New Zealand's Very Expensive Military Gamble

There is a particular kind of recklessness that masquerades as strategic vision. It does not announce itself as folly. It arrives dressed in the language of security partnerships, capability upgrades, and alliance obligations, and it is precisely this brand of recklessness that now defines the Luxon government's approach to New Zealand's military procurement.

The National-led coalition has committed approximately NZ$2.7 billion to the purchase of five Sikorsky Seahawk helicopters and associated military assets from the United States.

In August 2025, RNZ reported:

Watch: Judith Collins and Winston Peters reveal new $2.7b planes and helicopters

The purchases are the first that were forecast in the Defence Capability Plan unveiled in April, setting out an expected $12b in spending on defence assets over four years, $9b of that being new money.

The plan overall lifts New Zealand's defence spending to more than 2 percent of GDP over the next eight years.

There is a fundamental and largely unexamined question concerning these significant military acquisitions: what precisely does New Zealand receive in return for spending billions of dollars on American hardware, from an administration that has demonstrably withheld already-purchased, already-paid-for weapons from other allied nations the moment it suited Washington's political interests?

The answer, on current evidence, is very little. When the Trump administration ordered a freeze on military transfers, the consequences were not merely theoretical. Weapons already loaded onto trucks in Poland for onward delivery to Ukraine were stood down. Ammunition purchased using funds specifically appropriated by Congress for the purpose was simply not delivered.

Countries that had paid in good faith were left without the equipment they had contracted for and were offered no refund. These were not adversaries. They were partners, customers, and in several cases treaty allies who had done everything Washington asked of them.

New Zealand confirmed through MFAT that it had zero input into the Trump administration's Foreign Arms Sales Task Force priority partner list and did not even know whether it appeared on it. That the directive came with not only incentives but obligations: priority partners were expected to share production costs more substantially. New Zealand was apparently expected to pay more, without being consulted about whether it was considered a priority partner at all.

In April 2025, RNZ reported:

Officials don't know if NZ is on US priority weapons trading partners list

The NZ Defence Force is competing to get arms under its new $12 billion Defence Capability Plan in a world market where military spending is surging.

The NZDF talked with US lawmakers in April about potential opportunities to buy from the US, Official Information Act papers showed.

A foreign arms sales taskforce newly set up by Trump said it sought international input before launching its first six initiatives last month, including new legislation aimed to help lower the barriers that limit the proliferation of high-tech arms.

MFAT said: "New Zealand has not had any input into the taskforce."

 

That situation has since worsened. In February 2026, Trump signed a new executive order formally establishing an America First Arms Transfer Strategy, directing the Secretaries of Defense and State to develop clear priority partner criteria within 90 days and produce a prioritised sales catalogue within 120 days.

The order makes explicit that countries investing more heavily in their own defence and occupying a critical geographic role in US strategic plans will receive preferential treatment.

Despite increasing the military budget to 2% of GDP by 2032/33, as requested by the Trump administration, New Zealand has still received no public confirmation that it appears on that list. 

Official papers meanwhile show that 60 percent of the NZ Defence Force's $6 billion in arms currently on order is sourced from the United States. New Zealand has committed billions to a supplier whose formal priority framework it had no input into, whose criteria it may not meet, and whose list it may not even appear on.

This is the arrangement the Luxon government has chosen to deepen, at a cost of billions of dollars, during a period in which the geopolitical reliability of the United States as a supplier has been placed in serious and documented doubt. The pattern is not obscure. It is structural. American arms transfers have been converted from security commitments into instruments of political leverage, withheld when recipients pursue independent foreign policies, dangled when compliance is required, and apparently non-refundable in either case.

Meanwhile, the broader context in which New Zealand is making these procurement decisions has shifted considerably. The United States and Israel have conducted military operations across at least six countries in the past year, including strikes inside Qatar, a US Major Non-NATO Ally hosting the largest American air base in the region, without Doha's consent and with Qatar notified so late that it had no practical opportunity to prevent the attack.

The lesson for smaller allied nations is stark: allied status under the current Washington-Tel Aviv axis confers no guaranteed protection, and may offer no recourse whatsoever if the political winds change.

Against this backdrop, Winston Peters signed New Zealand's name to a joint statement expressing readiness to contribute to military efforts in the Strait of Hormuz, a strait closed in direct response to an American-led war launched without UN authorisation, and then spent the following week insisting the commitment meant nothing of the sort.

A functioning foreign minister cannot sign a document on a Friday and disclaim its meaning on a Tuesday. The commitment was made when New Zealand's name appeared on the paper.

What the Luxon government has managed, with impressive efficiency, is to spend billions locking New Zealand into military dependency on a supplier that does not consider us a priority, to sign documents attaching us to a war we had no hand in starting, and to do all of this without extracting a single meaningful concession in return. Not a tariff exemption. Not any guarantee of equipment delivery. Not a formal security guarantee. Not even confirmation that our name appears on the correct list.

Deference to Washington, as former Prime Minister Helen Clark and others have noted plainly, is not only distasteful. It is not working. And two and a half billion dollars' worth of helicopters, purchased from a government that views arms transfers as political bargaining chips, does not constitute a defence policy. It constitutes a very expensive gamble on the continued goodwill of an administration that has shown, repeatedly and in writing, that it does not feel especially obligated to honour its side of the arrangement.

New Zealand deserves better than that. It is not clear that this government has even noticed.

New Zealand Signs Up for Trump's War of Aggression

In a move that can only be described as complicity in an illegal war, the Luxon government has added New Zealand's name to a joint statement calling on Iran to cease its closure of the Strait of Hormuz and declaring the signatories ready "to contribute to appropriate efforts to ensure safe passage through the Strait."

The language sounds measured, even bureaucratic. It is neither. Examined carefully, the statement represents a significant departure from this country's independent foreign policy tradition, and it was made in the service of a war New Zealand had no hand in starting and no business joining.

The context is not complicated, whatever the government's communications staff might prefer. 

On 28 February 2026, the United States and Israel launched coordinated airstrikes on Iran, killing the Supreme Leader and targeting nuclear sites, civilian and military installations. Iran responded by returning fire and closing the Strait of Hormuz, through which approximately twenty percent of the world's seaborne oil normally passes. The US then launched a military and propaganda campaign to reopen the strait. New Zealand signed a statement expressing its willingness to assist with that effort. The causal chain here is not ambiguous.

What, precisely, did Luxon commit the country to? The joint statement expresses a readiness to contribute to "appropriate efforts," which is language deliberately vague enough to mean almost anything while binding the signatories to a political position that is entirely clear. Within days, NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte was telling Fox News that the signatory countries were working to "implement President Trump's vision" of reopening the strait. Rutte named New Zealand explicitly, alongside Australia, Japan, South Korea, the UAE and the NATO alliance itself.

On Tuesday, the ODT reported:

Peters denies NZ has signed up to secure Strait of Hormuz

Over the weekend, the government joined 19 other countries in condemning Iranian attacks on commercial ships in the Gulf.

In a collective statement, the countries including the United Kingdom and Germany, expressed "deep concern" about the escalating conflict. The statement also expressed its signatories would be ready "to contribute to appropriate efforts to ensure safe passage through the Strait".

They called on Iran to immediately cease threats, laying mines, drone and missile attacks and other attempts to block commercial vessels from travelling through the Strait of Hormuz.

Winston Peters, cornered, insisted that Rutte had "probably been misinformed" and that the statement was "specifically narrow." Christopher Luxon attempted to clarify that any actual contribution would still require Cabinet approval. These reassurances collapse under scrutiny. A foreign minister cannot sign a document on behalf of his country and then disclaim what the document's chief proponent says it means.

The statement exists. New Zealand's name is on it. The framing of the exercise, as Donald Trump's vision being collectively implemented, was provided by the Secretary-General of NATO.

The legal position deserves examination. New Zealand's participation in any military operation would ordinarily require a United Nations mandate. No such mandate exists here. Labour leader Chris Hipkins was correct to note this plainly in Parliament, observing that the commitment was broad and that any support should follow a UN mandate that has not been sought. The UN Secretary-General called for the strait to be opened through multilateral means. The US-led operation is proceeding without that multilateral foundation. New Zealand's statement of readiness to contribute aligns the country with an unlawful, unilateral military enterprise, dressed in the language of freedom of navigation.

This is where Five Eyes becomes relevant. New Zealand's intelligence-sharing obligations under that arrangement have long created an asymmetry in this country's capacity for genuine foreign policy independence. When our signals intelligence apparatus is woven into a shared network dominated by Washington, "independence" in practice often means independence on issues Washington does not care about. The Hormuz crisis is an issue Washington cares very much about. The pressure on Five Eyes partners to close ranks is structural, not merely diplomatic.

The government's preferred framing is that New Zealand's concern is purely economic: fuel security, supply chains, cost of living. These are real concerns, and the closure of the strait has caused genuine hardship. But the remedy for an energy crisis created by a war that the United States started is not to join that war. New Zealand's fuel vulnerability is not Iran's doing. It is the consequence of the US-Israeli strikes, launched without New Zealand's knowledge or consent, in the name of a strategic agenda this country has never endorsed.

 

There is a direct line from Luxon's signature on that joint statement to the Trump administration's campaign to reshape the Middle East by force. The government wants to describe that line as dotted, provisional, not yet fully binding, like a contract initialled but not yet executed, subject to Cabinet review before anything concrete follows. It is not dotted. Signing a joint statement alongside a number of other allied countries, which was then cited by the NATO Secretary-General as evidence of collective support for Trump's strategic "vision" isn't provisional in any meaningful political sense.

The commitment was made the moment New Zealand's name appeared on the document. Cabinet approval for any subsequent military deployment is a domestic procedural step, but it does not undo the political signal already sent to Washington, NATO, and Tehran. That signal is one of solidarity with a military operation that lacks UN authorisation, serves American and Israel's strategic interests only, and has already cost thousands of innocent lives. New Zealand should not be on that list, and the government has not yet honestly explained to the public why it chose to put us there.

It is little wonder, then, that faced with mounting domestic criticism, Peters moved to try and distance himself from the implications of what he had already signed. A foreign minister who endorses a collective statement of military readiness on a Friday and spends the following Tuesday insisting it means nothing of the sort has not changed the country's position. He has merely changed his description of the government's support for an illegal war.

Also on Tuesday, RNZ reported:

Winston Peters says New Zealand not 'rushing to contribute military forces to this conflict'

The Foreign Minister says people shouldn't be alarmed that "somehow we're going to be engaged in some military exercise" following statements by the head of NATO including New Zealand as one of 22 countries "coming together" to secure the Strait of Hormuz.

It comes as Labour raises concerns about the "broad nature" of a joint statement New Zealand was part of over the weekend, and what the commitment may open the country up to.

Winston Peters said there had been "scaremongering" from critics who say the government is "rushing to contribute military forces to this conflict".

"What absolute crap, what absolute nonsense - New Zealand is not a party to this conflict, and we have absolutely no intention of joining it," he said at Parliament on Tuesday. 

  

What we are witnessing is the collision of three failures of political character. Donald Trump, having launched an illegal war of aggression against a sovereign state without UN authorisation, is now leaning on smaller allies to launder his campaign as a collective enterprise. Benjamin Netanyahu, whose government has conducted an extensive project of regional destruction, has found in Trump an accomplice willing to undertake what previous administrations would not start. And here in Wellington, Luxon and Peters have obliged them both, attaching New Zealand's name to their unjustifiable war of aggression and then, when challenged, pretending they had done no such thing.

Peters' assurance that New Zealand has "absolutely no intention" of joining the conflict would carry more weight if he had not already signed a document expressing readiness to do exactly that. These are not statesmen navigating a crisis. They are politicians managing a communications problem, while the bodies mount and the fires burn, and New Zealand's good name is spent in the service of an empire that does not particularly care about our country at all.

Trump's War Machine Is Picking Your Pocket

Trump Cheerleader - Greg Swenson

There's a particular kind of audacity required to sit before a global television audience, as the bombs are still falling and the Strait of Hormuz chokes on geopolitical recklessness, and declare that the American economy has never been in better shape.

That audacity belongs to Greg Swenson, founding partner of London-based merchant bank Brigg Macadam, Chairman of Republicans Overseas UK, and reliably one of the most polished purveyors of pro-Trump economic cheerleading available to international broadcasters.

Appearing on Al Jazeera's Counting the Cost, Swenson offered the full bouquet of administration talking points: GDP is growing, jobs are being created, America is a net oil exporter, and therefore the economic consequences of this catastrophic, unprovoked war of aggression against Iran are, essentially, nothing to worry about. Each of these claims deserves scrutiny, because each of them, on examination, is either wrong, misleading, or a deliberate half-truth designed to paper over a steadily worsening reality.

On 18 March, Al Jazeera reported:

Could the Iran war trigger a global recession?

Energy prices are surging as the Iran war disrupts supply, raising risks for the US, China and Europe.

All eyes are on the Strait of Hormuz.

The longer it remains closed, the greater the damage to the global economy.

Iran continues to block tankers from shipping close to 20 percent of the world’s oil supply.

That is roughly twice the disruption the world suffered during the energy shock of the 1970s.

Big oil shocks have historically led to considerable economic turmoil, high inflation, stagnation and recession.

Oil and gas prices are already surging, and economies are expected to slow.

On GDP, Swenson was almost certainly citing the Q3 2025's headline-grabbing 4.4% annualised growth figure, conveniently neglecting to mention that Q4 2025 came in at a feeble 0.7%, the weakest quarter in over a year. That weakness was partly a consequence of the administration's own government shutdown, which the Bureau of Economic Analysis estimates subtracted a full percentage point from growth. Full-year 2025 GDP expansion of 2.1% represents a decline from 2.8% in 2024. This is not a story of economic momentum. It is a story of deceleration dressed up as dynamism.

On jobs, the situation is, frankly, scandalous. The Bureau of Labor Statistics initially reported 584,000 jobs added across 2025, already a modest figure. After receiving complete state-level data, that number was revised down to just 181,000 for the entire year. That is the weakest non-recessionary performance since 2003. It represents a collapse from 1.46 million jobs in 2024, and it sits alongside the second-largest negative payroll revision on record.

Federal employment alone has shed 327,000 positions since January 2025, largely due to the administration's own mass redundancy programme. Economists have taken to calling this a "jobless expansion." When a banker on television tells you more jobs are being created, you might reasonably ask: compared to what?

The net oil exporter claim is perhaps the most cynically constructed of the three. PolitiFact rates this assertion "Half True": the US exports more petroleum products than it imports in aggregate, but it remains a net importer of crude oil, taking in 6.2 million barrels a day whilst exporting barely 4 million.

The refinery mismatch, namely US infrastructure built over decades to process heavier Middle Eastern crude, means that regardless of domestic production volumes, American consumers are paying at the pump for the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. Gas prices have already risen by nearly a dollar per gallon, reaching a national average of $3.88. Only 27% of Americans approve of Trump's handling of fuel costs. The "net exporter" talking point isn't an economic argument. It is a confidence trick.

Swenson is not alone in this enterprise. Senator Lindsey Graham appeared on Fox News to describe Trump's illegal war as "a good investment," adding that once "this regime goes down, we're gonna make a ton of money." This is the authentic voice of American imperial economics: war as commercial opportunity, body counts as market conditions. It should chill any observer with a functioning moral compass.

And then there is the profiteering. Verified reporting from the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, and Responsible Statecraft confirms that Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump are actively investing in Powerus, a Florida drone company positioned to capitalise on the Pentagon's sudden, urgent demand for drone technology, demand created directly by their father's war. In 2025, Trump Jr.-backed companies received hundreds of millions in Defence Department contracts.

On March 10, The New Republic reported:

Trump Sons Back New Drone Company Amid Iran War

Eric Trump and Donald Trump Jr. have found another avenue to make money off their father’s presidency.

President Trump’s sons are trying to sell drones to the Pentagon.

 ...

Powerus wants to build more than 10,000 drones a month. 

The Trump-backed investment firm American Ventures, the Trump-backed investment bank Dominari Securities, and drone parts maker Unusual Machines, the latter of which Trump Jr. is a shareholder and advisory board member of, are involved in the public merger. Eric Trump is also invested in Israeli drone maker Xtend. 

Jared Kushner's private equity firm Affinity Partners, meanwhile, receives $25 million annually from Saudi Arabia's sovereign wealth fund, the same Saudi government that, according to the Washington Post, actively lobbied Trump to attack Iran. The conflicts of interest are not subtle. They are structural.

The media's role in all of this deserves its own reckoning. Coverage of the Strait of Hormuz closure in much of the Western press has been framed primarily as an Iranian aggression problem, a crisis to be managed, rather than the foreseeable and widely forecast consequence of an unprovoked military attack launched without congressional authorisation, without an imminent threat to the United States, and without a coherent post-conflict plan.

Multiple Pentagon officials have confirmed to CNN that the administration underestimated Iran's willingness to close the strait. Pete Hegseth's response was not to acknowledge that failure. It was to berate journalists for reporting it, and to speculate openly about the day CNN would fall under the editorial control of a Trump family ally.

On March 14, Rueters reported:

 

Pentagon chief says he's eager for Trump ally to buy CNN as he blasts war coverage

Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth on Friday said he was ​eager to see Trump ally and Paramount Skydance, CEO David Ellison, take over CNN, as he criticized ‌the U.S. news media's coverage of the Iran war.

"The sooner David Ellison takes over that network, the better," said Hegseth, a former Fox News show host and combat veteran, referring to Paramount's $110 billion deal to acquire CNN-parent Warner Bros.

This determination to suppress inconvenient truth rather than confront it runs as a thread through everything the administration does. Whether it is doctoring economic statistics, dismissing independent analysis, silencing military advisors who question the war's strategic logic, or threatening the institutional independence of broadcasters who report accurately on its consequences, the Trump administration has demonstrated a consistent and deliberate commitment to managing perception over managing reality.

The American public is being asked to trust an administration that punishes honesty, rewards loyalty over competence, and has measurable financial interests in prolonging a conflict it launched without legal authority, without a credible threat to justify it, and without the faintest outline of an exit strategy. That the bombs keep falling while the approval numbers keep sliding appears, to those in the White House, to be just a communications problem.

Then there's the sanctions debacle. Three weeks into the conflict, the Treasury Department quietly lifted sanctions on 140 million barrels of Iranian crude oil at sea, freeing it for purchase by American allies. The United States is now actively generating revenue for the government it is simultaneously bombing. Senator Richard Blumenthal called it "sickeningly, shamefully stupid," and critics across the political spectrum have noted that Trump spent years denouncing Obama for returning $1.7 billion of Iran's frozen funds, and is now handing Tehran up to ten times that amount.

This isn't a strategy. It is the behaviour of an administration stumbling through a war it had no plan to win, launched at least in part to drown out a far more uncomfortable story: the partially released Epstein files, from which the DOJ illegally withheld documents directly implicating Trump in abuse allegations, and which vanished almost entirely from news reports and public discourse the moment the first bombs started to fall.

Trump's overall approval rating tells its own story, though the picture is more nuanced than a single number suggests. Depending on the pollster, his approval sits somewhere between 35% and 42%, with the most comprehensive rolling tracker, Civiqs, recording 39% approval against 57% disapproval across nearly 93,000 registered voters surveyed through to March 19, 2026. Nate Silver's Silver Bulletin aggregator puts his net approval at -15.3, a new second-term low, and three points worse than at the same stage of his first term. The Economist/YouGov survey has 56% of Americans strongly disapproving. Just 27% approve of his handling of fuel costs.

Internationally, the picture is bleaker still. Gallup's survey across 135 countries puts median approval of US leadership at just 33%. Pew Research, polling across 24 nations, found that 62% of people worldwide lack confidence in Trump, with his ratings trailing Joe Biden's by an average of twelve percentage points across those same countries. In Germany, confidence in Trump sits at just 12%. In Mexico, a mere 6%. The man who promised to make America great again has made it, by most global measures, less trusted, less liked, and less respected than it was under the predecessor he never stops attacking. He dismisses all of it: "I don't care about polling. I have to do the right thing."

The "right thing," it seems, has already cost Americans more than $11.3 billion in the first six days, with the conflict now burning through over a billion dollars a day. The Pentagon has subsequently requested a further $200 billion in supplemental funding from Congress, a sum four times larger than originally signalled. When asked to justify the figure, Hegseth's response was, "Obviously, it takes money to kill bad guys." He added that the number might increase, oblivious to the reality that all the United States is currently doing is killing civilians and the world's economy.

At the current rate of spending, that $200 billion would fund the war for just another 100 to 200 days. To put that in perspective, the entire annual US investment in global health, which funds HIV treatment for 25 million people and has saved an estimated 65 million lives since 2002, amounts to $12.4 billion, meaning the $200 billion war chest equals roughly 16 years of US global health spending, all to be consumed in under a year. News agencies are conspicuously silent about what this all means for the United States' already unmanageable $39 trillion of government debt. Meanwhile, tariffs have raised the average American household's costs by $1,500, pushed inflation well above where it would otherwise sit, and handed the Trump family's investment portfolio a timely and lucrative shot in the arm.

Greg Swenson sat before a global audience and called this a success story. It is not. It is a protection racket, and the American public is the one being protected from the truth.

Rocket Lab Fuelled by Broken Promises

There is a particular kind of dishonesty that is dressed up in the language of innovation and national pride. It does not arrive as an outright lie. It arrives as a vision, a story, a community hui at the local marae, a selfie with the Wairoa Lions Club. It arrives as a promise. And then, quietly, expensively, and with considerable personal enrichment, it is broken.

That is the story of Rocket Lab, "Sir" Peter Beck, and the people of Mahia Peninsula.

When Rocket Lab first arrived on the East Coast of the North Island and sought the consent of local Iwi and hapu to launch rockets from their whenua, Beck was unambiguous about what his company would and would not do.

In an early interview, he stated plainly: "Certainly if it involves something that's going to harm people then we're not really interested at all... certainly we don't want to be involved with any kind of missile programmes or anything to do with armaments."

 He added, simply: "No. No weapons."

Sonya Smith of Ngati Rakaipaaka hapu, whose people were among those assured of Rocket Lab's peaceful intentions, has been equally plain about how that promise has played out. "We were sold a bit of a story," she told RNZ. "It talked about satellite launches that supported environmental outcomes and safety outcomes and that's not really how it's played out."

Billboards went up around Mahia: "No military payloads. Haere Atu, Rocket Lab." The company did not respond when RNZ asked whether it had broken its promise to the community. That silence speaks volumes.

It should now be abundantly clear to any New Zealander paying attention that Peter Beck looked concerned Maori in the eye and told them what they needed to hear. A third of all payloads launched by Rocket Lab have since been for the United States military or affiliated agencies. The company now holds over US$1.3 billion in contracts with the US Space Development Agency alone, building missile tracking satellites explicitly designed, in the Pentagon's own words, to "significantly increase the coverage and accuracy needed to close kill chains."

Kill chains. That is the clinical euphemism the American military uses for finding people and killing them.

Which brings us to the present moment. The United States and Israel are conducting military operations against Iran. One of those attacks involved a US strike which destroyed the Shajareh Tayyebeh girls' elementary school in Minab, Hormozgan province, killing between 175 and 180 people, most of them children. Investigations by The New York Times, BBC Verify, and the NPR and CBC concluded the United States was most likely responsible. Amnesty International has called for accountability. The United States has offered none.

 

Last week, The Guardian reported:

 

US responsible for deadly missile strike on Iran school, preliminary inquiry says

Strike that killed at least 175 people, most of them children, reportedly due to targeting mistake by US military planners

A preliminary US military investigation has reportedly determined that Washington was responsible for a deadly Tomahawk missile strike on an Iranian elementary school in February that killed scores of children.

According to the New York Times, quoting unnamed US officials and others familiar with the initial findings, the investigation has concluded that the strike on 28 February on the Shajarah Tayyebeh elementary school building was the result of a targeting mistake by the US military planners.

Iranian officials had put put death toll from the attack as at least 175 people, the majority of them children, in one of the worst and most shocking American strikes producing civilian fatalities in recent memory. 

 

Rocket Lab is building the targeting and communications architecture of the same military that just bombed a school full of young girls.

When asked directly whether any payloads it had launched were being used in the Iran conflict, Rocket Lab's Vice President of Marketing and Communications, Morgan Connaughton, said responsibility for how satellites are used rests with the satellite owner. This is the statement of a corporation that has laundered its conscience.

New Zealand has no strategic interest in this illegal war. The United States and Israel have struck Iranian oil and gas infrastructure, strikes that will send petrol prices upward here at home, that threaten regional stability, and that put this country in an invidious position as a close intelligence partner of the United States through the Five Eyes arrangement. The United States and Israel's unlawful attacks are putting New Zealanders and our offshore investments at risk.

Rocket Lab's deep integration with the American military-industrial complex isn't a matter of abstract ethics. It is a concrete conflict of interest for this country's foreign policy and our standing in the Pacific.

Peter Beck cannot be trusted. He told Maori communities one thing and did the exact opposite. He built a company on a promise of peaceful science and turned it into a weapons contractor that helps rogue states indiscriminately target innocent civilians. He accepted a knighthood and a Nasdaq listing while the infrastructure he is building helps guide the most powerful military on earth, the same military that bombed a primary school, murdering hundreds of school girls.

The people of Māhia Peninsula deserved better. New Zealand deserves better. And the schoolchildren of Minab deserved to grow up.

The Dumbest War in Living Memory

There are wars fought for survival. There are wars fought for resources. There are wars fought, however misguidedly, for ideology. And then there is Donald Trump's illegal war against Iran, a war so bereft of coherent justification, so naked in its opportunism, and so catastrophic in its execution that future historians will struggle to find a category in which to place it. The dumbest war in living memory has found its author, and he is currently sitting in the most powerful position, explaining that he knows nothing about a bombed school or a destroyed desalination plant, and that Iranians are in any case, according to him, "among the most evil people ever on earth."

Let us dispense, first, with the pretexts.

This is not a war for security. The Arms Control Association has noted plainly that such a war of choice against Iran, without congressional approval, violates the Constitution and the 1973 War Powers Act, as well as Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which prohibits the threat or use of force in international relations. Iran was, by all credible accounts, still engaged in diplomatic talks on the very day the US and Israel missiles began to fall on civilian targets.

IAEA Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi said on 2 March 2026 that the agency had found no evidence of "a structured program to manufacture nuclear weapons" in Iran, and when asked directly whether Iran was "days or weeks away from building a bomb," his response was simply "no." Iran was still engaging in reportedly productive diplomatic talks over its nuclear program the day before the United States unleashed its weaponry. Security was never the point. If it were, you do not blow up the table at which the other party is prepared to sit.

This is not a war for oil, at least not in the way that cynics once imagined. American and Israeli strikes have, for the first time, targeted oil storage and refining facilities in Tehran. You do not secure a resource by incinerating it. What you do achieve, however, is a surge in global oil prices that enriches investors (including Trumps family members) and producers elsewhere, rattles markets, and inflicts immediate pain upon ordinary consumers, including New Zealanders whose import-dependent economy has absolutely no insulation from such shocks.

This is not a war to free the Iranian people either. The liberation narrative has long served as the humanitarian mask of American imperialism, and it fits no better here than it did in Iraq. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi confirmed that the United States attacked a freshwater desalination plant on Qeshm Island, with water supply to thirty villages impacted. You do not liberate a population by destroying the infrastructure upon which their survival depends. The Geneva Conventions are unambiguous: targeting facilities indispensable to civilian survival constitutes a war crime.

When Trump was asked about the desalination plant, he offered this remarkably incoherent response: "I know nothing about a desalinisation plant, other than to say, if they're complaining about..." He then trailed off into fresh denunciations of October 7, conflating Iran and Hamas as though the distinction were a bureaucratic inconvenience rather than a basic fact.

Bombing schoolchildren does not liberate them. Bombing desalination plants does not free people. It starves them, and it breeds a generation for whom the word "America" will forever cause resentment and anger across the entire world.

What this war actually is becomes clearer the more one examines the timeline. Whenever new material surfaces connecting Trump to the Epstein files, fresh documents, flight logs, or witness testimony implicating powerful men in the sexual abuse and torture of children, the news cycle conveniently fills with explosions. The pattern has become so reliable that it scarcely requires elaboration. A political war, then, fought as distraction. A racist and religious war, in which an entire nation of 90 million people is reduced by its attackers to a single, dehumanised caricature.

Trump has described Iranians as among "the most evil people ever on earth," a statement of breathtaking historical ignorance and moral vacancy from a man who has spent years cultivating relationships with some of the most genuinely evil figures of modern times.

From the moment Operation Epic Fury was launched, Trump's messaging has oscillated between outright fabrication, dealmaking and the wholesale destruction of Iran. He has called on the IRGC to surrender in exchange for immunity. He has asked Iranian diplomats to switch sides. He has declared that the new Supreme Leader will "not last long" without American approval. These are not the utterances of a statesman prosecuting a considered strategy. They are the improvisations of a man who began a war without a plan to end it, and who is now making his endgame up as the west loses allies and the body count climbs.

OMG a reporter confronts Donald Trump about Iran bombed its own elementary school with an American Tomahawk missile ridiciliously 😂🤣😭 pic.twitter.com/k7ld66Xk9W

— Furkan Gözükara (@FurkanGozukara) March 9, 2026

The war is not supported by the American people, and the Trump administration has done and said little to justify its belligerent actions. The varying and contradictory rationales from Trump's useful idiots have only offered the public simple incoherent jargon, and run contrary to available evidence.

New Zealand cannot afford to observe this catastrophe with the polite detachment of a small nation that prefers not to make a fuss. The economic consequences of a destabilised Middle East, surging oil prices, disrupted shipping lanes, and rattled global markets, land here with the same weight as anywhere. But beyond the economic, there is a moral obligation that this country has historically been willing to honour. We have a tradition of independent foreign policy that this moment demands we exercise again. But sadly our current spineless leadership is so vacuous as to appear like they're in support of Trump and Netanyahu's illegal war of annihilation.

Every missile that falls on a school, every village left without clean water, every use of illegal weapons, every civilian death that Trump waves away with a fresh denunciation of people he knows nothing about, each of these is a brick in the wall of resentment that will define how the world regards complicit Western nations for decades to come. History is not made only by those who pull triggers. It is also made by those who stay silent while the triggers are being pulled.

This is the dumbest kind of war: illegal, unjustified, racist, politically motivated, and conducted by a man who cannot name the school or desalination plant he has just ordered destroyed. New Zealand should oppose this war. Our politicians should say so, clearly and without any apology. 

United States Murders 160 Iranian School Girls

In the rubble of the Shajareh Tayyebeh primary school in Minab, southern Iran, during the morning of 28 February, 2026, lay the bodies of more than 165 young school girls and their teachers. Their deaths, delivered by American and Israeli missiles, are not the unfortunate side-effect of conflict. They are the predictable outcome of a reckless, illegal war launched by the Trump regime with the full-throated support of the war-criminal, Benjamin Netanyahu.

 

The official line from Washington is familiar and repulsive. The strikes, we are told, were necessary to neutralise an Iranian nuclear threat. Yet the evidence for any such threat is entirely absent. International inspectors have found no diversion of nuclear material, no weaponisation programme, no credible signs that Tehran was racing toward a bomb. The claim is a fabrication, recycled from the same playbook that justified the catastrophe in Iraq. It serves only to dress up aggression in the language of self-defence.

 

Yesterday, Al Jazeera reported:

Iran holds mass funeral for girls, staff killed in US-Israel school attack

Thousands gather in Minab for a mass funeral, chanting against the US and Israel after the school bombing.

Iran held a mass funeral ceremony for 165 schoolgirls and staff killed on Saturday in what Iran has described as a United States-Israeli attack on a girls’ school in the southern city of Minab.

The Israeli military has claimed it was not aware of any Israeli or US attacks in that area. Throughout its genocidal war on Gaza, Israel has denied multiple deadly attacks on Palestinian civilians, only to later backtrack when irrefutable evidence emerged, then terming such attacks as “accidental”.

What makes the lie particularly grotesque is the precision with which the same forces operate when it suits them. The United States and Israel can target and murder senior Iranian leaders with clinical accuracy. Drones and missiles found their marks without hesitation. Yet when the target was a school full of seven to twelve-year-old girls attending morning classes, suddenly the technology faltered and the deaths were dismissed as an unfortunate accident. The contrast isn't a failure of intelligence; it is a failure of morality.

This latest outrage fits a now-familiar pattern in Donald Trump’s behaviour. Whenever fresh details surface about his longstanding connections to Jeffrey Epstein’s paedophile network, new documents, flight logs, or witness accounts, Trump reaches for the oldest trick in his book: start a war. Domestic scandal looms, public attention must be diverted, and what better way than to pose as the strongman defending civilisation against a manufactured enemy? It is cynical, it is predictable, and it is drenched in the blood of innocents.

WARNING: GRAPHIC CONTENT:
Iranian state media shows crowds mourning in Minab after a strike on a girls’ school killed 150 students. The UN called the attack ‘absolutely horrific’ and urged an investigation https://t.co/SIiplNUFLo pic.twitter.com/kf0JE1HavA

— Reuters (@Reuters) March 3, 2026

Netanyahu bears equal guilt. Dogged by his own political troubles and accusations of war crimes in Gaza, he has long agitated for confrontation with Iran. The two leaders feed off each other’s belligerence, each using the other to shore up domestic support while the bodies of children pile up. Their warmongering is not about security; it is about survival, political survival purchased at the price of the lives of other people’s children.

The economic consequences are already rippling outward and will reach New Zealand shores soon enough. Oil prices have surged on fears of disrupted supply routes. Global stock markets have plunged, erasing billions in value overnight. For an import-dependent economy like ours, the fallout is straightforward: higher fuel costs, rising inflation, squeezed household budgets, and the real risk of a broader slowdown. This is not abstract market volatility. It is the direct, measurable cost of two leaders choosing missiles over diplomacy, something that our current spineless Prime Minister should be condemning without hesitation.

The UN education agency @UNESCO says that the bombing of a primary school during the US and Israeli military attacks on #Iran on Saturday constitutes a grave violation of humanitarian law. https://t.co/fkXfJck0UM pic.twitter.com/tV98qaCMHS

— United Nations Geneva (@UNGeneva) March 2, 2026

The world has seen this horror movie before, and the ending is never noble. Trump and Netanyahu have once again demonstrated that civilian lives, especially those of Muslim girls in a country they have unjustly demonised, count for nothing when weighed against personal political expediency. Their sanctimonious claims of precision and necessity collapse under the weight of dead children.
 

New Zealanders, like people of goodwill everywhere, should recognise this for what it is: naked imperialism dressed up as defence. The slaughter in Minab is not an accident of war. It is the logical result of warmongers who believe they can bomb their way out of trouble at home. Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu have blood on their hands that no amount of spin will wash away. The international community must name this outrage for what it is and refuse to let it pass without consequence.

National’s Austerity Disaster is Plunging NZ into Recession

In the hallowed halls of New Zealand's Parliament, where grand visions are meant to translate into tangible economic relief, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has presided over a year of economic despair that would make even the most stoic Kiwi reach for the smelling salts.

Remember the halcyon days of the 2023 campaign, when Luxon, with the earnest zeal of a corporate retreat facilitator, pledged a "laser focus" on the cost-of-living crisis? "We'll get New Zealand back on track," he intoned, promising tax relief and a booming economy to ease the squeeze on households battered by inflation and stagnant wages.

Fast-forward to September 2025, and that laser focus appears to have been swapped for a funhouse mirror: distorting reality while delivering nothing but hot air. The latest Stats NZ figures paint a grim portrait: gross domestic product plunged 0.9 per cent in the June quarter, a sharper contraction than the paltry 0.3 per cent dip forecast by the Reserve Bank. Annual GDP is down 1.1 per cent, per capita output has nosedived 1.1 per cent, and the economy has now shrunk for three of the last five quarters. This isn't a blip; it's a full-throated recession, broader and deeper than the Global Financial Crisis in per capita terms.

Enter Finance Minister Nicola Willis, ever the loyal deputy, clutching at straws with the veracity of a rabid pit bull. In the wake of the June quarter's dismal data, having worn out National's usual blame Labour spin, she pinned the blame squarely on Donald Trump's tariffs, decrying them as the villainous force derailing New Zealand's fragile recovery.

Yesterday, RNZ reported:

Economy contracts sharply as GDP falls 0.9% in June quarter

The economy had a worse than expected slump in the middle of the year as weaker manufacturing, construction, and agriculture activity fell sharply, backing the case for further interest rate cuts.

Stats NZ data shows gross domestic product (GDP) - the broad measure of economic growth - fell 0.9 percent in the three months ended June, to be 1.1 percent lower than a year ago.

Expectations had been for a quarterly contraction of about 0.4 percent, although growth for the previous quarter was revised marginally higher to 0.9 percent.

"GDP has now fallen in three of the last five quarters," Stats NZ spokesperson Jason Attewell said.

Finance Minister Nicola Willis was pinning the blame for the economy's slump on global turmoil and uncertainty driven by the United States' tariff roll-out.

In a statement, she said the US announcement resulted in firms and households putting off spending decisions.

Finance Minister Nicola Willis cried foul, claiming Trump's tariffs "disrupted my momentum" as if U.S. protectionism single-handedly sank New Zealand's economy. But the facts paint a different picture. The 0.9% GDP contraction hit in the April–June 2025 quarter, with economic activity tanking well before the full impact of Trump's "Liberation Day" tariffs, announced on April 2, 2025.

While a 10% tariff on Kiwi exports took effect on April 5, with a hike to 15% delayed until August, the economic sting from these measures lagged, hitting exporters months later. Willis' attempt to pin the blame on Trump is just another dodge, sidestepping the harsh reality that her government's own policies have been the true wrecking ball.

Today, RNZ reported:

Nicola Willis rejects accusations she is doing nothing for a 'tanking' economy

An economist says the finance minister has not been a responsible manager for the country's finances.

But Nicola Willis is shrugging off calls to resign, saying Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has confidence in her and the plan to revive the economy.

And at a media briefing on Friday, Luxon threw his full backing behind Willis to carry on as minister of economic growth.

"I don't think there's a single New Zealander that could do a better job than Nicola Willis," he said.

"Nicola Willis is the best finance minister New Zealand's ever going to have, she's an outstanding person, she's an outstanding person, she's an outstanding finance minister, economic growth minister, she's doing an exceptionally good job in a very tough situation.

"I totally back her. I'm very very proud to call her my friend, I'm very very proud to have her in the role that she is and she's outstanding."

Luxon blamed the dip in the economy in the June quarter on the global situation saying one in four of New Zealand's jobs were tied to trade.

"The good news is that that's in the past, we're growing now, we're projected to grow more strongly going into the next quarter."

Luxon said he had a very short conversation with Willis after the criticisms, telling her she had his full backing and that everything was "full steam ahead".

Willis was the best person to be finance minister and economic growth minister in the country, he said.

"Nicola's done an outstanding job of you know getting our fiscals in shape in terms of that's lead to low inflation, lower interest rates, it's going to get the economy growing, it's going to get people back into employment again which is fantastic, but we also keep talking all the time - what more can we do?"

Luxon called criticisms from former minister Sir Roger Douglas that Willis was not up to the job "absolute rubbish".

Since National slithered into power in late 2023, the coalition's austerity playbook has been as predictable as it is punishing. Public sector redundancies have ballooned to over 10,000 jobs axed, from Health New Zealand's 2,042 cuts (including 500 confirmed redundancies) to the Ministry of Education's 303 fewer full-time equivalents by July 2025. These aren't faceless figures; they're nurses, teachers, and administrators whose departures have hollowed out essential services.

Funding cuts have followed suit: baseline budgets frozen or trimmed across ministries, with the 2025 Budget delivering a $1.1 billion gouge in spending allowances. Add in the repeal of fair pay agreements, the cancelling of 3000 state house builds, the axing of the Clean Car Discount, and a bonfire of infrastructure projects like Wellington's public transport upgrades, and you've got a cocktail of downward pressure that's left the economy sputtering. Manufacturing and construction have shed over 18,000 jobs in the past year alone, while businesses shutter at the fastest rate in a decade.

Broken Promises, Broken Economy: Nicola Willis’ Fiscal Train Wreck

📍OPINION: Finance Minister Nicola Willis, who once promised to transform New Zealand’s economy with a surplus by 2027, has instead driven it into a mire of contractionary austerity and unfulfilled commitments.… pic.twitter.com/gjRTSaQ1sP

— Kelvin Morgan 🇳🇿 (@kelvin_morganNZ) September 18, 2025

And here's the rub: while Willis wails about Trump's tariffs, nations far more exposed to the U.S. trade bazooka aren't reeling like we are. Australia, our trans-Tasman twin, clocked 0.6 per cent growth in the same quarter despite similar tariff headwinds, buoyed by diversified exports and less draconian fiscal pruning. Japan and South Korea, slapped with 25 per cent duties, still project OECD growth above 1 per cent for 2025, their supply chains more resilient than our austerity-ravaged one. Even the U.S. itself, epicentre of the tariff storm, eyes 1.6 per cent expansion this year, per OECD forecasts, down from 2.2 per cent pre-tariffs, but hardly a nosedive. New Zealand's woes? Homegrown, courtesy of a neoliberal government more keen on tax breaks for the wealthy than actual stimulus.

The chorus of discontent is growing, even from the right's own choir. Commentators like Matthew Hooton and Roger Douglas, hardly the bastions of the left, have piled on, bewailing Willis' fiscal folly and Luxon's inertia amid self-inflicted recessionary headwinds. Whispers in Wellington's corridors suggest even insider Tories are fidgeting, with calls for Luxon to boot Willis before she drags the ship under. Small wonder: Luxon's approval ratings are in freefall, slumping to a net -7 in April's 1News-Verian poll, his preferred PM score dipping to 19.6 per cent in the latest RNZ-Reid Research poll, his lowest in two years. Labour's Chris Hipkins, for all his post-election torpor, now outpolls Luxon as preferred leader. Luxon doesn't have any solutions, just spin: National's propaganda machine churns out tales of "momentum" and "green shoots" while families ration the Weet-Bix and retailers bolt the doors.

Ah, but that "laser focus" on the cost-of-living crisis? What a joke, a punchline delivered with the straight face of a man who's never queued at a supermarket let alone stood in line at the food bank. National's FamilyBoost flagship, meant to hand 21,000 households $150 fortnightly, has flopped spectacularly: a year on, just 153 families have claimed the full whack. The rest? $7 a week, not even enough for a block of butter. Luxon's rhetoric ignores the shuttered shops, the tens of thousands of young Kiwi emigrants fleeing to Oz for a brighter future, the quiet desperation etched on people's faces from Kaitaia to Bluff. This isn't leadership; it's a sleight of hand that leaves Kiwis holding an empty wallet.

As the austerity deepens New Zealand's economic malaise, one can't help but ponder: if Luxon's plan is this threadbare, what hope is there for a recovery while National are in power? The emperor's wardrobe is in tatters, and the court jesters, Willis chief among them, are entirely out of valid excuses.

Israel Continues to Lie About Gaza’s Starvation Crisis

In the grim shadow of Gaza’s humanitarian catastrophe, a sinister disinformation campaign, orchestrated by Israel and amplified by right-wing politicians and propagandists, seeks to obscure the deliberate starvation of Palestinians. This grotesque manipulation of truth, peddled by figures like New Zealand’s Cameron Slater, Juliet Moses, Ani O’Brien, and Rachel Stewart, attempts to whitewash a genocide by blaming Palestinian suffering on medical conditions or external failures, while Israel’s blockade strangles even more innocent civilians to death.
 

On Monday, the Las Angeles Times reported:

Israelis rebuff Trump, insisting images of starvation in Gaza are ‘fake’

The Israeli government is defending a top military officer who dismissed images of starving Palestinians as “fake” over the weekend, despite President Trump stating Monday that he believes the pictures are real.

The rupture comes amid growing international pressure on Israel over dire circumstances in the Palestinian enclave, and as two Israeli human rights groups, in a first, characterized the Israeli operation in Gaza as a genocide.


In recent days, photographs and videos of desperate Palestinians crowding aid stations and of emaciated children have spread across the globe. Even so, Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, said Sunday that “there is no starvation in Gaza.”

And on Sunday, during a press tour of a small area of the Gaza Strip, Effie Defrin, a commanding officer and Israel Defense Forces spokesman, told reporters that visuals emerging from Gaza were “breaking our hearts.”

“But most of it is fake, fake distributed by Hamas,” Defrin said. “It’s a campaign. Unfortunately, some of the Israeli media, including some of the international media, is distributing this information and those false pictures, and creating an image of starvation which doesn’t exist.”

Much of the mainstream media, too often weak in the face of Israel's propaganda machine, has often been complicit in amplifying these lies, failing to challenge the narrative with the rigour it demands. As the United Nations, aid agencies, and even starving Hamas prisoners bear witness to this engineered famine, the world must confront the moral bankruptcy of those who excuse Israel’s actions while children waste away in front of our eyes.

Israel’s campaign hinges on a cruel distortion: that images of emaciated Palestinian children, like one-year-old Muhammad Zakariya al-Matouq, reflect pre-existing medical conditions rather than widespread starvation. Right-wing propagandists in New Zealand have eagerly echoed this disgusting lie. Rachel Stewart, in a venomous X post on 1 August 2025, criticised Stuff for supposedly using a photo of a “malnourished” Gazan child, falsely claiming the New York Times retracted its use due to the child’s cerebral palsy.

Juliet Moses, Cameron Slater, and Ani O’Brien have similarly been cited for pushing this narrative, alleging media exaggerate starvation to vilify Israel. These claims, rooted in selective truths, ignore the undeniable: Muhammad’s condition worsened due to Israel’s blockade, which denies food and medical supplies, as confirmed by his doctor. This tactic, highlighting medical issues to dismiss intentional starvation, is a hallmark of Israel’s “Pallywood” propaganda, designed to dehumanise Palestinians and deflect blame.

The mainstream media’s susceptibility to this disinformation is a scandal in itself. Outlets like the New York Times and BBC have faced criticism for initially omitting medical context in stories about children like Muhammad, but their clarifications, such as the Times’ note on 23 July 2025, affirm that starvation compounds these conditions. However, when propagandists like Moses and Slater seize on these oversights, they distort the narrative to suggest no famine exists, a claim contradicted by overwhelming documented evidence.
 

On 23 July, PBS reported:

More than 100 aid groups sign open letter warning of starvation in Gaza

Experts say Gaza is at risk of famine because of Israel’s blockade and offensive, launched in response to Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023, attack. The head of the World Health Organization said Gaza is “witnessing a deadly surge” in malnutrition and related diseases, and that a “large proportion” of its roughly 2 million people are starving.

Israel says it allows enough aid into the territory and faults delivery efforts by U.N. agencies, which say they are hindered by Israeli restrictions and the breakdown of security.

...

In an open letter, 115 organizations, including major international aid groups such as Doctors Without Borders, Mercy Corps and Save the Children, said they were watching their own colleagues, as well as the Palestinians they serve, “waste away.”

The letter blamed Israeli restrictions and “massacres” at aid distribution points. Witnesses, health officials and the U.N. human rights office say Israeli forces have repeatedly fired on crowds seeking aid, killing more than 1,000 people. Israel says its forces have only fired warning shots and that the death toll is exaggerated.

The Israeli government’s “restrictions, delays, and fragmentation under its total siege have created chaos, starvation, and death,” the letter said.

The World Health Organisation reported 63 malnutrition deaths in July alone, and one in five children under five facing acute malnutrition. But the true picture will be much worse. The media’s failure to consistently challenge Israel's disinformation about the cause of these deaths and mass starvation, often due to fear of being labelled antisemitic, allows these disgusting lies to fester, undermining the truth of Gaza’s man-made famine.

Israel’s blockade, intensified from March through to July 2025, slashed aid to a trickle, compared to the 500–600 trucks required each and every day, as per UN estimates. The Gaza Health Ministry reports 127 hunger-related deaths since October 2023, including 85 children. Of course, given the difficulties in locating people who have starved to death in a "war" zone, this will be an underestimation. Even Hamas prisoners, held in dire conditions, are starving, not because of Hamas’s actions, but because Israel’s restrictions ensure there’s not enough food to go around.

The claim that Hamas diverts aid lacks evidence; USAID and UN reviews, who have no reason to counter the Israeli narrative other than to tell the truth, found no systematic theft. Yet, Israeli officials like David Mencer and Benjamin Netanyahu shamelessly blame Hamas and the UN, accusing them of engineering shortages while ignoring Israel’s role in blocking aid. This is a grotesque inversion of responsibility: Israel, not Hamas, is starving both civilians and prisoners. They are doing this with the help of many western leaders, including Donald Trump, whose propaganda concerning the genocide is often just as dishonest as Israel's. The atrocities we are witnessing would end tomorrow if Western leaders truly wanted them to.

The disinformation campaign also targets the United Nations and surrounding countries, falsely claiming they fail to distribute aid. Israel’s ambassador Danny Danon accused UN aid chief Tom Fletcher of colluding with Hamas, offering no evidence at all to back up his false claims. COGAT, Israel’s aid coordination body, claimed 4,500 trucks entered since May 2025, but the UN notes these are insufficient and face military restrictions, rendering distribution nearly impossible.

Airdrops, lauded by Israel and the US as major humanitarian gestures, are a farcical distraction. UNRWA’s Philippe Lazzarini called them “expensive, inefficient, and dangerous,” with many landing in the sea or without parachutes, killing desperate civilians. The US and Israel’s Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), supposedly replacing UN systems, has been a complete disaster, with over 1,000 Palestinians killed at its militarised aid sites so far. Many of these civilians are being murdered by Western soldiers who then return to their home countries without any consequences.

The United States and Israel's theatrics of providing aid mask the reality that aid volumes are a fraction of what’s required. The World Food Programme warns of famine-like conditions for 470,000 people, making a joke of the promise that this type of genocide would never happen again.

The right-wing's lack of action to curb this crisis, enabled by a disinformation campaign and amplified by discredited muckrakers like Slater, Moses, O’Brien, and Stewart, isn't just dishonest, it’s complicity in genocide. The blood of these starved children is on their hands. By parroting Israel’s lies, they obscure a crisis where women and children die daily from hunger, their bodies “eating themselves” in a slow, cruel death, as Dr Omar Abdel-Mannan described. The UN’s Michael Fakhri calls this “the fastest starvation campaign in modern history,” preventable yet enabled by international inaction and impunity.

Two Israeli human rights groups, B’tselem and Physicians for Human Rights, have labelled it a genocide, citing deliberate starvation tactics, which is clearly another war crime perpetrated by Israel and its accomplices. The mainstream media must reject their propaganda, amplify the voices of the besieged and starving, and hold Israel accountable. New Zealanders, too, must see through the lies of local propagandists and demand justice for Gaza’s rightful inhabitants. Because if we don't stop this type of genocide, aided and abetted by right-wing propagandists, it will continue into other countries, perhaps even your own.

Luxon Doesn't Think the Proud Boys are Terrorists

In a highly questionable move, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has allowed the Proud Boys, a far-right group with a track record of extreme violence, to slip off the New Zealand terrorist watch list. Despite advice from the NZ Police and other government agencies, Luxon’s administration opted not to renew the designation under the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002, effectively decriminalising support for a group linked to the January 6 US Capitol riot that caused nine deaths, including the deaths of five police officers.

Earlier this month, RNZ reported:

It's no longer illegal to be a proudly violent Proud Boy

It started as a fringe movement in the United States - a group of self-described "Western chauvinists" known as the Proud Boys.

A bunch of them were jailed after the 6 January US election riots, and they have now been pardoned by President Trump.

Their legacy of far-right extremism, violent rhetoric, and polarising influence has raised questions not just in American courtrooms but on Kiwi shores too.

"They have been organising in New Zealand, although they deny that is the case," Stuff investigative journalist Paula Penfold tells The Detail.

"Now, the terrorist designation that they were given [in New Zealand] in 2022 has been allowed to expire, and we don't yet know the reasons for that to have been allowed to happen, we don't yet know whether the Proud Boys are still active in New Zealand, but we think it's pretty important that our authorities should find out."

Founded in 2016 by Gavin McInnes, the Proud Boys quickly gained notoriety for their involvement in violent street clashes, their role in the 6 January Capitol riots, and their unwavering embrace of conspiracy theories.

This decision, shrouded in secrecy, raises serious questions about the National-led government’s priorities and its troubling alignment with extremist ideologies. As we dissect this choice, we must also confront broader patterns of complicity, from ACT’s flirtations with white supremacists to National’s cosy relationship with Trumpian politics, and the urgent need to curb the influence of fascists in Aotearoa.

The Proud Boys’ designation, established in 2022, was a response to their role in the Capitol riot and their crypto-fascist tactics. Yet, Luxon’s inaction suggests a troubling dismissal of his own agencies expert advice and previous decisions made by the Jacinda Ardern administration.

Why would he take such a risk? Evidence points to political expediency. National’s coalition with ACT and NZ First, the most right-wing New Zealand government in decades, may be reluctant to alienate conservative voters by targeting far-right groups. 

But questions remain. Why would, for instance, the National coalition of chaos fail to designate the Proud Boys, a group who murders police officers, as terrorists while putting other white supremacist groups on the list?

Last week, the NZ Herald reported:

Extremist white supremacist group behind race war plots remains on NZ terrorism watchlist

A violent neo-Nazi hate group with international reach has been relisted as a terrorist entity by the New Zealand Government, amid ongoing efforts to prevent extremist ideologies from taking root or operating within the country.

The Base is a white supremacist “militant accelerationist paramilitary group” that advocates for the violent overthrow of existing governments to establish white “ethnostates”.

The group’s ideology is said to be “rooted in extreme racism, antisemitism, and the belief in an impending race war”.

It is active in the US and Canada, with reports of training cells in Europe, South Africa and Australia.

The group, also known as TB, was first designated as a terrorist entity in New Zealand in June 2022 alongside another US group, the Proud Boys.

The decision also appears to align with diplomatic pressures from the Trump administration, which has pardoned Proud Boys members, even those who murdered police, and downplayed their threat. Many Proud Boys are reportedly linked to US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), engaging in human rights abuses by abducting law abiding migrants and detaining them in concentration camps without due process. Allowing such individuals, some convicted of killing police, freedom to travel to New Zealand is reckless and indefensible. Clearly, fascists with blood on their hands should be barred from our shores, full stop.

This isn’t an isolated incident. The National-led government’s flirtation with extremism is part of a broader and uglier pattern. ACT leader David Seymour, for instance, has accepted donations from individuals openly advocating for violence against Muslims, including those boasting about bombing mosques. Such associations aren't mere oversights; they signal a willingness to court extremist support for political gain.

Similarly, the recent invitation of James Lindsay, a US commentator who peddles debunked “white genocide” conspiracies, to speak at ACT’s 2025 Rally underscores how far-right ideologies are being promoted and platformed by our right-wing politicians. Lindsay’s rhetoric, cloaked in free speech dogma, fuels division and emboldens white supremacists to hate on minority groups.

 

In 2022, Salon reported:

Meet James Lindsay, the far right’s “world-level expert” on CRT and “Race Marxism”

In a Feb. 5 appearance on Glenn Beck’s talk show — which Beck called “probably the most important podcast perhaps that we’ve ever done” — self-proclaimed critical race theory expert James Lindsay issued a dire warning. While discussing dark right-wing theories about “The Great Reset” and Democratic-run reeducation camps for the unvaccinated, Lindsay warned that a severe reckoning was at hand for the world’s elites: “It’s coming for them. They’re going to lose all of their power. They’re going to be exposed for crimes the likes of which we’ve never seen in human history.”

...

In 2018, as a math PhD running a business that fused massage therapy with martial arts, and a supporting character in the foundering New Atheism movement, Lindsay became a national name by pulling off a deft hoax that made liberal academics look dumb. Along with two co-conspirators, Helen Pluckrose and Peter Boghossian, Lindsay drafted 20 fake research papers with outlandish premises — to research canine “rape culture” at dog parks, or a proposition that men use dildos on themselves to overcome transphobia — and submitted them to a series of often obscure scholarly journals.

Around a third of the papers were accepted, and in 2018, the hoaxers, all of whom then called themselves liberals — although Boghossian was closely associated with accused white supremacist and “race realist” Stefan Molyneux, who has argued that Black people are “collectively less intelligent” than other races — revealed the experiment as an exposé on the terminal wokeness of academia, particularly the identity-oriented fields that the three called “grievance studies.”

 

When government-aligned parties amplify such divisive voices, they legitimise hate, undermining the social cohesion Aotearoa prides itself on.

Luxon’s government also helps to promote extremist views while also mirroring the Trump administration’s playbook, particularly in its erosion of indigenous rights. National’s coalition has pushed unpopular policies like the review of the Treaty of Waitangi, which undermines Māori sovereignty and echoes Trump’s marginalisation of Native American communities. This alignment isn’t coincidental.

As Trump pardons Proud Boys and weakens democratic norms, National’s soft stance on far-right groups suggests a shared ideological drift. Both governments prioritise appeasing conservative bases over protecting marginalised communities, whether it’s Māori here or migrants in US detention (concentration) camps. This convergence is a stark warning: when leaders downplay extremism, they pave the way for its normalisation.

The need to reduce white supremacist influence in New Zealand has never been more urgent. The Proud Boys, with their history of violence and ties to authoritarian regimes, are not a theoretical threat. Their lapsed designation risks emboldening local white supremacist sympathiser.

Aotearoa must not become a haven for fascists or a stage for their propaganda. Luxon’s government must reverse course, heed the advice of their security experts, and reinstate the Proud Boys’ designation as terrorists without further delay. Beyond that, it must reject the influence of extremists, whether through donations to ACT or invitations to divisive figures.

New Zealanders deserve a government that stands firm against hate, not one that cuddles it for political points. This is a moment for vigilance. The National-led government’s actions, ignoring advice, platforming extremists, and aligning with Trump’s racist agenda, threaten the values of inclusivity and justice that define Aotearoa. We must demand accountability, reject fascism in all its forms, and protect our communities from those who would divide us. The Proud Boys belong on the terrorist watch list, and white supremacists belong nowhere near our politics.