News Round-Up: BBC Doctored Trump Speech, Russia Mandates Biometrics for Online Age Checks, EU Funds Give $2B to US Activists.
Every week, the editorial team of Freedom Research compiles a round-up of news that caught our eye, or what felt like under-reported aspects of news deserving more attention.
Over the past week, the following topics attracted our attention:
BBC Fabricated Trump’s Speech to Discredit Him Pre-Election
Russia’s Internet Anonymity Ends: Biometrics Mandated for All Access
China’s Threats Made UK University Ban Research
Sydney Mayor Bans “Harmful” Gas Barbecues
APT Report: Foreign Charities Fund Left-Wing Politics, Extreme Climate Activism in US
BBC Fabricated Trump’s Speech to Discredit Him Pre-Election
Last year, before the US presidential election, the British broadcaster BBC falsified a speech given by Donald Trump in early 2021 in a television program, making it appear as if the president was inciting the violent events that took place at the Capitol at the time, writes The Telegraph.
On October 28, 2024, a week before the US presidential election, the BBC Panorama documentary “Trump: A Second Chance?” deliberately misled viewers by editing Trump’s 2021 speech. Specifically, the program showed President Trump telling his supporters that he intended to go with them to the Capitol to “fight like hell.” In fact, Trump had said that he would go with them to “peacefully and patriotically [to] make your voices heard.”
More specifically, Trump appeared to say on Panorama: “We’re gonna walk down to the Capitol and I’ll be there with you and we fight. We fight like hell and if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not gonna have a country any more.” In fact, Trump said: “We’re gonna to walk down, and I’ll be there with you, we’re gonna walk down, we’re gonna walk down any one you want but I think right here, we’re gonna walk down to the Capitol and we’re gonna cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women and we’re probably not going to be cheereing so much for some of them because you’ll never take back our country with weakness, you have to show strength and you have to be strong… I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”
In addition to Trump’s altered words, the documentary also showed men waving flags marching to the Capitol in Washington on January 6, 2021, after the president’s speech. This gave the impression that Trump’s supporters had accepted his “call to arms.” However, the clip of men marching with flags was actually recorded before Trump even began his speech.
In summary, the BBC had spliced together three separate parts of Trump’s speech into one continuous sentence. The part about the “fight like hell” was at the end of the speech, where the president talked about election corruption and said of voters on election day: “Most people would stand there at 9 o’clock in the evening and say I wanna thank you very much, and they go off to some other life, but I said something’s wrong here, something’s really wrong, can’t have happened, and we fight. We fight like hell, and if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not gonna have a country any more.”
The manipulated video clip was highlighted in a 19-page report compiled by Michael Prescott, a former member of the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines and Standards Committee and independent advisor, who left in June 2025. Prescott stated: “I departed [the advisory role] with profound and unresolved concerns about the BBC... my view is that the Executive repeatedly failed to implement measures to resolve highlighted problems, and in many cases simply refused to acknowledge there was an issue at all.” According to Prescott, he had previously informed BBC management of the problems, but they were ignored and dismissed, and management refused to acknowledge that the BBC had violated journalistic standards.
Now, UK Conservatives are demanding a thorough investigation into how the Panorama documentary was approved to air. Shadow Culture Secretary Nigel Huddleston said: “These are extremely concerning revelations that could seriously undermine the brand and reputation of the BBC. There can be no justification for this kind of deliberate manipulation and the spreading of misinformation. This is not the first time that evidence of bias at the BBC has emerged, but it is one of the most stark and alarming examples to date.” Former Prime Minister Boris Johnson called the revelation a complete disgrace, and President Trump’s eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., criticized: “The FAKE NEWS “reporters” in the UK are just as dishonest and full of shit as the ones here in America!!!!”
Russia’s Internet Anonymity Ends: Biometrics Mandated for All Access
Russian lawmakers aim to mandate biometric and e-government systems, requiring age verification for all online activity. This links adult or “potentially harmful” content access directly to state digital-ID, ending all online anonymity entirely. This would no longer just restrict access to certain content, but would require all citizens to authenticate their identity through state systems. Every time they view something that the state has classified as adult content, writes Reclaim The Net.
The age verification plan is being promoted as a necessary measure to protect minors from dangerous material. Just as such systems and tools are promoted elsewhere in the world, including Europe, Australia, the US, and the UK. However, Russia seems to have joined the latter group.
At the same time, the scope of Russia’s planned measures is remarkably broad and differs from similar plans in other countries in that the Russian model would be based on centralized, state-managed biometric databases. In addition to the list of “dangerous content,” which in Russia’s case seems to be just the beginning, the proposal also focuses on the Gosuslugi digital services portal. The latter already functions as the main interface for state control in Russia. This system is connected to a unified identification and authentication system and a national biometric system. Both are controlled by the government and are supposed to make it possible to verify a person’s age without them having to disclose their passport details to third parties. In other words, the introduction of such state systems would mean that the state would become a universal intermediary between citizens and the internet.
According to experts defending digital rights, the initiative is yet another continuation of a long-standing trend. Since 2012, when Russia began to develop the principles of web censorship under the pretext of protecting minors, each new regulation has reduced personal privacy and increased government oversight of everyday digital life. The current proposal fits nicely into Moscow’s broader digital sovereignty strategy. This is in a country where censorship is already among the strictest in the world and the human rights situation is already poor, making the likely consequences even harsher. Especially considering that, according to TechRadar, the list of so-called dangerous content includes not only pornography and violent or obscene videos, but also “propaganda of anti-social behaviour.” Based on a US State Department report, antisocial behaviour can include symbols and alleged disrespect for the state, authorities, the public, the flag, or the constitution, but also relationships and drugs that are considered non-traditional.
According to TechRadar, Andrei Svintsov, deputy chairman of the State Duma’s Information Policy Committee, said that “Russian internet users will lose their anonymity within three to five years.” According to the deputy, all users will have to register and verify their age at every step. This vision is in line with another project approved in June to develop a national super app that integrates digital ID, government services, and payment systems and allows users to verify their age in stores. The latter, incidentally, is the slogan for digital ID in many countries, including Switzerland. In any case, Russia’s super app seems to be somewhat similar to the super database initiatives that have been rolled out in Estonia and Mexico, among other places.
However, Russia’s super app would create a national registry linking personal data to individuals’ private online behaviour. This, in turn, would give the state a comprehensive overview of individuals’ consumption habits and more.
China’s Threats Made UK University Ban Research
Sheffield Hallam University in England terminated a project investigating forced labour among Uyghurs after Chinese state security officials questioned staff at its Beijing office and a Chinese company named in the project filed a defamation suit in the UK. The Chinese authorities succeeded in halting research by Laura Murphy, professor of human rights and modern slavery at Sheffield Hallam University, which examined allegations that Uyghur Muslims living in northwestern Xinjiang are subjected to forced labour. After years of threats from China, the university removed the research reports from its website in February 2025 and banned further research into forced labour among Uyghurs, according to Human Rights Watch.
The university’s decision was prompted by a campaign of harassment and intimidation, during which Sheffield Hallam University employees were threatened in China by individuals they described as Chinese state security agents, who demanded that the university stop its research. In addition, access to the university’s website was blocked in China, preventing the university from recruiting Chinese students and threatening it with a significant loss of income.
It has now become clear that the whole case began as early as 2021, when Professor Murphy published a report on Uyghur forced labour in the solar panel industry. In the following months, she published four more reports, including on auto parts and the garment industry, in an effort to track supply chains and highlight where goods reaching Western consumers may have been produced using forced labour in Xinjiang. For this work, the Chinese government condemned Professor Murphy in 2022. According to the Chinese embassy, the published works were falsified, seriously flawed, and the claims of forced labour in the reports did not stand up to fact-checking.
The Chinese embassy also claimed that some of the authors of the reports were supported by US authorities. Professor Murphy has not hidden this, of course, but has confirmed that she has received support from, among others, the US Department of Justice, the State Department, and USAID, as well as the British Foreign Office. However, the Chinese embassy explained: “Although the centre presents itself as an academic institution, it has in fact acted as a conduit for political and disinformation-based narratives used by anti-China forces.”
In addition, Hong Kong clothing supplier Smart Shirts Ltd., which has customers in the UK, filed a defamation suit, claiming that the clothing industry report had named the company and thus defamed it. A preliminary ruling by the High Court in London in December 2024 found that the report was “defamatory.” Although the court proceedings in the case are not yet complete, the university’s insurance company has already informed the university that defamation or insult is no longer covered.
While the university admitted 500 Chinese students in 2018, their numbers declined after the COVID-19 crisis and did not recover, with the university admitting only 73 students from China in 2024-2025. Sheffield Hallam earned a total of £3.8 million from Chinese and Hong Kong students in 2021-2022.
The university was extremely concerned that the Chinese government’s criticism of Uyghur studies could lead to a boycott by potential students and recruitment agents, and that the number of Chinese students could decline further. The situation became even more critical for the university when, in August 2022, the Chinese authorities blocked the university’s websites in China and students there were no longer able to enrol at the university.
However, in 2024, more serious intimidation began. According to Sheffield Hallam’s Chinese representative, officials from the state security service questioned employees there about research and future publications. According to the employees, the tone of the questioning was threatening and it was made clear that such research must be discontinued. During a second visit, security officials confirmed that the “problems” with the university’s website were due to the fact that the Uyghur research was still posted there.
Thus, in May 2024, university officials concluded that the university’s research activities in China and Hong Kong were at risk due to research led by Professor Laura Murphy on the persecution of Uyghurs in China’s Xinjiang region. In September 2024, the university decided not to publish the final stage of the study on forced labour of Uyghurs in China and notified the Chinese State Security Service of its decision, after which relations immediately improved and the threat to local employees seemed to have been eliminated.
Professor Murphy took legal action against the university for failing to fulfil its obligation to protect academic freedom. According to the professor, university documents and letters revealed that the university “had negotiated directly with a foreign intelligence service to trade my academic freedom for access to the Chinese student market.” She emphasised: “I’d never seen anything quite so patently explicit about the extent to which a university would go to ensure that they have Chinese student income.”
Murphy’s legal action prompted the university to lift its research ban in October this year, arguing that it had now reviewed the facts more closely and that the university now endorses Professor Murphy’s latest research. According to a university spokesperson, the school supports Professor Murphy in her important work and its dissemination, and apologizes for its actions.
Jo Grady, general secretary of the University and College Union, said it was extremely worrying that Sheffield Hallam appeared to have tried to silence its professor on behalf of a foreign government. Grady said: “Given the censorship Hallam has seemingly engaged in, it now needs to set out how it will ensure its academics will be supported to research freely and protected from overreach by foreign powers.” According to a government spokesperson, any attempts by a foreign government to intimidate, harass, or harm UK citizens will not be tolerated, and the government has made this clear to Beijing since learning of the incident.
This is not the first case of the Chinese government attempting to manipulate information abroad by influencing academic freedom. Researchers studying China at British universities have reported being harassed when they have criticized Beijing in their teaching. The issue of such repression has also been raised in the UK Parliament, including in a recent report by the Parliament’s Joint Committee on Human Rights. In recent years, the Chinese government has escalated its international repression and harassment of critics abroad. For example, in July, Chinese authorities arresteda Chinese student, Tara Zhang Yadi, on charges of inciting separatism because she had supported Tibetan rights while studying in Paris. Chinese companies, including some state-owned ones, have filed libel suits and other lawsuits to silence human rights defenders and activists.
We have previously written about China’s international repression and, based on a US State Department report, concluded that the Chinese authorities have been engaged in widespread international repression since 2012. The goal is to suppress dissent and target Uyghurs, Tibetans, religious practitioners, dissidents, foreign journalists, and Chinese students and faculty at foreign universities. As in their home country, physical violence, threats, surveillance, kidnapping, and restrictions on movement are also used abroad. Supporters of democracy are placed on wanted lists with rewards offered for their capture, and dissidents are suppressed by all possible means.
Freedom House’s 2023 report documented approximately 250 direct acts of physical repression and extensive campaigns involving digital threats, abuses by international organizations, and the involvement of foreign countries in forced repatriation. Safeguard Defenders’ April 2023 report highlighted 283 cases in which Chinese authorities have forced people from 56 countries to return to China since 2014. This was part of the Fox Hunt and Sky Net operations, which involved 12,000 forced repatriations. Threats were used, family members were punished, and international legal mechanisms were abused.
Sydney Mayor Bans “Harmful” Gas Barbecues
Residents of Sydney, Australia, will soon not be allowed to use gas barbecues outdoors, as the city’s mayor has decided to save the planet by achieving net-zero emissions. Sydney has already banned gas heaters and even gas cooktops in residential developments and required all new buildings to switch to electricity. Now, the Sydney City Council, led by Lord Mayor Clover Moore, has expanded this ban to prohibit the use of outdoor gas appliances such as water heaters and grills starting in 2027. For now the ban includes barbecues that can be connected to a domestic gas supply and separate gas cylinders can still be used.
According to the mayor: “Relying on gas is bad for the planet, bad for our finances, and bad for our health.” Moore, a left-wing politician, believes that these reforms will improve not only the health of residents but also their financial situation, because “gas is an expensive commodity that is forecast to go up in price”. It should be noted that New York City used the same argument when it adopted the same restrictions, additionally banning stoves fuelled by coal or wood, but is now on the path to destruction of its electricity system and its economy by a mad dash towards energy utopia.
Sydney 2GB radio host Ben Fordham is one of the more critical voices and attacked Moore, saying: “You can’t stand outside a pub and drink unless you’re standing behind a cocktail table, and you can’t barbecue with your friends in the backyard unless you’re using an electric grill.”
However, a city council spokesperson is convinced that the city is “committed to achieving net-zero emissions in our region by 2035” and that it is important to reduce the use of fossil fuels to achieve this. “Until that happens, we are looking for other ways to electrify homes and reduce new gas connections in the city of Sydney.”
Clover Moore’s attempt to prevent the impending environmental Armageddon - one outdoor barbecue at a time - came just days after climate catastrophe prophet Bill Gates admitted that “climate change “will not lead to humanity’s demise.”
APT Report: Foreign Charities Fund Left-Wing Politics, Extreme Climate Activism in US
According to a new report by Americans for Public Trust (APT), a group of foreign “charities” has spent nearly $2 billion to fund political battles and extreme climate policies in the United States. According to Caitlin Sutherland, executive director of Americans for Public Trust, five “charitable organizations” have supported extreme liberal political associations and extreme climate activists in the US.
According to Sutherland, however, the U.S. is quite vulnerable to foreign-funded activism because the laws that are supposed to regulate foreign donations provide weak oversight and tend to be incomplete. As a result, foreign parties have been able to support their radical and dangerous interests in the U.S. with no strict oversight.
More specifically, APT names five European organizations - Quadrature Climate Foundation, KR Foundation, Oak Foundation, Laudes Foundation, and Children’s Investment Fund Foundation - that have funded political campaigns, litigation, research, protests, and lobbying in the U.S. through U.S. associations. According to APT, these are associations that participate in and influence political debates and activities in the United States, as well as climate-related litigation and lobbying.
First is the UK based Quadrature Climate Foundation (QCF), founded in 2019 by billionaires Greg Skinner and Suneil Setiya, which is reportedly “dedicated to addressing ... climate emergency.” It is worth noting that QCF plans to support solar geoengineering research with $40 million to block or dim sunlight, but this has been considered one of the most controversial and unclear areas of climate science. However, from 2020 to the present, QCF has given $530 million to 41 associations in the United States, for example, the Climate Works Foundation, the Growald Climate Fund, the Grantham Foundation, Arabella’s Windward Fund, and the Sunrise Project.
Secondly, APT highlights the Danish charity KR Foundation, which was founded in 2014. It supports the rapid phase-out of fossil fuels. Between 2015 and 2024, the KR Foundation has provided over $36 million in external funding to 53 groups in the United States, through which the KR Foundation has a significant impact on U.S. energy policy by supporting climate protests and litigation. For example, the foundation has supported the Conservation Law Foundation (CLF), the Centre for International Environmental Law (CIEL), Stop the Money Pipeline, Fossil Free Media, the Associated Press, and Oil Change International (OCI).
Thirdly, the Swiss Oak Foundation (OF), founded in 1983 by British billionaire Alan M. Parker, and has now become an important player in “climate philanthropy”. The OF supports radical climate views, extreme net-zero targets, and movements that push for compliance with the Paris Climate Agreement. The foundation’s principle is “climate justice,” using, among other things, “finance as a lever for change to challenge” the fossil fuel sector. According to OF’s 2023 report, the foundation supports “efforts that use innovative and disruptive finance strategies to end public money for coal, oil, and gas expansion or production.” OF has funded 152 organizations in the U.S. with more than $750 million between 2014 and 2024. Among those funded are the Environmental Law Institute (ELI), Community Change – Free DC, Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors (RPA), Arabella’s New Venture Fund, Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), and the Tides Center.
Fourthly, the Laudes Foundation, based in Switzerland, which was founded in 2020 by the Dutch Brenninkmeijer family, owners of the international clothing brand C&A. The goal of the Laudes Foundation was, of course, philanthropic activity, including combating climate change, the loss of nature and biodiversity, and social inequality. The Laudes Foundation has supported 17 organizations in the U.S. with nearly $20 million. Recipients of funding include the Pulitzer Center for Crisis Reporting, Ceres, Community Initiatives, and the World Resources Institute (WRI).
However, the most “unique” background is probably that of the U.K.’s Children’s Investment Fund Foundation (CIFF), founded by British billionaire Christopher Hohn. CIFF contributes to associations that push for progressive and extreme policies, especially in the areas of climate change and the environment. According to APT, Hohn is one of the main supporters of Extinction Rebellion. The latter has caused a lot of trouble in cities around the world over the years with its highly dangerous and disruptive climate protests. CIFF has funded at least $553 million to 39 groups in the U.S. between 2014 and 2023, including the Energy Foundation China (EFC), the Institute for Governance & Sustainable Development (IGSD), Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), and the Sunrise Project. Following the APT report, Hohn has reportedly announced that he will stop funding organizations based in the United States.
NYC didn’t ban gas or wood stoves
New York City prohibits the construction of new wood-burning fireplaces in buildings, a rule enacted in 2014 as part of a clean-air initiative.
The city’s Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) has targeted commercial wood-fired ovens, mandating a 75% reduction in emissions for establishments with ovens installed after 2016, requiring air filtration systems and engineering inspections.
Residential wood stoves and fireplaces are not currently banned, and they remain exempt from the city’s Local Law 97
Where are Ofcom after the revelations of the BBC doctored film? As usual the quangos that are tasked with overseeing and regulating various aspects of public live prove to be lazy incompetent negligent and biased in the extreme: taking taxpayer’s money under false pretences. You have to hope that the next gov’t will sweep away these useless organisations at the same time saving taxpayer’s money but I wouldn’t hold your breath.