Kamala’s Secret Weapon: The British Operatives Determined to “Kill” Elon Musk’s Free Speech Platform X

From Reclaim The Net

If you’re tired of censorship and surveillance, subscribe to Reclaim The Net.

Amid the chaos of pre-election America, major information has surfaced, revealing internal documents from the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH). This UK-based group, which was founded by British political strategist Morgan McSweeney under the name Brixton Endeavours Limited before being renamed to the Center for Countering Digital Hate in 2019, outlined a clear goal in their agenda: “Kill Musk’s Twitter.” The documents make it clear that the CCDH is targeting Elon Musk’s social media platform with full force. McSweeney, who helped guide Keir Starmer to victory in the UK, is now involved in US politics, advising Kamala Harris as she navigates the upcoming election, raising serious questions about the CCDH’s reach and motives.

CCDH May 31st agenda, above a note about meeting “with [Senator Amy] Klobuchar’s team.”

Now, if you’re wondering why a think tank founded by a man who helped turn Keir Starmer into the British Prime Minister is so dead set on smashing up a social media platform thousands of miles across the pond, you’re not alone. But the CCDH isn’t just any ragtag team of keyboard warriors. These guys are plugged into Washington power circles like an iPhone into a dodgy charger, with ties so tight to the Biden-Harris campaign, that they might as well be writing the tweets. And with McSweeney now advising Kamala Harris, well, let’s just say the plot thickens.

Kamala’s British Wingman

Meet Morgan McSweeney, a political operative you’ve never heard of—unless you’ve been glued to British politics or, for some inexplicable reason, a hardcore Labour Party fan in America. According to a new report from The DisInformation Chronicle and Racket News (which is worth reading in full), McSweeney, the brains behind Starmer’s rise to the UK premiership, is now advising Kamala Harris on how to go from “Where’s she been?” to “First female President.”

According to the report, McSweeney is credited with piloting Starmer’s victory against the Conservatives, beating Rishi Sunak. And McSweeney recently became UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s Chief of Staff.

But McSweeney isn’t stopping at Downing Street. No, he’s set his sights on America. And what’s more American than advising Kamala Harris after founding an organization that’s trying to vaporize Elon Musk’s $44 billion free speech project? After all, nothing screams “Democracy!” like a transatlantic political hit squad targeting Musk’s favorite free speech toy.

Musk, Misinformation, and Tax Breaks

Let’s not forget that the CCDH is a tax-exempt 501(c)(3) nonprofit—a status they might want to cling to tighter than a senator to their PAC funding. According to the IRS, CCDH could lose its golden goose tax exemption if “a substantial part of its activities is attempting to influence legislation.” And yet, somehow, according to the report, “Trigger EU and UK regulatory action” is the third item on their annual to-do list.

And to make things even murkier, CCDH has hired Lot Sixteen, a firm known for lobbying congressional offices on—you guessed it—“misinformation.” Nothing screams integrity like a supposedly neutral non-profit hiring a lobbying firm to bend the ears of politicians in the world’s most corrupt zip code. It’s almost poetic, if by poetry you mean a collection of contradictory nonsense wrapped in a PR-friendly bow.

Elon Musk reacts to the new report.

So, what does the CCDH’s fearless leader, Imran Ahmed, have to say about all this? Well, nothing, actually. Despite repeated requests from The DisInformation Chronicle and Racket, Ahmed—another British political operative welded to McSweeney’s Labour Together cabal—has clammed up. You can almost hear the sounds of frantic shredding from CCDH’s London offices.

Meanwhile, Senator Amy Klobuchar, who’s been pushing bills to regulate online “misinformation,” isn’t exactly rushing to answer questions either. And why would she? The CCDH’s plans dovetail nicely with her efforts to wrangle Big Tech under the guise of safeguarding democracy. Who cares if a few pesky details—like the potential illegalities of foreign interference or questionable nonprofit activities—get in the way? We’ve got elections to win here!

It’s almost endearing to see the British influence clawing its way back into American politics. Once upon a time, they tried to impose taxes on tea; now they’re sending think tanks to tackle free speech. If you’re wondering why a bunch of Brits are interested in who gets to say what on American soil, well, let’s just say the empire never really dies—it just switches to online servers.

The CCDH, that shiny bastion of truth-squelching, made headlines when they tried to silence Substack writers like Alex Berenson and Dr. Joseph Mercola, daring to spout the unthinkable—vaccine “misinformation.” In a world where dissent is dangerous, what’s a good digital inquisition without a few heretics to burn at the stake? But Substack threw a wrench into CCDH’s plans with the audacity to say, “No, thanks. We’re not here to take orders from the mob.” Their exact words? “At Substack, we don’t make moderation decisions based on public pressure.”

But the battle’s far from over. If at first, you don’t succeed in turning the internet into a digital police state, try again across the pond. CCDH’s new plan for American soil? Start by dismantling the platforms of opponents like Elon Musk—because if there’s one thing that irks the establishment more than free speech, it’s a billionaire who buys the bird app and starts letting people talk again. To do that, CCDH is deploying the tried-and-true tactic of hitting where it hurts: ad revenues. It’s like the financial version of waterboarding—slow, steady, and guaranteed to make you reconsider your life choices.

But they’re not stopping with the world’s richest troll. CCDH is also pushing for new regulations that would make Europe’s draconian Digital Services Act and the UK’s paternalistic Online Safety Act look like child’s play. Under these laws, an “independent digital regulator” (read: Orwellian overlord) would have the power to decide what counts as “harmful content” and hand out penalties to any platform that steps out of line. Nothing says “freedom” like letting bureaucrats decide what’s dangerous for you to read.

The Lobbying Blitz: CCDH’s Capitol Hill Campaign

Naturally, CCDH hasn’t come to the US to play nice. With Labour Together and McSweeney’s as their comrades in censorship, they’ve launched an all-out lobbying blitz on Capitol Hill. Their shiny new toy? The STAR framework is a friendly-sounding acronym that would essentially give them the ability to enforce platform censorship through government regulation. Because if you can’t silence your enemies with social media bans, why not use Congress as your personal speech police?

And don’t think for a second they’re not riding the wave of the latest moral panic. Following the riots that were oh-so-conveniently blamed on disinformation (because personal responsibility is so last century), CCDH and its allies are positioning themselves as the solution to America’s pesky free speech problem. In fact, across the Atlantic, under the would-be Prime Minister Keir Starmer, UK regulators are already sharpening their knives, threatening severe actions against any platform that refuses to fall in line with their censorship demands. You can almost hear them sharpening the guillotine from here.

Of course, all of this is framed under the noble guise of “safety.” We’ve heard it before: “We’re just trying to protect people from harm.” But when you peel back the layers of sanctimonious rhetoric, what you’re left with is a cold, calculated effort to control the narrative. If it’s not coming from the approved sources, it’s dangerous. If it challenges the establishment, it’s misinformation. And if you don’t fall in line? Well, they’ve got a regulation for that.

The Real Endgame: Speech Control

Let’s not pretend this is about safety, though. This is about power. CCDH’s push for stricter regulations, under the guise of protecting the public from harmful content, is nothing more than a naked attempt to control the flow of information. They’ve already tried it in the UK, and now they’re bringing their act to the US, hoping to use government muscle to do what public pressure alone couldn’t.

And the implications are staggering. If groups like CCDH succeed in shaping US regulations to mirror the Digital Services Act or the Online Safety Act, we’re looking at a future where platforms are forced to police speech in real-time, handing over the power to determine what’s “acceptable” to an unelected body of bureaucrats and activists. It’s not about misinformation—it’s about control. And once they’ve got that control, you can bet they won’t give it up easily.

At the end of the day, the CCDH and its allies are playing a long game. They don’t just want to silence a few Substack writers or take away Elon Musk’s ad revenue—they want to reshape the entire landscape of online discourse.

So next time you see CCDH and their cohorts talking about the dangers of misinformation and harmful content, remember: It’s not about safety. It’s about control. Because in the digital age, whoever controls the narrative controls everything.

Read the full report here.

If you’re tired of censorship and surveillance, subscribe to Reclaim The Net.

Related Topics:#ElonMusk #ReclaimTheNet CCDHTargetingX CenterForCounteringDigitalHate ChristinaMaas KillMusk'sTwitter MorganMcSweeney

Up Next

ISIS and its violent Central Asian chapter are threatening Canada and the West with jihad. Hussain Ehsani for Inside Policy

Don't Miss

Jagmeet Singh’s mythematical numbers

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Carney’s pipeline deal hits a wall in B.C.

Business / 4 hours ago

Is Carney Falling Into The Same Fiscal Traps As Trudeau?

Business / 4 hours ago

Carney government should privatize airports—then open airline industry to competition

Business

Is Carney Falling Into The Same Fiscal Traps As Trudeau?

Published on December 3, 2025

Todayville

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Jay Goldberg

Rosy projections, chronic deficits, and opaque budgeting. If nothing changes, Carney’s credibility could collapse under the same weight.

Carney promised a fresh start. His budget makes it look like we’re still stuck with the same old Trudeau playbook

It turns out the Trudeau government really did look at Canada’s economy through rose-coloured glasses. Is the Carney government falling into the same pattern?

New research from the Frontier Centre for Public Policy shows that federal budgets during the Trudeau years “consistently overestimated [Canada’s] fiscal health” when it came to forecasting the state of the nation’s economy and finances over the long term.

In his research, policy analyst Conrad Eder finds that, when looking specifically at projections of where the economy would be four years out, Trudeau-era budgets tended to have forecast errors of four per cent of nominal GDP, or an average of $94.4 billion.

Because budgets were so much more optimistic about long-term growth, they consistently projected that government revenue would grow at a much faster pace. The Trudeau government then made spending commitments, assuming the money would be there. And when the forecasts did not keep up, deficits simply grew.

As Eder writes, “these dramatic discrepancies illustrate how the Trudeau government’s longer-term projections consistently underestimated the persistence of fiscal challenges and overestimated its ability to improve the budgetary balance.”

Eder concludes that politics came into play and influenced how the Trudeau government framed its forecasts. Rather than focusing on the long-term health of Canada’s finances, the Trudeau government was focused on politics. But presenting overly optimistic forecasts has long-term consequences.

“When official projections consistently deviate from actual outcomes, they obscure the scope of deficits, inhibit effective fiscal planning, and mislead policymakers and the public,” Eder writes.

“This disconnect between projected and actual fiscal outcomes undermines the reliability of long-term planning tools and erodes public confidence in the government’s fiscal management.”

The public’s confidence in the Trudeau government’s fiscal management was so low, in fact, that by the end of 2024 the Liberals were polling in the high teens, behind the NDP.

The key to the Liberal Party’s electoral survival became twofold: the “elbows up” rhetoric in response to the Trump administration’s tariffs, and the choice of a new leader who seemed to have significant credibility and was disconnected from the fiscal blunders of the Trudeau years.

Mark Carney was recruited to run for the Liberal leadership as the antidote to Trudeau. His résumé as governor of the Bank of Canada during the Great Recession and his subsequent years leading the Bank of England seemed to offer Canadians the opposite of the fiscal inexperience of the Trudeau years.

These two factors together helped turn around the Liberals’ fortunes and secured the party a fourth straight mandate in April’s elections.

But now Carney has presented a budget of his own, and it too spills a lot of red ink.

This year’s deficit is projected to be a stunning $78.3 billion, and the federal deficit is expected to stay over $50 billion for at least the next four years.

The fiscal picture presented by Finance Minister François-Philippe Champagne was a bleak one.

What remains to be seen is whether the chronic politicking over long-term forecasts that plagued the Trudeau government will continue to be a feature of the Carney regime.

As bad as the deficit figures look now, one has to wonder, given Eder’s research, whether the state of Canada’s finances is even worse than Champagne’s budget lets on.

As Eder says, years of rose-coloured budgeting undermined public trust and misled both policymakers and voters. The question now is whether this approach to the federal budget continues under Carney at the helm.

Budget 2025 significantly revises the economic growth projections found in the 2024 fall economic statement for both 2025 and 2026. However, the forecasts for 2027, 2028 and 2029 were left largely unchanged.

If Eder is right, and the Liberals are overly optimistic when it comes to four-year forecasts, then the 2025 budget should worry Canadians. Why? Because the Carney government did not change the Trudeau government’s 2029 economic projections by even a fraction of a per cent.

In other words, despite the gloomy fiscal numbers found in Budget 2025, the Carney government may still be wearing the same rose-coloured budgeting glasses as the Trudeau government did, at least when it comes to long-range fiscal planning.

If the Carney government wants to have more credibility than the Trudeau government over the long term, it needs to be more transparent about how long-term economic projections are made and be clear about whether the Finance Department’s approach to forecasting has changed with the government. Otherwise, Carney’s fiscal credibility, despite his résumé, may meet the same fate as Trudeau’s.

Jay Goldberg is a fellow with the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.

Business

Carney government should privatize airports—then open airline industry to competition

Published on December 3, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Alex Whalen and Jake Fuss

This holiday season, many Canadians will fly to spend time to with family and friends. But air travellers in Canada consistently report frustration with service, cost and choice. In its recent budget, the Carney government announced it will consider “options for the privatization of airports.” What does this mean for Canadians?

Up until the 1990s, the federal government served as both the owner and operator of Canada’s major airports. The Chrétien government partially privatized and transferred the operation of major airports to not-for-profit airport authorities, while the federal government remained the owner of the land. Since then, the federal government has effectively been the landlord for Canada’s airports, collecting rent each year from the not-for-profit operating authorities.

What would full privatization of airports look like?

If the government allows private for-profit businesses to own Canada’s major airports, their incentives would be to operate as efficiently as possible, serve customers and generate profits. Currently, there’s little incentive to compete as the operating authorities are largely unaccountable because they only report to government officials in a limited form, rather than reporting directly to shareholders as they would under privatization. Private for-profit airports exist in many other countries, and research has shown they are often less costly for passengers and more innovative.

Yet, privatization of airports should be only the first step in a broader package of reforms to improve air travel in Canada. The federal government should also open up competition by creating the conditions for new airports, new airlines and new investment. Currently, Canada restricts foreign ownership of Canadian airlines, while also restricting foreign airlines from flying within Canada. Consequently, Canadians are left with little choice when booking air travel. Opening up the industry by reversing these policies would force incumbent airlines to compete with a greater number of airlines, generating greater choice and likely lower costs for consumers.

Moreover, the federal government should reduce the taxes and fees on air travel that contribute to the cost of airline tickets. Indeed, according to our recent research, among peer countries, Canada has among the most expensive air travel taxes and fees. These costs get passed on to consumers, so it’s no surprise that Canada consistently ranks as a very expensive country for air travel.

If the Carney government actually privatizes Canada’s airports, this would be a good first step to introducing greater competition in an industry where it’s badly needed. But to truly deliver for Canadians, the government must go much further and overhaul the numerous policies, taxes and fees that limit competition and drive up costs.