Former Tory minister defends UK decision to enter war in podcast with US rightwinger and Putin sympathiser

The former Tory minister Jacob Rees-Mogg has found himself defending Britain’s decision to fight against Adolf Hitler after inviting the US rightwinger and Vladimir Putin sympathiser Tucker Carlson into his home for an interview.

During the encounter, Carlson repeatedly suggested the west was to blame for inviting aggression from Russia and said of the prospect that Britain could have lost to Hitler: “Who cares?”

Even Jacob Rees-Mogg pushes back on defining Englishness in exclusively ethnic terms. But the endurance of this discourse is still deeply troubling

Can you be English and non-white? It’s a question that keeps stubbornly resurfacing in our political discourse.

Last weekend, the former prime minister Rishi Sunak gave his view in a column in the Times, arguing that national identity should not be turned into a DNA test. After leaving office, Sunak, the UK’s first prime minister of colour, was subject to claims by a prominent podcaster that he was not English because he was a “brown-skinned Hindu”. Reflecting on this, Sunak described it as a “reverse Tebbit test”: the sociological concept measuring the loyalty of immigrants – and their children – in the UK depending on which cricket team they supported in international matches. “Once we say that this or that person isn’t really English or British because they are not white,” he wrote, “then we are on a very slippery slope. Some people will argue that English is an ethnic identity and British a civic identity. Though if you think those nuances are heard by most people, I fear you are being rather – perhaps even wilfully – naive.”

Jason Okundaye is an assistant Opinion editor at the Guardian

Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.

Thousands of heat-related deaths in record-breaking temperatures appeared to only intensify hosts’ climate denials

As the first heatwave of the record-breaking summer arrived on 23 May, GB News host Cristo Foufas was not happy: “I am sick to death of the naysayers saying firstly that we’re all going to die and that we have to put out heat alerts, because, you know, just drink some water and drink a bit less rosé in the sunshine.”

“We used to call it Darwinism,” replied co-host Renée Hoenderkamp. She is a medical doctor.

It’s a great betrayal: poor communities neglected while multimillionaires peddle a global Maga agenda. How is that America first?

“THE CORRUPTION IS AT LEVELS RARELY SEEN BEFORE,” Donald Trump posted on Truth Social in February 2025. He was not referring to his own administration, but to the US Agency for International Development (USAID). “CLOSE IT DOWN!” the president added.

Just a few hours later USAID was in effect closed down, with most of the staff placed on indefinite administration leave. This was framed as part of Trump’s “America first” agenda. USAID, the Trump administration and his sycophants in the rightwing media had argued, was wasting taxpayers’ hard-earned money on ridiculous projects abroad instead of improving life at home. In the lead-up to the shuttering of USAID, for example, one of the most shameless lies about the agency, repeated without any evidence by the likes of Fox News, was that it was spending millions on condoms for Gaza.

Arwa Mahdawi is a Guardian columnist

Exclusive: Grants are part of controversial package criticised as misuse of public money to influence European politics

Donald Trump’s state department intends to allocate $12m to organisations in the UK founded by the prominent Conservatives Jacob Rees-Mogg and Toby Young, the Guardian can reveal.

The intended grants, revealed in US government documents, are part of a package of support for European groups viewed favourably by the Trump administration. Some former US officials have criticised the funding as a misuse of public money to seek influence over foreign politics.

Labour and the country have reached a historic inflection point. For all the talk of Brexit ‘benefits’, the anti-EU ideologues know the tide has turned

All the old gang were there: a reunion of the Brexit triumphalists. I was one of the guests in the stately drawing room of Jacob Rees-Mogg’s Georgian townhouse in Westminster last week, as the Bruges Group met to cheer the launch of the new book 75 Brexit Benefits: Tangible Benefits from the UK Having Left the European Union. Tory Brexiteers Iain Duncan Smith, Bill Cash and John Redwood were all there, a gathering of the kind of Eurosceptics John Major once called the “bastards”.

Our host, Rees-Mogg, was in jubilant form, celebrating Keir Starmer’s recent speeches that named the economic damage done by Brexit. In Labour’s new willingness to touch the Brexit live rail, the Bruges Group members welcomed the revival of the grand old conflict as their way back to referendum glory days. Rees-Mogg chortled: “Starmer’s view that re-entering the European Union is the answer to our economy is as true as everything else he says.” Much mirth, as he departed early for his State of the Nation slot on GB News.