mar ★

On 17 July 2026, Tristan and I were in Washington, D.C. having spent the preceding days meeting with more than 100 people within and connected to the U.S. political system. Our conversations focused on mobilizing young people ahead of the midterm elections and the influence of independent cultural figures over a generation traditional politicians have failed to reach. That same day, whilst Labour announced Andy Burnham as its new leader, I flew to Miami to host a boxing event with Jon Jones. The next day, Tristan and I were arrested under provisional extradition warrants, before any substantive evidence had been presented to the US court. I have now spent 109 days in solitary confinement. I publicly supported Donald Trump in 2016, 2020 and 2024, playing what many people consider a meaningful role in the cultural shift behind his return to the White House. Even Kamala Harris has discussed my electoral influence in her autobiography. People like Charlie Kirk and I challenged political orthodoxy and reached young men whom the establishment had abandoned. I was doing the same in Britain, challenging Labour over grooming gangs, mass immigration and freedom of speech, while supporting the movements around Reform UK and Restore. Now consider the extraordinary coincidence: two brothers, different complainants, different allegations, different dates and separate investigations, yet extradition warrants issued simultaneously and both arrested together. The political interference was obvious with MPs openly calling for action against us for our online speech. The coordination and timing are blatantly a politically motivated attempt to silence me ahead of the US midterms and during a critical period in British politics. Tommy Robinson faces criminal proceedings. Nigel Farage and Reform UK face investigations and scrutiny. Meanwhile, I remain in solitary confinement. This is a perfect example of the treatment of political dissent under the Labour Party. This is bigger than me. What happens when somebody challenges powerful institutions and accepts the risks of speaking freely, only to find that those who benefited from their courage are unwilling to defend their basic rights? Last night's election results should prompt serious reflection about what happens when political parties lose the trust of their own supporters. Every young person considering speaking publicly is watching. If controversy means abandonment, why should they believe that institutions promising freedom will defend their rights when it matters? I receive thousands of messages asking precisely that question. I have spent 109 days fighting for my liberty due to political interference by a Labour government whose actions I have repeatedly challenged. You cannot claim to defend freedom while treating the freedom of controversial people as expendable.