Trump unveils first trade deal with UK, securing major milestone amid tariff uncertainty



President Donald Trump announced a trade deal with the United Kingdom on Thursday, on the 80-year anniversary of Victory Day, marking the first trade deal of his second term.

This trade deal comes just a month after the administration first implemented tariffs on dozens of foreign countries aimed at renegotiating trade deals that are more advantageous to America.

Both Trump and UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer said that while the groundwork for the trade deal has been laid out, some of the details are still being finalized.

"With this deal, the U.K. joins the United States in affirming that reciprocity and fairness is an essential and vital principle of international trade," Trump said. "The deal includes billions of dollars of increased market access for American exports, especially in agriculture, dramatically increasing access for American beef, ethanol, and virtually all products produced by our great farmers."

"In addition, the U.K. will reduce or eliminate numerous non-tariff barriers that unfairly discriminated against American products," Trump added. "This is now turning out, I think, really, to be a great deal for both countries."

Trump also noted that the U.K. was previously "a little closed" toward the United States, saying the trade deal will now reopen and even expedite trade between the two countries.

"They'll also be fast-tracking American goods through their customs process so our exports go to a very, very quick form of approval, and there won't be any red tape," Trump said. "Things are going to move very quickly both ways."

"Furthermore, in a historic step, the deal includes plans that will bring the United Kingdom into the economic security alignment with the United States," Trump said. "That's the first of its kind. So we have a big economic security blanket."

Both Trump and U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer said that while the groundwork for the trade deal has been laid out, some of the details are still being finalized.

"We can finish ironing out some of the details," Starmer said over the phone during Trump's press conference.

"The final details are being written up in the coming weeks," Trump added.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Researchers advocate using existing aircraft, sulfur to block sunlight amid UK-backed trials



A study published Monday in the American Geophysical Union's peer-reviewed journal Earth's Future suggested, largely on the basis of different aerosol injection simulations, that it might be worthwhile using existing commercial jetliners to pollute the skies with toxic sulfur dioxide particles in order to dim the sun and thereby cool the planet.

Researchers from University College London indicated that weaponizing jets like the Boeing 777F — roughly 36 of which are produced a year — against the sun would would mean "lower technical barriers," a potential increase in "the number of actors able to produce a substantial global cooling using SAI [stratospheric aerosol injection]," and an earlier potential start date for this master plan.

They acknowledged, however, that the use of existing aircraft for the purposes of SAI would be less efficient than having specialized aircraft flying at altitudes of over 12 miles to conduct dumps and more likely to generate undesirable side effects.

'Dousing our citizens, our waterways and landscapes with toxins.'

According to the study, "Low-altitude SAI with high-latitude and seasonal injection, could achieve a substantial global cooling effect using existing large jetliners with a service ceiling of 13 km."

The researchers estimated "a global cooling of 0.6°C for an injection of 12 Tg at 13 km altitude at 60° North and South, in the local spring and summer." In other words, climate meddlers might be able to cool the planet down just over half a degree with a seasonal dumping of over 13.2 million tons of sulfur at the latitudes of Anchorage, Alaska, and the southern tip of South America.

In effect, they would be emulating the 1991 eruption of Mt. Pinatubo, which injected 20 million tons of sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere and caused a rapid half-degree drop in global temperatures. According to NASA, this drop lasted for two years until the sulfate dropped out of the atmosphere.

"We find this strategy would have only 35% of the forcing efficiency of a conventional high-altitude-subtropical injection, which would lead to a proportionate increase in the side-effects of SAI per unit cooling, such as human exposure to descending particulate matter," wrote the researchers.

In addition to "dousing our citizens, our waterways and landscapes with toxins," as Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. put it last month, the embrace of this strategy might increase the "risk of unilateral or poorly planned deployment," said the researchers.

Dozens of U.S. states have taken steps to ban geoengineering and weather modification activities. Earlier this month, the Florida Senate passed legislation that would protect the Sunshine State's skies from climate alarmists' shadowy designs. The United Kingdom has gone in the other direction.

Blaze News recently reported that the U.K. is throwing its approval and weight behind solar geoengineering experiments to be conducted by the Advanced Research and Invention Agency.

'That means that we would need to use three times the amount of aerosol to have the same effect on global temperature.'

Even with America's geoengineering bans, the homeland could potentially be impacted by foreign SAI experiments should the U.K. or another national entity decide to unilaterally execute SAI operations ahead of schedule, thanks to the embrace of modified jetliners.

A 2017 study published in Nature Communications indicated that SAI only in the northern hemisphere might increase droughts, hurricanes, and storms elsewhere, and concluded that "the impacts of SG would not be entirely confined to the perturbed region."

Lead author Alistair Duffey on the new study in Earth's Future told Phys.org, "Solar geoengineering comes with serious risks and much more research is needed to understand its impacts. However, our study suggests that it is easier to cool the planet with this particular intervention than we thought. This has implications for how quickly stratospheric aerosol injection could be started and by who."

"There are downsides to this polar low-altitude strategy," continued Duffey. "At this lower altitude, stratospheric aerosol injection is about one-third as effective. That means that we would need to use three times the amount of aerosol to have the same effect on global temperature, increasing side effects such as acid rain. The strategy would also be less effective at cooling the tropics, where the direct vulnerability to warming is highest."

Duffey added that "climate change is a serious problem," intimating that policymakers might weight the perceived threat of changing weather patterns as more concerning than the threats posed dumping chemicals overhead and generating acidic precipitation.

Columbia University's Climate School noted last April, "Studies show that stratospheric aerosol injection could weaken the stratospheric ozone layer, alter precipitation patterns, and affect agriculture, ecosystem services, marine life, and air quality. Moreover, the impacts and risks would vary by how and where it is deployed, the climate, ecosystems, and the population."

Matthew Henry of the University of Exeter, one of Duffey's co-authors, made clear to Phys.org that even with solar geoengineering, climate alarmists will still want to continue with their project of social engineering: "Stratospheric aerosol injection is certainly not a replacement for greenhouse gas emission reductions as any potential negative side effects increase with the amount of cooling: we can only achieve long-term climate stability with net zero."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

'Showering is not an entitlement': Tennis anti-doping unit announces players must shower 'in full view' of officials



Tennis' leader in anti-doping and anti-corruption said players are not permitted to have a shower before a drug test.

The International Tennis Integrity Unit covers policy, sanctions, prohibition, and testing for doping in tennis, and it recently announced a change to its policy that had many fans asking questions.

The ITIA informed players on Friday that drug testing will be conducted immediately following matches and that if a player wishes to shower before the drug test, he or she will have to do so in front of a drug-testing official.

The new rule was shared by Tennis Channel reporter Jon Wertheim, who showed a snippet of a letter from the ITIA on his X page.

"On behalf of the International Tennis Integrity Agency (ITIA), we are sharing important updates to the Tennis Anti-Doping Program," the letter stated, before introducing a subsection on "showering,"

"The ITIA and previously the ITF has worked hard to ensure that showers following matches can amount to a permissible delay to doping control, particularly when showering could have a detrimental effect on the health and wellbeing of a player."

The letter continued, "However, showering is not an entitlement, and it is for this reason that the ITIA kindly requests that when showering[,] players adhere to the requirement to stay in full view of the chaperone observing them at all times."

The letter added that if a player is not comfortable with being monitored while showering, the player should consider the idea of whether or not a shower is "necessary before providing a doping control sample. Failure to remain in full view of the chaperone will be taken extremely seriously by the ITIA."

— (@)

After the seemingly bizarre wording of the policy received publicity, the ITIA reaffirmed its stance in a follow-up statement.

"We recognise that parts of the anti-doping testing process are uncomfortable," the group said. "However, as with all World Anti-Doping Agency-compliant sports — not just tennis — players who are notified for a test after a match are observed at all times by an anti-doping chaperone until the test is completed."

The group added, "This is a requirement of the World Anti-Doping Code."

While the policy sounded strange on its surface, it did have a certain level of logic behind it. As outlet Metro noted, soccer's governing body in the region, the Professional Footballers' Association, has a similar policy in place with an added explanation:

"It is important for the laboratory to analyse your first sample and by having a shower a player could urinate easily without anyone noticing."

The organization added, "Sports people have done this before in order to manipulate this seemingly insignificant procedure to avoid a positive result."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Men banned from women's competitions by UK pool association just weeks after 2 males competed in women's final



A U.K. billiards association has reversed course and banned men from women's competitions just weeks after two males dominated a women's tournament.

The Ultimate Pool Group's Women's Pro Series Event 2 robbed headlines around the world at the beginning of April when two males met in the finals of the women's tournament. Harriet Haynes and Lucy Smith, both males, each beat four women to reach the finals of the 32-player tournament in Wigan, England. Haynes was the eventual winner and was reported to have a .750 career winning percentage, while Smith had won 85 of his last 113 matches, a near identical percentage.

As of April 23 however, Ultimate Pool announced it would officially amend its eligibility rules to state that "women's events are open only to biologically born women."

"We respect that some people within the pool community may find the changes challenging. As an organisation, we are committed to being empathetic to all members of our community and we expect all members of our community to reflect this," the group wrote on X. "In recognition of the challenges that some members of our community may face we have partnered with Omnia Health Group to offer support to anyone who feels they might benefit from it."

— (@)

'Female players have unique disadvantages compared to male players ...'

On its website, the organization said it had reached its conclusion due to two factors. The first was a commissioned report that concluded there are indeed "biological differences between women born as women and transgender women" and that pool is a "gender affected sport."

"... Female players have unique disadvantages compared to male players and ... transgender women retain male advantages."

The second factor was the recent decision by the United Kingdom's Supreme Court, which clarified the definition of a woman from the U.K.'s 2010 Equality Act.

"This examination of the language of the EA 2010, its context and purpose, demonstrate that the words 'sex,' 'woman' and 'man' in sections 11 and 212(1) mean (and were always intended to mean) biological sex, biological woman and biological man," the court said.

Ultimate Pool stated that the ruling had brought the organization "clarity" and further decided that "trans women cannot take part in women's sport."

The governing body therefore concluded that males would not be eligible for women's pool events and are not eligible to be selected for international events in the female category.

The next UPG event, for women only (for real this time), takes place May 23-25.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Russell Brand CHARGED on five counts: Justice or a grifter’s retribution?



On April 4, British actor, podcaster, and media personality Russell Brand was charged by London's Metropolitan Police with one count of rape, one count of indecent assault, one count of oral rape, and two counts of sexual assault. These charges are connected to alleged incidents that took place between 1999 and 2005 and involved four different women.

His charges are not related to the four women featured in the Channel 4 “Dispatches” exposé “Russell Brand: In Plain Sight” that aired in September 2023, accusing Brand of sexual misconduct between 2006 and 2013. The documentary sparked investigations that remain ongoing, with the Crown Prosecution Service still reviewing evidence as of April 2025.

Dave Landau, ¼ Black Garrett, and Angela Boggs of “Normal World” are doubly suspicious. Are these charges brought against Brand really about justice for the alleged victims, or is this just retaliation for his outspokenness against the British government?

Second, is Brand’s conservative political activism and Christian conversion authentic, or is he just grifting?

“This, of course, has everything to do with justice for his alleged victims and nothing to do whatsoever with Brand's current public platform and political affiliations. No one in the U.K. would ever look the other way at a popular figure's sexual improprieties or anything of the such,” says Dave sarcastically, pointing to Jimmy Savile — “the Mr. Rogers of the U.K.” — whose heinous sexual crimes were overlooked or ignored due to his celebrity status and institutional protection.

In a video, Brand, responding to his charges, said:

“We’re very fortunate, I suppose, that this is happening at a time where we know that the law has become a kind of weapon to be used against people.”

“I’ve always told you guys that when I was young and single, before I had my wife and family, I was a fool, man. I was a fool before I lived in the light of the Lord. I was a drug addict, a sex addict, and an imbecile, but what I never was was a rapist. I’ve never engaged in nonconsensual activity. I pray that you can see that by looking in my eyes.”

Dave and the panel don’t buy into Brand’s faith. After all, he promoted a $240 amulet that supposedly protects against Wi-Fi signals and wards off other evil energies.

“You said you switched to Christianity, which is great ... but at the same time, he's a huge influencer, and then he starts selling amulets, and you're like, ‘Wait a second, where are you going with this?"’ says Garrett.

“I did do a show with him earlier last year. He was on the RFK [Jr.] show,” and “he stayed away from me, Rob Schneider, Jeff Dye,” says Dave. “He had a Christ complex about him, and I didn't like him.”

Angela thinks that the timing of Brand’s conversion is suspicious.

“He took this turn right at a time when people were starting to accuse him of things, and it seemed like he was coming to a side that would maybe be more forgiving towards him about this kind of stuff. ... He's just an opportunist,” she says.

Despite their collective dislike and distrust of Brand, Garrett says he will “separate [his] dislike of [Brand’s] griftiness and if he's guilty or not.”

“If he's innocent, I hope he's exonerated ... and if he’s guilty, throw him in jail,” he says.

To hear more of the panel’s commentary, watch the episode above.

Want more 'Normal World'?

To enjoy more whimsical satire, topical sketches, and comedic discussions from comedians Dave Landau and 1/4 Black Garrett, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Former Columbia University fellow, a current UN judge, found guilty of forcing young woman into slavery



An African U.N. Criminal Tribunal judge who was a fellow at Columbia University and has written extensively about human rights has been convicted of slavery.

Lydia Mugambe, a 49-year-old Ugandan living in Kidlington, England, was found guilty Thursday by a unanimous Oxford Crown Court jury of conspiring to violate U.K. immigration law; "requiring a person to perform force or compulsory labor"; conspiracy to intimidate a witness; and arranging travel for another person "with a view to exploitation."

Besides her work for the U.N., the African slaver has been a judge of the High Court of Uganda and a member of several professional associations, including the Oxford Human Rights Hub and the International Association of Women Judges.

Mugambe's virtue-signaling and judicial activism regarding "gender-based justice" earned her the so-called People's Choice Gavel Award from Women's Link Worldwide in 2017. According to a 2022 piece in Stellar Woman magazine celebrating the slaver's supposed accomplishments, Mugambe also won the Vera Chirwa human rights award of the University of Pretoria, South Africa, for her work "ensuring gender-based justice in Africa."

Columbia University, no stranger to criminals and extremists, notes on its website that the slaver was a fellow at its Institute for the Study of Human Rights in 2017.

"Lydia Mugambe used her position to exploit a vulnerable young woman, controlling her freedom and making her work without payment," Eran Cutliffe, special prosecutor for the Crown Prosecutor Services' Special Crime Division, said in a statement. "Modern slavery and the exploitation of people by others for their own purposes has no place in modern society."

'Mugambe used her position of power as well as her knowledge of the law to take advantage of the victim.'

The Thames Valley Police received a tip on Feb. 10, 2023, that Mugambe was holding a young woman as a slave at her residence in Kidlingon. According to police, Mugambe obtained a visa for the victim to work in the U.K. with the understanding that the victim would work for the deputy high commissioner at the Ugandan Embassy in London, John Mugerwa — and receive compensation for doing so.

The former Columbia fellow paid for the victim's plane ticket, picked her up from the airport, then forced her into slavery. The victim was forced to perform the functions of a domestic maid and nanny without pay.

The Crown Prosecution Service indicated that Mugambe stole the victim's passport, biometric visa card, and phone, thereby isolating and grounding her.

According to the prosecution, Mugerwa was in on the scheme and facilitated the victim's visa knowing that she was destined for slavery. In return for his help getting her a slave, Mugambe would provide the deputy high commissioner with help in a court case back in Uganda, said the prosecutors.

While there was apparently ample evidence of Mugerwa's conspiracy with Mugambe to enslave a fellow African, the deputy high commissioner had diplomatic immunity, which his government decided not to waive.

Chief Superintendent Ben Clark of the Thames Valley Police said in a statement that given her experience as a lawyer and U.N. Criminal Tribunal judge, "there is no doubt that she knew she was committing offenses by bringing the victim to the U.K. under the pretense that she was going to work for the then Deputy High Commissioner at the Ugandan Embassy in London, thus providing her a legal route of entry, but knowing all along that she intended to make the victim work in servitude."

"Mugambe used her position of power as well as her knowledge of the law to take advantage of the victim, ensuring that she would become her unpaid domestic servant," added Clark.

According to the chief superintendent, Mugambe tried to use her affiliations with the U.N. and the Ugandan High Court as way to avoid accountability for enslaving a woman.

— (@)

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

UK speech lords back down as US tariffs loom



The U.K.'s Online Safety Act has been the source of a lot of controversy in recent months, but recent tariff threats from the Trump administration have forced the U.K. to reconsider its role in online censorship.

Sir Keir Starmer, leader of the Labour Party and prime minister of the U.K., has reportedly “signaled to Washington that [the U.K.] is open to revising the controversial and dangerous Online Safety Act.”

Setting aside the obvious threat to free speech that this act poses, the potential financial burden on US companies has strained trade relations between the UK and the US.

While trade and free speech may not immediately seem to be connected, opponents of the Online Safety Act have argued that tech platforms may face potentially heavy financial burdens in order to comply with the law. Companies would face “substantial financial penalties” for failing to take down “harmful content” on their platforms.

One of the major points of criticism of the act, which claims to seek to “keep everyone safe online,” is that the language used is hopelessly vague. Critics have claimed that this vagueness would lead to over-enforcement, among other issues.

In order to avoid these penalties, companies would likely be forced to adopt new strategies for monitoring content on their platforms. For example, some have warned that companies will be forced to pre-emptively censor speech in order to comply. This strategy has been dubbed the “when in doubt, cut it out” approach by critics.

Setting aside the obvious threat to free speech that this act poses, the potential financial burden on U.S. companies has strained trade relations between the U.K. and the U.S.

The punitive measures of the act are potentially very harmful to U.S. tech companies. Companies that fail to comply with the moderation rules made by Ofcom may be “fined up to £18 million or 10 per cent of their global revenue.”

Andrew Hale, a trade policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation, noted that this conflict has strained the possibility of the U.S. and the U.K. striking a trade deal: “Every meeting I have to discuss trade policy with people either in the administration or in Congress ... they always [say], ‘This is a huge roadblock.’”

Elon Musk, the owner of X and a vocal opponent of the Online Safety Act for both of these reasons, has “recently welcomed Trump’s presidency as a potential counterweight to the U.K.’s regulatory crackdown.”

Trump’s tariff threats against the U.K. have forced this reconsideration of the enforcement of the Online Safety Act.

Some people saw the results of this inevitable standoff in advance. For example, Lord Toby Young of Acton, the founder of Free Speech Union, reportedly said, “If [this confrontation] happens, Trump will side with his tech bros and tell Sir Keir that if he wants a trade deal, he’ll call off his dogs.”

The fight is far from over, however. Labour and the Online Safety Act’s proponents have created a repressive regime that stifles free speech. The Online Safety Act is simply the boldest attempt to censor free expression. A source close to the Trump administration reportedly said, “To many people in power, they feel the United Kingdom has become a dystopian, Orwellian place where people have to keep silent about things that aren’t fashionable.”

Trump and his “tech bros” are giving Labour a final opportunity to step away from these free speech attacks. With new powers set to be granted to Ofcom in March of this year, now is the time to put continuous pressure on the U.K. government to ease off its draconian speech laws.

British PM Is Wrong, There Is No Free Speech In The UK

No free country needs government agencies monitoring speech and punishing citizens for what it defines as dangerous.

Vance bashes UK censorship — this time with gaslighting prime minister just feet away



Vice President JD Vance put other Western nations on blast earlier this month at the Munich Security Conference over their aggressive suppression of speech and routine attacks on religious liberties. Vance noted that when it comes to Britain, free speech "is in retreat," citing as an example British Army veteran Adam Smith-Connor's conviction and fining last year for silent prayer.

The vice president proved again Thursday that he is no shrinking violet, reissuing his critique of the U.K.'s censorship regime — this time face-to-face with leftist British Prime Minister Keir Starmer in the Oval Office.

A reporter asked about Vance's previous suggestion that the U.K. and European nations are backsliding on what were once shared values with the United States. President Donald Trump responded, "Let's go, JD. We're putting you on stage."

"We do have, of course, a special relationship with our friends in the U.K. and also our European allies, but we also know there have been infringements on free speech that affect not just the British — what the British do in their own country is up to them — but also affect American technology companies and, by extension, American citizens," said Vance.

'We champion free speech in the United Kingdom.'

The vice president's allusion to foreign censorship of Americans might be in reference to the Starmer government's recent demand that Apple dismantle its encryption and provide law enforcement access to the iCloud data of users worldwide. The Washington Post reported that this secret order was issued in January under the U.K. Investigatory Powers Act by Starmer's home secretary.

The U.K.-based Free Speech Union noted that recent amendments to the Investigatory Powers Act also expanded Britain's ability to demand data from foreign tech firms, which could end up impacting Americans.

Starmer, evidently prickled by Vance's observations, tried painting a rosier picture, saying, "We've had free speech for a very, very long time in the United Kingdom, and it will last for a very, very long time."

After suggesting that London would not want to "reach across" and impact American citizens, Starmer said, "But in relation to free speech in the U.K., I'm really proud of that — our history there."

In an interview later with Fox News' Bret Baier, Starmer continued to pretend that censorship is not an issue in his country, stating, "We don't believe in censoring speech, but of course we do need to deal with terrorism. We need to deal with pedophiles and issues like that."

"[Vance] is right to champion free speech," continued Starmer. "We champion free speech in the United Kingdom."

'People might think they're not doing anything harmful. They are.'

Recent incidents in Britain besides Smith-Connor's conviction cast doubt on the veracity of Starmer's assertion.

A Christian singer was accosted by law enforcement in January 2024 for daring to sing gospel music "outside of church grounds."

Lee Joseph Dunn of Egremont, England, was charged with posting offensive content and handed an immediate eight-week jail sentence for posting memes online. Dunn shared an image of a large group of Middle Eastern men at a British crab fair in July with the caption, "Coming to a town near you." Dunn also shared an image of Middle Eastern men wielding knives in front of the Palace of Westminster near a crying child in a Union Jack flag shirt, again captioned, "Coming to a town near you."

Another Englishman was jailed for 12 weeks over a post on Facebook stating, "Filthy bastards," in response to a report that authorities in Cumbria had issued a dispersal order over fears of potential riots.

Former Royal Marine Jamie Michael was arrested, jailed, and denied bail in August after posting a Facebook video criticizing illegal immigration wherein he called illegal aliens "scumbags" and "psychopaths."

Blaze News previously reported that British police arrested an elderly Briton weeks after the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas terrorist attacks for criticizing the myriad Palestinian flags flown around his neighborhood.

The director of Public Prosecutions of England and Wales told Sky News in August that there are "dedicated police officers who are scouring social media. Their job is to look for [racially inflammatory] material, and then follow up with identification, arrests, and so forth."

"People might think they're not doing anything harmful. They are," added Parkinson. "And the consequences will be visited upon them."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Will 2025 Be The Year The West Frees Itself From All Justin Trudeaus?

The year 2025 doesn’t appear to favor Western leftist leaders, but it offers significant hope for a revitalization of Western civilization.