LONDON — On the face of it, the new MI6 chief’s first speech featured many of the same villains and heroes as those of her predecessors. But in her first public outing Monday, Blaise Metreweli, the first female head of the U.K.’s foreign intelligence service, sent a strong signal that she intends to put her own stamp on the role – as she highlighted a wave of inter-connected threats to western democracies. Speaking at MI6’s HQ in London, Metreweli, who took over from Richard Moore in October, highlighted a confluence of geo-political and technological disruptions, warning “the frontline is everywhere” and adding “we are now operating in a space between peace and war.” In a speech shot through with references to a shifting transatlantic order and the growth of disinformation, Metreweli made noticeably scant  reference to the historically close relationship with the U.S. in intelligence gathering — the mainstay of the U.K.’s intelligence compact for decades. Instead, she highlighted that a “new bloc and identities are forming and alliances reshaping.” That will be widely seen to reflect an official acknowledgement that the second Donald Trump administration has necessitated a shift in the security services towards cultivating more multilateral relationships. By comparison with a lengthy passage on the seriousness of the Russia threat to Britain, China got away only with a light mention of its cyber attack tendencies towards the U.K. — and was referred to more flatteringly as “a country where a central transformation  is  taking place this century.” Westminster hawks will note that Metreweli — who grew up in Hong Kong and  so knows the Chinese system close-up — walked gingerly around the risk of conflict in the  South China Sea and Beijing’s espionage activities targeting British politicians – and even its royals. In a carefully-placed line, she reflected that she was  “going to break with tradition and won’t give you a global threat tour.” Moore, her predecessor, was known for that approach, which delighted those who enjoyed a plain-speaking MI6 boss giving pithy analysis of global tensions and their fallout, but frustrated some in the Foreign Office who believed the affable Moore could be too unguarded in his comments on geo-politics. The implicit suggestion from the new chief was that China needs to be handled differently to the forthright engagement with “aggressive, expansionist and revisionist” Russia. The reasons may well lie in the aftermath of a bruising argument within Whitehall about how to handle the recent case of two Britons who were arrested for spying for China, and with a growth-boosting visit to Beijing by the prime minister scheduled for 2026. Sources in the service suggest the aim of the China strategy is to avoid confrontation, the better to further intelligence-gathering and have a more productive economic relationship with Beijing. More hardline interpreters of the Secret Intelligence Service will raise eyebrows at her suggestion that the “convening power” of the service would enable it to “ defuse tensions.” But there was no doubt about Metreweli’s deep concern at the impacts of social-media disinformation and distortion, in a framing which seemed just as worried about U.S. tech titans as conventional state-run threats:  “We are being contested from battlefield to boardroom — and even our brains — as disinformation manipulates our understanding of each other.” Declaring that “some  algorithms become as powerful as states,” seemed to tilt at outfits like Elon Musk’s X and Mark Zuckerberg’s Meta-owned Facebook. Metreweli warned that “hyper personalized tools could become a new vector for conflict and control,” pushing their effects on societies and individuals  in “minutes not months – my service must operate in this new context too.” The new boss used the possessive pronoun, talking about “my service” in her speech several times – another sign that she intends to put a distinctive mark of the job, now that she has, at the age of just 48,  inherited the famous green-ink pen in which the head of the service signs correspondence.  Metreweli is experienced operator in war zones including Iraq who spent a secondment with MI5, the domestic intelligence service, and won the job in large part because of her experience in the top job via MI6’s science and technology “Q”  Branch. She clearly wants to expedite changes in the service – saying agents must be as fluent in computer coding as foreign languages. She is also expected to try and address a tendency in the service to harvest information, without a clear focus on the action that should follow – the product of a glut of intelligence gathered via digital means and AI. She  was keen to stress that the human factor is at the heart of it all — an attempt at reassurance for spies and analysts wondering if they might be replaced by AI agents as the job of gathering intelligence in the era of facial recognition and biometrics gets harder.  Armed with a steely gaze Metreweli speaks fluent human, occasionally with a small smile. She is also the first incumbent of the job to wear a very large costume jewelry beetle brooch on her sombre navy attire. No small amount of attention in Moscow and Beijing could go into decoding that.

LISBON — Ursula von der Leyen’s European Commission should continue to enforce its digital rules with an iron fist despite the outcry from U.S. officials and big tech moguls, co-chair of the Greens in the European Parliament Bas Eickhout told POLITICO. As Green politicians from across Europe gather in the Portuguese capital for their annual congress, U.S. top officials are blasting the EU for imposing a penalty on social media platform X for breaching its transparency obligations under the EU’s Digital Services Act, the bloc’s content moderation rule book. “They should just implement the law, which means they need to be tougher,” Eickhout told POLITICO on the sidelines of the event. He argued that the fine of €120 million is “nothing” for billionaire Elon Musk and that the EU executive should go further. The Commission needs to “make clear that we should be proud of our policies … we are the only ones fighting American Big Tech,” he said, adding that tech companies are “killing freedom of speech in Europe.” The Greens have in the past denounced Meta and X over their content moderation policies, arguing these platforms amplify “disinformation” and “extremism” and interfere in European electoral processes. Meta and X did not reply to a request for comment by the time of publication. Meta has “introduced changes to our content reporting options, appeals process and data access tools since the DSA came into force and are confident that these solutions match what is required under the law in the EU,” a Meta spokesperson said at the end of October. Tech mogul Musk said his response to the penalty would target the EU officials who imposed it. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the fine is “an attack on all American tech platforms and the American people by foreign governments,” and accused the move of “censorship.” “It’s not good when our former allies in Washington are now working hand in glove with Big Tech,” blasted European Green Party chair Ciarán Cuffe at the opening of the congress in Lisbon. Eickhout, whose party GreenLeft-Labor alliance is in negotiations to enter government in the Netherlands, said “we should pick on this battle and stand strong.” The Commission’s decision to fine X under the EU’s Digital Services Act is over transparency concerns. The Commission said the design of X’s blue checkmark is “deceptive,” after it was changed from user verification into a paid feature. The EU’s executive also said X’s advertising library lacks transparency and that it fails to provide access to public data for researchers as required by the law.  Eickhout lamented that European governments are slow in condemning the U.S. moves against the EU, and argued that with its recent national security strategy, the Americans have made clear their objective is to divide Europe from within by fueling far-right parties. “Some of the leaders like [French President Emmanuel] Macron are still desperately trying to say that that the United States are our ally,” Eickhout said. “I want to see urgency on how Europe is going to take its own path and not rely on the U.S. anymore, because it’s clear we cannot.”

BRUSSELS — European Parliament members this week rubbished the EU executive’s Democracy Shield plan, an initiative aimed at bolstering the bloc’s defenses against Russian sabotage, election meddling and cyber and disinformation campaigns. The Commission’s plan “feels more like a European neighborhood watch group chat,” Kim van Sparrentak, a Dutch member of the Greens group, told a committee meeting on Monday evening. On Tuesday, EU Justice Commissioner Michael McGrath faced the brunt of that censure before the full Parliament plenary, as centrist and left-leaning lawmakers panned the plan for its weaknesses and far-right members warned that Brussels is rolling out a propaganda machine of its own. “We want to see more reform, more drive and more actions,” Swedish center-right lawmaker Tomas Tobé, who leads the Parliament’s report on the matter, told McGrath. The European Democracy Shield was unveiled Nov. 12 as a response to Russia’s escalating meddling in the bloc. In past months, Europe has been awash in hybrid threats. Security services linked railway disruptions in Poland and the Baltics to Russian-linked saboteurs, while unexplained drone flyovers have crippled public services in Belgium and probed critical infrastructure sites across the Nordics. At the same time, pro-Kremlin influence campaigns have promoted deepfake videos and fabricated scandals and divisive narratives ahead of elections in Moldova, Slovakia and across the EU, often using local intermediaries to mask their origins.   Together these tactics inform a pressure campaign that European security officials say is designed to exhaust institutions, undermine trust and stretch Europe’s defenses.  The Democracy Shield was a key pledge President Ursula von der Leyen made last year. But the actual strategy presented this month lacks teeth and concrete actions, and badly fails to meet the challenge, opponents said. While “full of new ways to exchange information,” the strategy presents “no other truly new or effective proposals to actually take action,” said van Sparrentak, the Dutch Greens lawmaker.  EU RESPONSE A WORK IN PROGRESS Much of the Shield’s text consists of calls to support existing initiatives or proposed new ones to come later down the line.   One of the pillars of the initiative, a Democratic Resilience Center that would pool information on hybrid warfare and interference, was announced by von der Leyen in September but became a major sticking point during the drafting of the Shield before its Nov. 12 unveiling.  The final proposal for the Center lacks teeth, critics said. Instead of an independent agency, as the Parliament had wanted, it will be a forum for exchanging information, two Commission officials told POLITICO.  The Center needs “a clear legal basis” and should be “independent” with “proper funding,” Tobé said Tuesday.   Austrian liberal Helmut Brandstätter said in a comment to POLITICO that “some aspects of the center are already embedded in the EEAS [the EU’s diplomatic service] and other institutions. Instead of duplicating them, we should strive to consolidate and streamline our tools.” EU countries also have to opt into participating in the center, creating a risk that national authorities neglect its work.  RIGHT BLASTS EU ‘CENSORSHIP’  For right-wing and far-right forces, the Shield reflects what they see as EU censorship and meddling by Brussels in European national politics.   “The stated goals of the Democracy Shield look good on paper but we all know that behind these noble goals, what you actually want is to build a political machinery without an electoral mandate,” said Csaba Dömötör, a Hungarian MEP from the far-right Patriots group.   “You cannot appropriate the powers and competence of sovereign countries and create a tool which is going to allow you to have an influence on the decisions of elections” in individual EU countries, said Polish hard-right MEP Beata Szydło.   Those arguments echo some of the criticisms by the United States’ MAGA movement of European social media regulation, which figures like Vice President JD Vance have previously compared to Soviet-era censorship laws.  The Democracy Shield strategy includes attempts to support European media organizations and fact-checking to stem the flood of disinformation around political issues. Romanian right-wing MEP Claudiu-Richard Târziu said her country’s 2024 presidential elections had been cancelled due to “an alleged foreign intervention” that remained unproven.  “This Democracy Shield should not create a mechanism whereby other member states could go through what Romania experienced in 2024 — this is an attack against democracy — and eventually the voters will have zero confidence,” he said.  In a closing statement on Tuesday at the plenary, Commissioner McGrath defended the Democracy Shield from its hard-right critics but did not respond to more specific criticisms of the proposal.  “To those who question the Shield and who say it’s about censorship. What I say to you is that I and my colleagues in the European Commission will be the very first people to defend your right to level robust debate in a public forum,” he said.

Sweden has asked its cyber agency to bolster security measures ahead of a general election next year, warning for what it called a “serious security situation.” Cyberattacks against Sweden are on the rise, the country’s defense ministry said Friday. “Threats in the cyber domain are increasing and Sweden is far from spared,” Civil Defense Minister Carl-Oskar Bohlin said. Sweden is holding a general election on Sept. 13 next year. Given the increase in attacks, the government has told the agency to assess the threats to Sweden, propose defenses and plan cyber exercises, it said. European countries have braced for cyber and disinformation attacks around recent votes. These hacking and disinformation campaigns have often been linked to Russia, and disruptive cyberattacks against official websites and IT infrastructure are now common. Romania cancelled a presidential election outcome in December due to Russian interference, while Moldova recently called in EU assistance ahead of an election featuring cyberattacks it pinned on Moscow.  The Swedish cyber agency will report its initial findings to the defense ministry by March next year. 

Spain’s Supreme Court has just taken its battle with Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez to a whole new level.  The court on Tuesday banned Attorney General Álvaro García Ortiz from holding public office for two years for allegedly leaking details of a tax probe involving the partner of Madrid’s regional leader Isabel Díaz Ayuso, a rising star among the country’s conservative voters. Justice Minister Félix Bolaños said that the government was obliged “to abide by the sentence” and appoint a new attorney general. But he stressed the executive’s disagreement with the conviction, and reaffirmed its belief in García Ortiz’s innocence. The ruling risks turning that feud into a constitutional crisis, with the judiciary seemingly taking aim at members of the executive running Europe’s fourth-largest economy. The clash has taken a toll on Sánchez, who has long claimed to be the target of “lawfare,” accusing conservative judges of pursuing baseless cases against his allies and family.  Last year the prime minister briefly considered stepping down after his wife was named as the target of a judicial investigation that is ongoing, but widely considered to be baseless. His brother, meanwhile, is due to face trial next year on influence-peddling charges linked to a civil service post he took before Sánchez came to power. Both of the prime minister’s family members deny wrongdoing and say the cases are politically motivated. A FAKE STORY AND AN ALLEGED LEAK The case against García Ortiz dates to early 2024, when Spanish media began reporting on a tax fraud investigation into Ayuso’s partner, businessman Alberto González Amador. In March of last year, Spanish daily El Mundo published an article alleging the Madrid prosecutor’s office had offered González Amador a plea deal — a fake news story that Ayuso’s chief of staff, Miguel Ángel Rodríguez, later admitted he spread to selected journalists. When reporters sought confirmation, the prosecutor’s office clarified that it was actually the defense who proposed a plea deal by which the accused would admit to committing tax fraud in exchange for a reduced sentence. But several journalists published articles with that information ahead of the clarification’s release, sparking an investigation into whether emails between prosecutors and González Amador had been leaked. In a surprise twist, García Ortiz was charged over the alleged disclosure. At last week’s Supreme Court trial, the attorney general denied leaking the messages, with his defense attorneys demonstrating that dozens of officials had access to the allegedly leaked emails. Several journalists also testified that García Ortiz was not their source. JUDICIAL TENSION García Ortiz’s case was tried by a panel of seven judges, with the five conservative judges backing the conviction and the two progressives dissenting. The verdict was announced unusually quickly — even before the court had drafted its legal reasoning. It remains unclear how the judges will justify the decision, but it’s possible they were swayed by González Amador’s lawyer, who argued that the journalists who testified had a vested interest in protecting García Ortiz — if he was their leaker. In a surprise twist, García Ortiz was charged over the alleged disclosure. | Gustavo de la Paz/Europa Press via Getty Images Speaking later at an event marking the 50th anniversary of dictator Francisco Franco’s death, Sánchez appeared to allude to the case, warning that “democracy is not a permanent conquest: it is a privilege we must defend every day from unfounded nostalgia, economic interests and attacks that constantly evolve.”  “Today, these attacks take the form of disinformation campaigns and abuses of power,” he added. The leader of the conservative opposition, People’s Party boss Alberto Núñez Feijóo, cheered the conviction, describing the attorney general as “someone who was supposed to be prosecuting crimes, but instead committed them.” He demanded Sánchez step down immediately. But Sánchez’s ruling coalition has rallied around him, accusing the judiciary of being weaponized by conservative political forces. Health Minister Mónica García, from the left-wing Más Madrid party, called the ruling an “affront” to all citizens.  “This is a lethal blow to the rule of law, the requirement to present incriminating evidence, [and] the presumption of innocence,” she added.

LONDON — Voters across the Western world are alarmed about threats to democracy, worrying that extremist parties, fake news and corruption will undermine elections.  A major poll by Ipsos of almost 10,000 voters in nine countries — seven in the European Union, plus the U.K. and the U.S. — found about half of voters are dissatisfied with the way democracy is working.  With the exception of Sweden, where people think democratic politics is working well, a clear majority worry about the risks to their systems of self-government over the next five years, according to the survey shared exclusively with POLITICO.  “There’s widespread concern about the way democracy is working, with people feeling unrepresented particularly by their national governments,” Gideon Skinner, senior director of U.K. politics at Ipsos, told POLITICO. “[There are] particular concerns around the impact of fake news, disinformation, lack of accountability for politicians, and extremism. In most countries there is a desire for radical change.”  The survey comes amid growing concern that democracy across the West is under threat. Wealth inequality around the world is driving support for extremist parties, undermining debate and preparing the ground for authoritarianism, according to a recent report for the G20. This week, the European Commission unveiled its plans to strengthen democracy across the EU’s 27 countries. But critics said its proposal to tackle foreign interference in European elections was too weak, with participation voluntary across the bloc. Authorities have identified Russian disinformation and meddling in elections in many European countries over the past year, from Romania to Germany.  For the new poll, Ipsos questioned more than 9,800 voters in the U.K., France, the U.S., Spain, Italy, Sweden, Croatia, the Netherlands and Poland between Sept. 12 and Sept. 29. The pollsters found an average of 45 percent of respondents across all nine countries examined were dissatisfied with the way democracy was working, Skinner said.  Voters who identified as belonging to the political extremes — both on the far left and far right — were most likely to say democracy was failing.  In France and the Netherlands, satisfaction levels have fallen over the past year in response to political turmoil. The French government has repeatedly collapsed amid an ongoing crisis over the national budget, while the Dutch coalition fell apart earlier this year, triggering an election that was held in October. In none of the nine countries surveyed did a majority of voters believe their national government was representing their views well. Voters in Croatia and the U.K. were the least likely to agree that their governments were representing them effectively, with just 23 percent saying so in both cases.  In every country surveyed apart from Poland — which saw a high turnout in presidential elections this year — more voters said the way democracy was working had worsened over the past five years than said it had improved. In the U.S. 61 percent of voters thought the state of democracy had worsened since 2020.  Voters in France (86 percent) and Spain (80 percent) were the most worried about what the next five years would mean for their democratic systems. Respondents identified the biggest risks to democracy as disinformation, corruption, a lack of accountability for politicians and the rise of extremist politics.    Generally, most people questioned still strongly supported democratic ideals, though in Croatia more than half (51 percent) said keeping democracy was only worth it if it delivered a good quality of life.  Ipsos found that respondents backed action to protect democracy, especially laws and enforcement to combat corruption, protecting the independence of the courts, better civic education in schools, and regulations against fake news and hate speech on social media.

Tech tycoon Elon Musk on Wednesday threw a jab at European democracy — and the president of the European Commission. “If democracy is the foundation of freedom, surely your position as leader of the EU should be elected directly by the people?” Musk wrote in a post on social media platform X, which he owns, to Ursula von der Leyen. In another post, the Tesla and SpaceX chief added that the “leader of the EU” should be “elected by the people” of the bloc, “not appointed by a committee.” Musk was reacting to von der Leyen’s unveiling of the European Democracy Shield, a new strategy to step up the fight against foreign interference online, including in elections. “Democracy is the foundation of our freedom. Democracy is the foundation of our prosperity. Democracy is the foundation of our security,” von der Leyen wrote on social media. The German politician had pitched the Democracy Shield idea in a campaign speech at the Copenhagen Democracy Summit last year as she sought another term as Commission president ahead of the 2024 European election. The Commission president — head of the EU’s executive, though not literally the “leader of the EU” — is proposed and voted on by the European Council, comprising the EU’s 27 heads of state and government, for a five-year term. The proposed candidate also has to win a vote among members of the European Parliament. After getting the required backing last year, von der Leyen survived three motions of no confidence by factions in the Parliament in July and October this year. The centerpiece of the Democracy Shield strategy is the European Centre for Democratic Resilience, which draws on expertise across current and aspiring EU member countries to counter disinformation. Other elements include guidance on how to use AI in elections or on using influencers to help people understand EU rules, such as regulations on online content or political advertising. Musk, who played a brief but prominent role earlier this year as U.S. President Donald Trump’s adviser after supporting him vigorously throughout the 2024 election campaign, has often used his platform to amplify controversial views on democracy, free speech and political leadership around the world.

BRUSSELS — EU countries won’t be obliged to take part in a new effort to reduce foreign election interference, according to a draft proposal obtained by POLITICO. The strategy for a European Democracy Shield — promised by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen in July 2024 — is meant to step up the fight against foreign interference online, including in elections. The centerpiece is a European Centre for Democratic Resilience, described as a “framework” to share information on information manipulation and disinformation, according to the draft. But EU countries won’t be obliged to take part since their participation is “voluntary.” The proposal, set to be released Wednesday, has been subject to political infighting within the Commission. Despite strong concerns about foreign meddling in the EU, the topic is sensitive due to the U.S. administration’s stance on anything related to misinformation, which it has frequently construed as disguised censorship. Many of the proposals included in the draft strategy remain voluntary. That includes a plan for the Commission to work with EU countries on guidance on how to use AI in elections, in the wake of AI deepfakes rocking several election campaigns. In both the Netherlands and Ireland, AI-generated deepfakes of political candidates circulated on social media platforms in the final sprint of recent election campaigns, while data protection watchdogs warned voters should not rely on AI chatbots for voting advice. The new guidance should inform “voluntary commitments on the responsible use of new technologies” for European and national political parties, the draft said. The Commission also plans to tackle the safety of politicians amid growing recognition of the personal dangers faced by those in the field. “To better ensure the safety of political candidates and elected representatives, the Commission will adopt a Recommendation on safety in politics,” the draft read. It is also planning to assemble a network of influencers to “raise awareness about relevant EU rules” — suggesting that using influencers could help people better understand EU rules such as on political advertising, online content and artificial intelligence.

LONDON — The Russian Embassy in London has called the BBC, Britain’s public service broadcaster, a “propaganda and disinformation tool” that was full of “ideological dogma.” The criticism follows U.S. President Donald Trump threatening to sue the BBC for $1 billion over its editing of a speech he gave on Jan. 6, 2021, during a Panorama documentary broadcast days before the 2024 presidential election. Writing on Telegram, the Russian Embassy said the BBC was “nothing more than a propaganda and disinformation tool. “Its journalists select and manipulate facts, as well as censor information that does not align with their partisan editorial stance.” The corporation has come under fire after a leaked internal memo alleged biases in the broadcaster, which is supposed to remain impartial, over its coverage of the U.S. president, the Middle East, and transgender issues. The U.S. president’s lawyers have given the corporation until Friday to “retract” any “false, defamatory, disparaging, and inflammatory statements” about him. Moscow’s London outpost accused the BBC of “systemic flaws … where ideological dogma has replaced journalistic ethics” and claimed there had been years of “biased reporting” and “double standards” in editorial policy. “The corporation has become a platform for Russophobia and extremism,” the Telegram post said, concluding that those in charge of the corporation “will be held accountable for their Russophobia and compelled to apologize publicly for the years and decades of slander.” British Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy will give a statement on Tuesday afternoon about the controversy, as well as the corporation’s future funding model.

LONDON — Britain’s public service broadcaster is in the fight of its life. A blazing row with Donald Trump just made everything harder.  The U.S. president on Monday threatened legal action against the BBC, just hours after two of its top executives resigned over claims of bias in the state-funded corporation’s news coverage.  The dispute — which has been seized on by figures on the British political right as well as Trump and his allies — comes as BBC bosses prepare to embark on a fraught round of negotiations with ministers over the rules it must abide by and, crucially, how it is funded. The outcome will determine whether the storied British broadcaster, once the voice of an empire, survives in anything like its current form. Opposition politicians wasted no time defining the terms of battle.  “Just getting rid of two members of staff does not eradicate the cultural problems that lie deep within the BBC and have for many, many decades,” Nigel Farage, a Trump ally who leads Britain’s poll-topping Reform UK party — and could well become the country’s next prime minister — told a press conference Monday as supporters cheered on.  In his sights too: an overhaul of the BBC’s decades-old funding model, which depends on an annual fee paid by individual households.    “This isn’t about Trump. Trump’s just the final straw of what we’ve seen over the course of the last weeks, months, and indeed, decades,” said Farage.  The crisis has left Britain’s liberals stuck in the middle. In a letter sent to Prime Minister Keir Starmer, Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch and Reform’s Nigel Farage today, Liberal Democrat Leader Ed Davey called for British politicians to defend the BBC, warning: “The BBC belongs to Britain, not Trump.”  ‘ERROR OF JUDGEMENT’  The latest BBC crisis was triggered last week when the Telegraph newspaper published a memo written by Michael Prescott, the BBC’s former standards adviser, covering a range of alleged failings in its content. That included its coverage of transgender issues, the war in Gaza, and Trump’s presidency.  The most damning claim was that footage in the Panorama show had been selectively edited to suggest, incorrectly, that the U.S. president had told supporters in January 2021: “We’re going to walk down to the Capitol and I’ll be there with you, and we fight. We fight like hell.”   The words were, in fact, spliced from sections of the speech almost an hour apart, and omitted a section in which Trump had said he wanted supporters “to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”  The U.S. president on Monday threatened legal action against the BBC. | Allison Robbert/AFP via Getty Images The BBC has long weathered accusations from all political sides that it is not adhering to its governing charter, which says it must avoid “favoring one side over another,” but on Monday, BBC Chairman Samir Shah issued a mea culpa and publicly apologized for the “error of judgement.”  FOLLOW THE MONEY Under the BBC’s Royal Charter agreement, the broadcaster is funded through a license fee, which requires any household that watches or records TV, or streams BBC iPlayer, to pay.   The current Charter began in 2017 and runs to 31 December 2027. Negotiations are in the early stages, but people familiar with discussions say questions of funding will dominate at a time when ministers have raised taxes. Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy, who is spearheading the Charter renewal, said in January she is thinking “quite radically” about alternatives to the license fee, and not ruling out a subscription model.   Farage — a long-time critic of the BBC license fee  — said that if the BBC didn’t “get a grip” there would be many, many millions “refusing” to pay.   Farage himself has skin in the commercial broadcasting game as a star presenter of the right-leaning GB News. In a post on X, Trump’s press secretary Karoline Leavitt gave the upstart channel a plug, saying: “.@BBCNews is dying because they are anti-Trump Fake News. Everyone should watch @GBNEWS!” Conservative Shadow Culture Secretary Nigel Huddleston warned: “The BBC needs to pay close attention to why it is that increasing numbers of people do not want to pay the license, because they don’t see it as value for money, or they disagree with the content.”   But John Whittingdale, the former Conservative culture secretary who was involved in the last set of Charter negotiations, warned funding was a “wholly separate debate.”  “The issue of how you pay for the BBC has to be kept entirely separate from issues around editorial because the independence of the BBC is still a very important principle.”  No. 10 has sought to play down the row, insisting it does not believe the BBC is institutionally biased, pointing to its “vital role” in an age of disinformation.  Both the right-wing Conservatives and Reform insist they have no desire to destroy the BBC.  “There is a future for the BBC, because it does have a strong global brand, but in order to retain its trust and confidence, it’s got to respect its impartial charter responsibilities and make sure that the news and current affairs programming abides by its own editorial guidelines,” Huddleston said Monday.   SOFT POWER  One of the central arguments the BBC’s advocates make in favor of funding the broadcaster is the soft power role it plays through initiatives such as the BBC World Service, which delivers news in over 40 languages.  However, it has cut jobs this year as the BBC has sought to find savings.   Conservative MP Julian Smith said it was unfortunate that BBC leadership teams had been focused on domestic scandals and editorial and corporate issues that should have been addressed with much greater speed, rigour, political confidence, and understanding.   “That’s been at the loss of focus on how to maximise, and also where needed make a case, to government on the global reach of the BBC, and the impact this could have on foreign soft power,” he said. Whittingdale insisted “we need the BBC,” describing it as “an extraordinarily fine broadcaster.” “Its reputation is one of its greatest assets, and that is why this is so damaging,” he said. “I want the BBC to be seen, still to be seen as a sort of beacon of truth and reliability, and that is undermined by these kinds of revelations.” Emilio Casalicchio contributed reporting