previous negotiations in November 2025, the UK and EU are
reportedly exploring a resumption of talks on closer defence cooperation.
Current
Status of Cooperation
- Renewed Dialogue: Prime Minister Keir Starmer has indicated a desire to "go further" in rebuilding relations with Brussels. While EU Trade Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič is scheduled to visit London for talks on trade, energy, and fisheries, diplomatic sources suggest the UK is eager to reopen defence discussions as soon as possible.
- Security Action for Europe (SAFE): Negotiations for the UK to join the EU’s €150 billion (£130 billion) SAFE defence fund collapsed in late 2025. The breakdown was reportedly due to disagreements over the "prohibitive" price tag set by the EU for UK entry—estimated at around €2 billion—and concerns over strategic autonomy.
- Existing Framework: A non-legally binding Security and Defence Partnership was established in May 2025, providing a framework for consultation and coordination on shared interests such as supporting Ukraine, cyber threats, and space security.
Key Areas
of Focus for 2026
- Procurement and Industry: The UK seeks to enable British defence companies to participate in wider European procurement contracts.
- Upcoming Summit: A second EU-UK summit is scheduled for spring 2026, which will serve as a key milestone for reviewing progress on the "reset" in relations and addressing areas where cooperation has stalled.
- Cyber and Intelligence: Regular high-level cyber dialogues are ongoing, with the next session planned for 2026 in London.
- Military Mobility: Both parties continue to explore ways to streamline the movement of military personnel and materiel across Europe.
UK and EU to explore renewed talks on defence cooperation
UK and EU
to explore renewed talks on defence cooperation
Keir
Starmer says he wants to ‘go further’ in relations with Brussels as ministers
look to restart stalled negotiations
Lisa
O’Carroll and Rowena Mason in London and Pippa Crerar in Beijing
Sat 31
Jan 2026 08.00 CET
The UK
and the EU are exploring the prospect of new talks on closer defence
cooperation, as Keir Starmer stressed on Friday that he wanted to “go further”
in the UK’s relationship with Brussels.
Maroš
Šefčovič, the EU’s trade commissioner, is due in London for talks next week,
with trade, energy and fisheries on the agenda. But diplomatic sources said the
UK is keen to discuss restarting negotiations on defence as soon as it can.
Talks for
the UK to join the EU’s €150bn (£130bn) Security Action for Europe (Safe)
defence fund collapsed in November 2025 amid claims that the EU had set too
high a price on entry to the programme.
France
has denied it was responsible for the breakdown in talks, but diplomatic
sources say tension remains between Paris and other member states, particularly
Germany, where sources have said they want the UK to be involved in Safe “as
soon as possible”.
One
European source said that France wanted to make the UK’s involvement in Safe
conditional on London participating in a second defence programme agreed in
December by EU leaders, who are providing a €90bn loan to Ukraine securitised
against Russian frozen assets held in Belgium. Germany does not want any
preconditions.
Sources
in Brussels have admitted that the failure to agree terms in November was “an
embarrassment” given the EU and both sides had already declared the prospect of
“enhanced cooperation” through Safe at the summit hosted by Keir Starmer and
Ursula von der Leyen in May last year.
However,
there is understood to be greater appetite for a deal on the UK to join a
future round of Safe on all sides, especially since Donald Trump’s threats to
take over Greenland and criticism of Nato.
Speaking
in Beijing on Friday, Starmer did not mention defence, but stressed that the UK
wants to see a closer relationship in areas that go beyond what has already
been agreed on trade.
Possible
areas for future extra deals are chemicals and cars, which will be hit with
tariffs from next year for non-electric vehicles. The UK is also negotiating
the details of a youth mobility scheme, with Starmer seeking a cap on numbers
and fixed duration for free travel.
“I think
we should not just follow through on what we’ve already agreed. I think the
relationship with the EU and every summit should be iterative,” he said.
“We
should be seeking to go further. And I think there are other areas in the
single market where we should look to see whether we can’t make more progress.
That will depend on our discussions and what we think is in our national
interest.
“But what
I’m indicating here is – I do think we can go further. And the place to look is
the single market, rather than the customs union, which doesn’t now serve our
purpose very well.”
Starmer
is facing pressure from within his own party for closer ties with the EU,
especially since relations with the US have been chequered under Trump.
Stella
Creasy, Labour MP and chair of the Labour Movement for Europe, said: “There’s
now a growing recognition our future lies with restoring a strong working
relationship not just on defence but on national and economic security. That
means everything should be on the table in talks with EU countries.”
Šefčovič
will meet Nick Thomas-Symonds on Monday for the annual meeting of the EU-UK
Partnership Council, the body created to oversee the EU-UK post-Brexit
agreement. Defence is not currently on the agenda, with the UK understood to be
prioritising progress on food and drink.
Šefčovič
and EU economy commissioner Valdis Dombrovskis are also due to meet Rachel
Reeves to discuss geoeconomics, and he will also have meetings with Peter Kyle,
the business secretary.
There may
be further opportunities for the EU and UK to discuss defence at a political
summit, convened by Marco Rubio to discuss critical minerals, in Washington on
Wednesday, with the Foreign Office sending a minister.
On the
prospect of further cooperation on defence, one source close to the government
said: “The UK government was prepared to pay a certain amount, but there was a
huge gap between the parties.
“Europe
needs the UK, so they thought this could all be revisited and fixed. And there
was a political obstacle.
“The UK
government is open to a second go but clearly if the EU came back with the same
kind of proposition, it would be the same answer. It was very much the French
who were seen as pushing this unreasonable position.”
It is
understood that the EU had demanded that the UK contribute around €2bn to the
fund, but that the British felt a contribution “in the hundreds of millions”
was more appropriate.
The fund
is made up of money the European Commission raises on a credit markets, which
is then lent to member states over 45 years, who can buy everything from
ammunition to drones and missiles.
The money
is then offered via low-cost loans to help member states procure military
equipment from within the EU and outside the EU including the UK and other
countries, such as Canada.
The aim
of the fund was to enable the EU to quickly build up a defence capability,
something given an extra urgency by the lack of support from Trump.
The UK is
not eligible to apply for a Safe loan, but if it joined the programme under
third country rules, UK companies could tender for more procurement contracts
to provide arms to the EU, boosting the British defence industry.
Here’s What to Know About the Millions of Pages of Epstein Documents
Here’s
What to Know About the Millions of Pages of Epstein Documents
Deputy
Attorney General Todd Blanche signaled that this would be the last major
release of files related to Jeffrey Epstein.
Ashley
Ahn
By Ashley
Ahn
Jan. 30,
2026
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/30/us/what-to-know-epstein-files.html
The
Department of Justice on Friday released the largest batch of Jeffrey Epstein
files to date, a giant tranche including three million more pages of documents
and thousands of videos and images.
The
documents shed new light on the disgraced financier’s relationships with
several prominent figures, including Elon Musk, Bill Gates and Commerce
Secretary Howard Lutnick. They also contain a significant number of
uncorroborated tips to law enforcement.
Congress
mandated the release in November, and President Trump signed the bill despite
initially opposing it, as he has sought to put an end to the accusations and
speculation swirling around the case. The latest batch of documents arrived
weeks after a Dec. 19 deadline imposed by Congress.
Deputy
Attorney General Todd Blanche said the White House “had nothing to do” with
vetting the released documents. “They had no oversight and they did not tell
this department how to do our review and what to look for and what to redact or
not redact,” he said.
Here’s
what else we know about the latest release of Epstein files.
The
release was voluminous.
The
department released three million pages, 2,000 videos and some 180,000 images
at about 11 a.m. Eastern on Friday. The pages consist of email chains, text
messages, news articles, internal investigative reports and other material tied
to Mr. Epstein, a convicted sex offender.
Mr.
Blanche said that the department redacted images of every woman in the files
except for Ghislaine Maxwell, Mr. Epstein’s longtime companion and associate
who has been convicted of sex trafficking.
Federal
prosecutors initially identified six million pages as “potentially responsive”
to the law requiring the department to release its files on investigations into
Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell, Mr. Blanche said. But he added that officials had
erred on the side of “over-collection” and later decided to release only half
that amount. Some Democratic lawmakers accused the department on Friday of
violating the law and demanded it release all six million pages.
The
documents contain unverified tips and allegations about Trump.
The files
appeared to contain at least 4,500 documents that mentioned Mr. Trump. One was
a summary that officials at the Federal Bureau of Investigation assembled last
summer of more than a dozen tips from members of the public involving Mr. Trump
and Mr. Epstein.
It is
unclear why the investigators put together the summary, which includes
accusations of sexual abuse by Mr. Epstein and Mr. Trump. The emails did not
include any corroborating evidence, and The New York Times is not describing
the details of the unverified claims.
Mr. Trump
has denied any wrongdoing in connection with Mr. Epstein. In response to a
request for comment, the White House referred to a public statement from the
Justice Department, which stated that Friday’s documents “may include fake or
falsely submitted images, documents or videos.” It also said that some of the
documents contained false claims against Mr. Trump that were submitted to the
F.B.I. before the 2020 election.
Many of
the other documents were news articles or emails that referenced Mr. Trump.
The files
add details about Epstein’s relationships with several powerful men.
According
to released emails, Mr. Epstein drafted notes to and about Mr. Gates in 2013,
suggesting that he engaged in extramarital sex. The Gates Foundation called the
accusations “absolutely absurd and completely false.”
In one
email, Mr. Epstein wrote that he had helped Mr. Gates acquire drugs “in order
to deal with consequences of sex with Russian girls,” and that he had
facilitated rendezvous for Mr. Gates with married women.
It was
not clear if Mr. Epstein ever sent the emails to Mr. Gates.
The files
also revealed that Mr. Lutnick planned a visit to Mr. Epstein’s island in 2012,
though he had previously said he severed ties with Mr. Epstein around 2005.
Mr.
Lutnick told The Times on Friday that he could not comment about the island
visit because he had not seen the latest Epstein documents.
A 2013
email exchange between the British billionaire Richard Branson and Mr. Epstein
suggested that the pair had a familiar relationship, built at least in part
around their interest in women. And multiple messages between Mr. Musk and Mr.
Epstein showed the two comparing schedules to find time to meet in Florida or
in the Caribbean between 2012 and 2014.
One
document detailed a diagram of Mr. Epstein’s inner circle, including Ms.
Maxwell, his lawyer Darren Indyke and his accountant Richard Kahn.
This was
likely the last major release of Epstein files.
Mr.
Blanche signaled this batch of documents would be the last major release of the
Epstein files. He said that even these documents were unlikely to satisfy the
public demand for information about Mr. Epstein.
The
department is required to submit a report to Congress explaining why it
redacted information. Mr. Blanche said it withheld documents with personal
identifying information or medical information of Mr. Epstein’s victims. It
also withheld material depicting child sexual abuse and material that depicted
death or violence.
The
department has not yet submitted the report, but Mr. Blanche said that federal
officials would “do so in due course.”
Ashley
Ahn covers breaking news for The Times from New York.
Eggs, hats and unfettered ambition: what we learned about Melania Trump from her documentary
.jpeg)
Eggs,
hats and unfettered ambition: what we learned about Melania Trump from her
documentary
The first
lady’s political goals, high-stakes clothes fittings and hints that she and
Donald still have sex are just some of the highlights from Brett Ratner’s
documentary
Catherine
Shoard
Catherine
Shoard
Fri 30
Jan 2026 16.13 CET
She has
no friends but everyone who works for her dresses like her
Melania’s
appears an entirely airless existence, in which she glides solo about gilt
corridors in silence, David Lynch-style, observed by tight-lipped heavies. All
her staff dress in deference to her, mostly in black, but sometimes – as in the
case of her interior designer – in a matching camel-coloured three-piece suit.
Candidates interviewing for assistant roles have also got the memo, lining up
in a sea of monochrome, with buttery hair and prominent cross necklaces.
She
dislikes anything baggy
About 30%
of the film is devoted to high-stakes fittings for her inauguration outfits.
“My creative vision is always clear and it’s my responsibility to share it with
my team so they can bring it to life,” Melania explains in voiceover. This
translates to her telling them to cinch stuff in. “More tension, tighter,” she
commands a collar. A coat needs to skim nearer her hips. A hat brim is
reprimanded as “a little bit wiggly-woggly”. “I don’t know if we can cut it,”
frets one assistant tailor about a blouse, to stressed violins on the
soundtrack.
She’s
uninterested in catering
While we
are told that Melania is apparently in charge of everything about the
inauguration-adjacent parties, we learn nothing of the menu save for the fact
that the appetiser at one ball will be a golden egg, placed in an eggcup, on a
plate. The first lady has no notes about this – what has laid it, whether it’s
actually edible, if something alongside it might be nice – other than approval
of its colour. She never eats or drinks.
She’s a
gifted interior designer
“It’s
important that timeless elegance shines through every element,” Melania shares
of the planning of one ball, while giving approval to invites being posted out
in gigantic red envelopes, such as a primary school class might choose to send
their lists to Santa in bulk. She’s insistent rugs are cleaned and furniture
steamed in the brief window between the Biden’s leaving the White House and the
Trumps trooping back in. Other evidence of her expert touch comes in a glimpse
of Renoir’s black-and-white-tastic La Loge, which occupies a wall of her
office. It’s a print: the real thing is in the Courtauld Gallery in London.
She and
Donald are very close
At one
moment, Melania places her hand on her husband’s waist in a careful and
significant gesture that is movie-shorthand for “we still have sex”. Filmgoers
can also witness their continued passion when Donald attempts to negotiate her
big hat and lean in for a kiss. “Nobody has endured what he has endured over
the past few years,” she reports in sympathetic voiceover. But for most of the
film, the couple are apart. He phones her at one point to brag about some sort
of immense domestic political victory. “Great, well done,” she says, in the
manner of someone trying to get a cold-caller off the line.
She and Barron are very close
Melania’s
son says not a word in the film, but is seen in much of the final reel, bending
gently like he’s cosplaying Igor. At one point his proud parents discuss him in
the back of a limo. “He’s cute, we have cute conversations,” says the
president. “Yeah, I love him,” his mother reveals.
Her
favourite artist is Michael Jackson
“I met
him once with Donald,” she tells the film’s director Brett Ratner in the back
of a limo on the way to Mar-a-Lago. “He was very sweet, very nice.” Her
favourite songs are Billie Jean and Thriller, she adds, before she and Ratner
briefly duet on the former, like Carpool Karaoke on the highway to hell.
She’s
really at home in black
The 20
days shown in the film include one spent at Jimmy Carter’s funeral and an
afternoon at a memorial ceremony at Arlington cemetery. All coverage of the
former is devoted entirely to a meditation on mourning her own mother, who died
a year ago that day. It includes a very lengthy sequence in which she books out
St Patrick’s Cathedral in New York so she can stalk around in private reverie,
watched by stony security guards and grinning priests. At Arlington cemetery
meanwhile, she cuts an unmistakably mafioso figure, striding in stilettos
beneath a brolly and nodding significantly at strangers. The perkiest she gets
during inauguration day itself is when she’s walking through a crypt.
Amazon
gets some of its money’s worth
Whatever
they’re losing in profits and credibility through distributing the film, Amazon
head Jeff Bezos is at least glimpsed a couple more times in the movie than his
tech mogul peers. That said, there’s a leg up for Apple CEO Tim Cook also as
Melania makes video calls about campaigns to limit children’s screen time on
her MacBook Air (raised to eye level on a copy of her autobiography).
Melania
is not apolitical
As well
as constantly referring to herself as a world leader, and lengthy pre-credits
title cards totting up her accomplishments, Melania makes a number of dramatic
statements about her ambitions in office. These include the desire to “break
all norms”, totally reinvent the role of first lady and consider how lawmakers
might better do their jobs – something she thinks about “constantly”. Judging
by the genuflection of those around her, such a self-image is not entirely
unwarranted. “I’ll go everywhere with you, no problem,” Brigitte Macron tells
her over video call – and she does mean policies, not sightseeing. Nor is
Melania above including snarky shots of her husband’s predecessors: we see
Barack Obama looking downcast at the inauguration, and Kamala Harris mardy
while checking her watch.
Melania
will not revolutionise cinema
Anticipation
was high that the sum ($28m) paid by Melania to herself for not just starring
in the film but producing it and overseeing much of the post-production,
including the trailer and marketing, might result in something fresh for an
art-form struggling to surface new voices. Sadly, such hopes will be dashed.
Melania turns one of the most politically significant moments in recent history
into an exhaustingly boring and chillingly vain autohagiography. Towards the
end, Melania says of inauguration day: “Today was so rich with meaning, and
since each moment was historic and filled with purpose, time no longer
mattered.” It feels like a disclaimer for a film that demonstrates nothing of
the former and feels like it lasts for ever.
Being an
enigma suited Melania
Even
unkind speculation can be more flattering than airbrushed honesty. In the case
of Melania Trump, charging people for a peek behind the veil may not have been
a clear-sighted move.
Ghislaine Maxwell appeared to receive a chummy missive in 2002 from a ‘Melania.’
Debra
Kamin
Jan. 30,
2026, 3:48 p.m. ET58 minutes ago
Debra
Kamin
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2026/01/30/us/epstein-files-release#bill-gates-epstein
Ghislaine
Maxwell appeared to receive a chummy missive in 2002 from a ‘Melania.’
Amid the
millions of documents in the Epstein files is an email from 2002, signed “Love,
Melania,” that appears to be written to Ghislaine Maxwell, Jeffrey Epstein’s
longtime companion and convicted co-conspirator.
The email
addresses for sender and recipient on the note, dated Oct. 23, 2002, are both
redacted. The message begins “Dear G!” and the sender writes: “Nice story about
JE in NY mag. You look great on the picture.”
Epstein notes about Bill Gates accused the billionaire of extramarital sex.
Jessica
Silver-Greenberg
Coral
Davenport
Jan. 30,
2026, 3:17 p.m. ET1 hour ago
Jessica
Silver-Greenberg and Coral Davenport
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2026/01/30/us/epstein-files-release#bill-gates-epstein
Epstein
notes about Bill Gates accused the billionaire of extramarital sex.
Jeffrey
Epstein drafted notes to and about Bill Gates, the billionaire co-founder of
Microsoft, suggesting that he engaged in extramarital sex, according to emails
that the Justice Department released on Friday.
Mr.
Epstein sent the July 2013 emails to himself. It is not clear if Mr. Epstein
ever sent the emails to Mr. Gates.
A
representative of the Gates Foundation said, “These claims — from a proven,
disgruntled liar — are absolutely absurd and completely false. The only thing
these documents demonstrate is Epstein’s frustration that he did not have an
ongoing relationship with Gates and the lengths he would go to entrap and
defame.”
Mr.
Epstein wrote the messages about Mr. Gates not long after his attempt to broker
a venture between Mr. Gates’s foundation and JPMorgan Chase fizzled out —
depriving Mr. Epstein of what he had hoped would be a gusher of income.
In one of
Mr. Epstein’s emails, written in the style of a personal journal entry, the
convicted sex offender wrote that he had helped Mr. Gates acquire drugs “in
order to deal with consequences of sex with Russian girls” and that he had
facilitated trysts for Mr. Gates with married women.
In
another email, Mr. Epstein blasted Mr. Gates for choosing to “disregard and
discard our friendship developed” over six years. He accused Mr. Gates of abandoning him in
order to preserve his reputation.
In a 2021
interview with CNN’s Anderson Cooper, Mr. Gates called his relationship with
the disgraced financier “a huge mistake.” He also sought to downplay his
interactions with Mr. Epstein, saying he had several dinners with Mr. Epstein,
with the hope of getting him to generate donations to the Gates Foundation.
Mr.
Gates’s relationship with Mr. Epstein — which began around 2011, after Mr.
Epstein had been convicted of soliciting prostitution from a minor — was among
the factors that led his former wife, Melinda French Gates, to seek a divorce.
In one of
the typo-ridden 2013 emails, Mr. Epstein wrote that he had decided to resign
from his role with the Gates Foundation and BG3, a think tank founded by Mr.
Gates, because Mr. Epstein had been “caught up in a severe martial dispute
between Melinda and Bill” and had been asked by Mr. Gates to participate “in
things that have ranged from the morally inappropriate to the ethically
unsound” and “potentially over the line into illegal.”
The F.B.I. compiled a summary of accusations mentioning President Trump.
Nicholas
Confessore
Jan. 30,
2026, 3:46 p.m. ET51 minutes ago
Nicholas
Confessore
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2026/01/30/us/epstein-files-release#trump-epstein-tips-fed
The
F.B.I. compiled a summary of accusations mentioning President Trump.
Officials
at the Federal Bureau of Investigation last summer assembled a summary of more
than a dozen tips received by the agency involving President Trump and Jeffrey
Epstein, according to emails released by the Department of Justice on Friday.
It is
unclear why the investigators assembled the summary, which includes accusations
of sexual abuse by Mr. Epstein and Mr. Trump. The emails did not include any
corroborating evidence and The New York Times is not describing the details of
the unverified claims.
The
emails summarized tips sent to the F.B.I.’s National Threat Operations Center
in West Virginia, which fields a large volume of calls from around the country,
allowing members of the public to submit crime tips to the agency.
The
emails do not state when the tips were received. Some of the alleged incidents
refer to tips for which underlying documents have been previously released by
the government.
Todd
Blanche, the deputy attorney general, said at a news conference on Friday that
the White House had no involvement in the review of Epstein documents. He also
said there was no material in the files that would prompt additional
prosecutions.
In
response to a request for comment, the White House referred to a public
statement from the Justice Department, which stated that Friday’s documents
“may include fake or falsely submitted images, documents or videos.” It also
said that some of the documents contain false claims against President Trump
that were submitted to the F.B.I. before the 2020 election.
Links to
the emails, which were posted with millions of other Epstein-related documents
on the Department of Justice’s website on Friday morning, stopped working for a
few hours but were then restored.
A Justice
Department spokeswoman said the document in question was down “due to
overload.”
In a
previous release last month, Justice Department officials posted, then took
down, an image of many photographs, including a picture of Mr. Trump, on a
credenza. Department officials said they took it down to make sure it did not
include images of any victims, and then reposted the image in its online
library of Epstein documents.
A second
summary in the same email chain released on Friday, which also included tips
send to the office of the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York,
suggested that investigators had followed up on at least some of the tips.
Notes indicated that some tips lacked credibility. Some of the tipsters did not
provide contact information for investigators.
The
document logs efforts to investigate some of the tips. But the names of the
tipsters were redacted, as were entries in a column in the second document
marked “criminal history.” It is unclear what the final disposition of the
department’s follow-up efforts were.
Live Updates: Millions of Pages of Epstein Documents Released
Live
Updates: Millions of Pages of Epstein Documents Released
The
release of files, videos and photographs from the federal inquiry into Jeffrey
Epstein is the largest to date, and the final one planned by the Justice
Department. Times reporters are sifting through the material.
Updated
Jan. 30,
2026, 3:53 p.m. ET41 minutes ago
Devlin
Barrett Michael
Gold and Alan Feuer
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2026/01/30/us/epstein-files-release
Here’s
the latest.
The
Justice Department on Friday released three million more pages of documents
from its Jeffrey Epstein files, and thousands of videos and images, as the
Trump administration sought to bring an end to the accusations and speculation
swirling around the case.
New York
Times reporters are sifting through the material and providing updates and
analysis of the records. The files include a significant number of
uncorroborated tips to law enforcement, and also references to President Trump,
Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, the billionaire Bill Gates and other
prominent people known to have associated with Mr. Epstein.
The
documents posted online are the largest batch of Epstein files released by the
department to date, and arrived weeks after a Dec. 19 deadline imposed by
Congress. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche said the release also included
2,000 videos and some 180,000 images.
At a news
conference, Mr. Blanche signaled the documents would be the last major release
of government files about Mr. Epstein, but he acknowledged that even that many
documents were unlikely to satisfy the public demand for information about Mr.
Epstein.
The
Justice Department will send a report to Congress on why redactions were made,
Mr. Blanche said. He also rattled off a number of reasons the department
withheld documents, saying that the department was permitted to do so under the
law ordering their release. The reasons included files with personal
identifying information or medical information of Mr. Epstein’s victims,
material depicting child sexual abuse and material that depicted death or
violence.
Here’s
what we’re covering:
White
House: In releasing the documents, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche
insisted that the White House “had nothing to do” with vetting them. “They had
no oversight and they did not tell this department how to do our review and
what to look for and what to redact or not redact,” he said.
Howard
Lutnick: President Trump’s commerce secretary, Howard Lutnick, planned a visit
to Mr. Epstein’s island in 2012, though Mr. Lutnick said last year that he had
cut ties with Mr. Epstein around 2005. The documents suggest the visit
occurred. Read more ›
Bill
Gates: Jeffrey Epstein drafted notes to and about Bill Gates, the billionaire
co-founder of Microsoft, in 2013 suggesting that he engaged in extramarital
sex. It is not clear if Mr. Epstein ever sent the emails to Mr. Gates, whose
foundation labeled the accusations “absolutely absurd and completely false.”
Read more ›
Inner
circle: One document diagrams Mr. Epstein’s inner circle, including key
employees, assistants and several girlfriends. Only one person in the chart,
Ghislaine Maxwell, was charged with helping Mr. Epstein in sex trafficking
underage girls
sexta-feira, 30 de janeiro de 2026
The Strange Radicalisation of Matthew Goodwin
THE
OPPORTUNIST EXTREMIST
The
Strange Radicalisation of Matthew Goodwin
Joe
Mulhall
https://hopenothate.org.uk/state-of-hate-2025-matthew-goodwin/
Writing
for Chatham House in 2011, Matthew Goodwin asked, “What drives some citizens to
abandon the mainstream in favour of populist extremists?” Since then, he has
gone on to answer the question himself.
Today,
Goodwin is one of the most influential radical right figures in the country.
His reactionary Substack has over 69,000 subscribers, he has his own show on GB
News, and he is a vocal supporter of Nigel Farage’s Reform UK, offering
strategy advice and whipping up crowds at the party’s conferences. Fulfilling a
long-held dream, he is now a well-known media commentator, finally receiving
the attention he always felt he deserved.
This
wasn’t always the case. Goodwin was once a serious academic working to
understand the drivers of far-right extremism, and for most of his career
relatively liberal, seen by colleagues as hard working, bright and ambitious.
He produced several books and articles on the British National Party and the
wider far right. He even sat on the government’s Anti-Muslim Hatred Working
Group and wrote impassioned articles for The Guardian denouncing Islamophobia
and warning of the dangers of far-right politics.
Sadly,
this has all changed, and in recent years his rightward shift has seen him
become a fully-fledged radical-right activist.
Radicalisation
Some have
argued that Goodwin became radicalised after he “went native” or “drank the
Kool-Aid” while studying UKIP for his two co-authored books, Revolt on the
Right and UKIP: Inside the Campaign to Redraw the Map of British Politics. The
argument goes that his time with Nigel Farage and other prominent UKIP figures
actually served to redraw Matthew Goodwin.
The truth
is more complex. Looking at Goodwin’s earlier academic work, it is possible to
discern a sympathy for the concerns of those who voted for far and
radical-right parties. He has long argued that their anger was justified, or at
least understandable, and that their supporters had been ignored by mainstream
politicians. This certainly isn’t a radical position and has been argued by
many in social science and beyond for decades. The difference with Goodwin is
that he’s gone from sympathy for the voters, to sympathy with the far-right
parties preying on them.
Yet there
is another common thread that can be traced from his earliest days in academia
through to today, one that explains his seismic political shift better than
anything else. After speaking with a range of former colleagues and academics
who have worked with or known Goodwin over the years, there emerged one common
point. From his earliest days in academia, he was ruthlessly ambitious,
supposedly motivated more by personal advancement than a love for or interest
in the topic that he researched.
Goodwin’s
political shift is perhaps best explained by his desire for recognition.
Numerous former colleagues recall his frustration at the speed of his
advancement and a growing bitterness at those he blamed for it. This might seem
odd for someone who gained a professorship in his mid-thirties, but it was
recognition from the golden circle of British universities – Oxbridge and the
major London institutions, rather than his employer at the University of Kent –
that he most desired. Other colleagues recall Goodwin’s difficulty with taking
criticism – necessary in the peer reviewed world of academia – with one calling
him “aggressive, brittle and deeply insecure”.
He
allegedly felt that his politics, described by numerous colleagues as “working
class Tory” at the time, resulted in discrimination against him. The “liberal
elites” at these institutions were apparently preventing him from getting the
jobs he deserved. This may go some way to explaining why he has now published
two polemics about intellectual narrow mindedness in academia: Values, Voice
and Virtue and Bad Education.
The fork
in the road came in 2016 with Brexit and the election of Donald Trump. Former
colleagues mention that he was appalled by the reaction of his peers to these
events, feeling in some cases it was they who had been radicalised, not him.
For Goodwin, it appears that this fed into his already existing prejudices.
These were the same people – the new elite – who were thwarting his personal
ambitions.
Despite
being a professor, Goodwin wanted more. Colleagues from this time recall joking
that he was always likely to become a TV pundit or MP. Finding that he had
impressive access to the right of the Conservative Party and leading figures in
UKIP, it seems Goodwin began to see a possible new market to exploit, new
opportunities for fame and fortune.
With time
Goodwin shifted from sympathy, to excusing, to outright support for the radical
right. Yet Goodwin isn’t a fanatic. He’s more dangerous than that. He will say
whatever he thinks will resonate with whatever audience he wants to rile up. It
increasingly seems there is nothing he won’t say, no foghorn he won’t scream
through, if he thinks it will get him more views and paying Substack
subscribers. He’s an opportunist extremist.
Following
His Own Blueprint
The great
irony of Goodwin’s career trajectory is that his own academic analysis of the
far right can be used to describe his activism.
Goodwin
spent many years analysing what drives people towards the far right. He worked
to understand the messaging that resonates most with people susceptible to this
form of politics. As such Goodwin’s rise to a major figure on the British
radical right – or “popular extremist” to use a term from his earlier work –
can actually be understood as him following the successful blueprint he
identified and warned about. He knows which buttons to push, which narratives
will cause maximum anger, which topics to highlight and which to avoid. He has
essentially reverse-engineered his own research to build his own career as a
radical right influencer.
Race and
Nation
While
Goodwin’s rightward shift has been evident for some years, it has certainly
accelerated. During last year’s racist riots – the most widespread outbreak of
far-right violence in the postwar period – the extent of Goodwin’s
radicalisation became evident. In a post on his Substack titled “What did you
expect?”, he framed the horrifying violence, which included people trying to
set alight a hotel with asylum seekers inside, as an understandable reaction to
“mass immigration”. He described people at the riots as, “ordinary people, who
feel like they are losing their country”, who were trying to, “exercise their
voice”.
He also
emphasised that the Cardiff-born murderer was “the son of immigrants from
Rwanda”, in a clear attempt to frame the horrifying attack as a result of
immigration. When challenged about his comments on BBC Radio 4’s Moral Maze it
became clear that there is increasingly a racial element to Goodwin’s
conception of nationhood.
Similarly,
in a 2024 Substack article about Britain’s “demographic CRISIS”, he warned that
“the share of the country’s population that identifies as “white British” is
forecast to become a minority group around the year 2070,” and that “those who
oppose these great inflows and do not embrace the rapid ethnic change they
cause wonder why it is that politicians seem unable to stop them”. At no point
does he explain why the decline of the number of “white British” people due to
a rise in the number of “black British” or “Asian British” people is a problem.
It’s presented as self-evident.
Goodwin’s
slippage towards a racial conception of Britishness was laid bare when he
claimed on GB News: “More than 50% of social housing in London is now occupied
by people who are not British. This is not acceptable.” In reality, the
percentage is actually about 14%. Goodwin’s correction relied on the fact that
48% of social housing in London goes to families headed by people who were not
born in Britain, many of whom are naturalised citizens. All this hints at a
conception of nationhood based on birth and race.
Islam and
Muslims
Among
Goodwin’s more extreme positions are those concerning Islam and Muslim
integration. Perhaps this should come as no surprise as his own research showed
that “anti-Muslim sentiment is becoming a key driver of support for these
parties, and that simply talking about reducing the numbers of immigrants or
tightening border security will no longer satisfy the modern PEP [Populist
Extremist Parties] supporter”. Goodwin knew that Islamophobic rhetoric is a
good driver of their support and so could be a possible driver of his own.
Today he
is keen to discredit the very notion of Islamophobia. On his YouTube channel,
he describes Islamophobia as “the flavour of the month amongst the elite
class”. During a debate on GB News, he asked: “Do you not find the term
Islamophobia problematic?”
In one of
his recent videos, he said: “The reason this matters, perhaps to people like
you watching this video, is because I think we can all sense that terms and
social norms like ‘Islamophobia’, ‘transphobia’, ‘xenophobia’ or even ‘hate’
and ‘far right’ are now being inflated, are being widened, are being ballooned
by the expert class to try and shut down discussion about issues they either
think are not important or might challenge their power and their interpretation
of our society.”
This is a
far cry from the earlier Goodwin who argued in The Guardian that “Islamophobia
does not only affect British Muslims; it plays directly into the hands of
extremists who claim that western societies will never accept Islam and its
followers”. As recently as 2013 he argued that “few serious commentators cling
to the bankrupt idea that Islamophobia is not an issue or is the product of
oversensitive British Muslims”. It’s unclear whether this is an admission that
he is no longer a “serious commentator.”
The New
Elite
In
addition to trumpeting the dangers of Islam and the Muslim community, Goodwin
also regularly lays blame at the feet of the elite, or his newly defined “new
elite”. Here we can also see him drawing from his own research into what makes
far-right politics successful. Goodwin once wrote that “mainstream parties are
lumped into a single ‘corrupt’ and ‘out-of-touch’ elite and are ‘all the
same’.” They are attacked “for focusing on obsolete issues, while at the same
time suppressing political issues associated with the real conflict between
national identity and multiculturalism”.
Goodwin
said that populist radical-right parties “portray themselves as outsiders in
the party system, as underdog parties that represent the true voice of a
‘silent majority’, and as the only organizations willing to address sensitive
issues such as immigration and the integration of Muslims”. Today it would be
hard to find a better articulation of Goodwin’s own reactionary and
opportunistic rhetoric on his GB News show, or the strategy of Farage’s Reform
UK.
More
recently, in his 2023 book Values, Voice and Virtue, Goodwin posits the
existence of a “new elite”, which he defines as people from Oxbridge or Russell
Group universities living in big cities and part of the professional and
managerial class. What unites them is a set of socially liberal or even
radically “woke” ideas. Goodwin seeks to redefine the elite from people with
actual power to people with “radically progressive cultural values”.
It’s
perhaps unsurprising that much of the blame for the emergence of the so-called
“new elite” is placed upon “the Oxbridge and Russell Group college system”, the
same institutions that didn’t give him the recognition he felt he deserved.
While he
accepts in passing that “old elite – clearly – still exist”, he fails to
convincingly explain why the values of the new elite are somehow more powerful
than the money and actual power of the old. For example, one section in society
that seems to generally avoid his ire is the financial sector. Perhaps this can
be explained by his sideline in providing speeches to practically every major
financial institution in the world. His website proudly lists engagements at
UBS, Deutsche Bank, JP Morgan Asset Management and Santander amongst dozens of
other financial institutions.
Polling
as a Weapon
Goodwin
often employs polling to buttress his reactionary politics and provide an air
of scholarly legitimacy to his activism.
Yet in
2013, in an article for The Guardian, he warned readers that one of the
problems faced by those opposed to Islamophobia:
are
unhelpful opinion polls, which either attempt to show how many Muslims
sympathise with terrorists, or how non-Muslims don’t like Muslims. They might
be driven by good intentions but often inflame tensions and provide new
ammunition to extremists. And worse, they are often inaccurate.
He
continued: “If we are going to explore these kinds of questions then we need to
make sure that we do it properly, with good data and in a way that does not
inadvertently legitimise the narratives of extremists.” He even went as far as
suggesting such polls should be subject to peer review.
Sadly,
Goodwin appears to have forgotten this lesson. In a recent Substack article
titled “Shocking: what British Muslims think”, he apocalyptically writes about
exactly the sort of polling he previously warned about. Only now he describes
it as “compulsory reading for anybody and everybody who has a serious interest
in the future of Britain and the West more generally”.
Since
morphing into a radical-right extremist, Goodwin has regularly used polling to
evidence his divisive, reactionary and apocalyptic positions. Yet reliability
has proved something of an issue for his own company, PeoplePolling, which
finished bottom of the list for accuracy at last year’s general election.
Hypocrisy
Among
Goodwin’s hypocrisies, there is one more egregious than any other. Like much of
the far right, Goodwin presents himself as a champion and defender of free
speech. In one of his alarmist YouTube videos, he warns that the new Labour
government “just declared war on free speech and free expression”.
Under the
previous Conservative administration, Goodwin fought to get the Higher
Education Free Speech Act passed, which created a legal requirement for
universities to promote and protect free speech on campus.
Despite
claiming to be a fervent believer in free speech and a defender of academic
freedom, Goodwin is also a vocal supporter of Viktor Orbán’s Hungary. Last year
he tweeted:
I just
spent 4 days in Hungary, a conservative country criticised by elites across the
West. I saw no crime. No homeless people. No riots. No unrest. No drugs. No
mass immigration. No broken borders. No self-loathing. No chaos. And now I’ve
just landed back in the UK.
In an
interview with a Hungarian news website, he said: “The British elite often
portrays Hungary as a country in violation of EU laws, regulations and
standards. But I think their country is just resisting the pressure to impose a
liberal agenda represented by a narrow minority of Western countries.”
Goodwin
has also spoken at several events organised by the Mathias Corvinus Collegium,
an Orbán government-aligned and funded private educational institution.
Hungary
is a country where teachers have been fired for participating in acts of civil
disobedience and where tear gas has been used against students protesting
legislation to further centralise the public education system. Orbán’s
government has limited press freedom and facilitated media takeovers by
investors sympathetic to his party, Fidesz. Goodwin seems more than comfortable
to ignore all of this and praise the country while presenting himself as a
defender of free speech and academic freedom at home.
A Danger
It is
easy to look at Goodwin’s radicalisation as an amusing story of how ego and
self-interest can drive someone to destroy their reputation. How a sad
desperation for recognition can make some people do and say anything. A warning
about the radicalising potential of the endless hunt for clicks and
subscribers.
But
Goodwin’s willingness to do or say anything that will advance his own career
actually makes him more dangerous. It doesn’t matter if he believes the
reactionary and extreme things he says. It’s not particularly relevant if there
is genuine conviction behind his increasingly irate and angry social media
posts.
Goodwin’s
years of work to understand what makes far-right parties successful, and what
angers their supporters to the point of activism, mean he knows which drums to
bang, which topics to focus on, which language to use, which communities to
target. The result is that he is now one of the most effective radical-right
figures in the UK.
Subscrever:
Comentários (Atom)
