Polymarket paid dozens of social media users to film themselves making fake bets for a promotion that aimed to convince people they can strike it rich on the prediction market, according to a Wall Street Journal investigation published on Saturday.
"In its push to draw users to its unregulated platform, Polymarket has flooded social media with videos like [George] Makihara’s, which appear genuine at first glance," the article said. "In reality, Polymarket built near-perfect copies of its website, then instructed creators to make simulated trades on those dummy sites and hide that they were being paid by Polymarket."
Makihara, a college student, posted a video in January "that showed him winning $100,000 on a wager that President Trump would publicly say the word 'McDonald's' that month." But trade data showed that no one on Polymarket won such a bet in January, according to the Journal. This was one of 145 bets that Makihara appeared to place on Polymarket between January and May, but all of those bets were fake, the article said.
For years, Valve's physical Steam gift cards have been the closest you could come to buying a Steam game at a brick-and-mortar store. Now, Valve says it is phasing out the production of new retail gift cards, citing a losing battle against scammers exploiting the hard-to-track payment method.
Valve says it has made various moves to slow scammers, including placing limits on redemption and availability and adding a prominent warning on the cards themselves: "Never share a pin via email, social media or over the phone."
SpaceX has requested unusually swift entry into several leading stock market indexes as a condition of its historic stock market debut. But the S&P 500 stock market index representing many of the largest profitable US companies has surprised market analysts by refusing to bend the rules for Elon Musk’s space and AI company.
The June 4 decision by S&P Dow Jones Indices—the company that creates and manages stock market indexes such as the S&P 500—means that SpaceX will not gain accelerated access to potentially billions more dollars through passive investment funds that automatically purchase shares of S&P 500 companies. Modifying the rules in response to SpaceX's request could have also allowed leading AI companies such as OpenAI and Anthropic to gain entry not long after their own expected initial public offerings (IPOs). That possibility has now been shuttered.
The news will likely come as a relief to people concerned about passive investor money and people’s retirement savings plans having greater exposure to the market risks associated with SpaceX’s big bet on AI and speculative orbital data center plans. AI companies are generally facing more challenges in funding and building expensive AI data centers, even as they shift more of the subsidized costs of running AI services onto shocked customers through usage-based pricing.
The US charged a Google software engineer with insider trading after he allegedly made a profit of $1.2 million on Polymarket bets related to which public figures would top Google's rankings for the most searched names in 2025. Michele Spagnuolo, an Italian citizen who lives in Switzerland, "was arrested on Wednesday and brought before a federal judge in New York," the BBC wrote.
Spagnuolo was charged "with commodities fraud, wire fraud, and money laundering arising from his scheme to misappropriate confidential information from his employer and use that information to place a series of profitable Google-related trades on a prediction market platform," the Justice Department announced yesterday.
An unsealed criminal complaint said that Spagnuolo, using the account name “AlphaRaccoon” on Polymarket, made bets on who would be the most-searched people on Google in 2025. "Unlike the counterparties to his trades, Spagnuolo knew the outcome of these wagers before the trading public did because he had accessed Google’s confidential, commercially valuable internal data," the complaint said.
For most of the past year, it looked like prediction markets had kicked off a new golden age of fraud. On Polymarket, traders raked in fortunes from suspiciously timed bets on geopolitical events like the raid on Venezuela and the Iran War. It wasn’t clear whether the US government would bother pursuing some of the most flagrant bad actors, since Polymarket’s crypto-based platform was technically offshore and not regulated or licensed within the country.
Now, however, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which oversees prediction markets, wants you to know that it’s watching very, very closely. The agency is searching for suspicious behavior from traders within the United States who have been sneaking onto offshore markets, including Polymarket’s crypto platform—which is blocked stateside—by using virtual private networks. “We're going to find them, and we're going to bring actions,” agency chairman Michael Selig told WIRED this week, speaking from the CFTC’s headquarters in Washington, DC.
Selig says the agency, which is especially lean right now, is staffing up. Like so many other AI-pilled workplaces, the CFTC is also leaning into automation to handle the growing workload, including tools that analyze trading patterns and flag potential manipulation. “You’ve got so much data,” Selig says. “When we feed it into AI, we get really great information. It can help us understand things, like where we might want to investigate, or when we might need to send a subpoena to a trader.”
When we reviewed the Switch 2 just after its launch last year, we warned that interested customers might want to buy in early, as the launch price could go up. That potential price hike became a reality today, as Nintendo announced the Switch 2's MSRP will increase to $499.99 on September 1, a $50 (and about 11 percent) increase from the $449.99 launch price.
In an announcement of the impending price increase today, Nintendo cited "changes in market conditions" and "the global business outlook" that are "expected to extend over the medium to long term." That's likely a reference to the climbing RAM and storage prices that have been impacting all sorts of hardware makers for months.
Donald Trump cheered Brexit as a triumph of nationalism and sovereignty. A decade on, his presidency may be doing more than anything else to expose its limits, and push Britain back towards the European Union.
In May 2016, the then-presidential hopeful declared the UK would be “better off without” the EU, blaming it for driving a migration crisis that had been a “horrible thing for Europe.” He was one of the few major international figures to openly back Leave. When the result came, he revelled in it, hailing a “great victory” that would allow Britain to “take back control,” while bragging that “crooked Hillary Clinton got Brexit wrong.”
Ten years later, that ‘victory’ is on the ropes. And the irony is hard to miss: the very political force that celebrated Brexit may now be helping to undo it.
A ‘special relationship’ in tatters
Trump’s return to power has cast fresh doubt over Britain’s much-vaunted “special relationship” with the United States. The concept that was originally voiced by Winston Churchill eighty years ago and always a little problematic, now looks increasingly threadbare.
When denied his own way, Trump has lashed out at allies, and Britain has not been spared. His frustration at the UK’s refusal to fall fully into line with US foreign policy, most notably its decision not to directly support the US-Israeli military campaign against Iran, is only the latest in a series of public rebukes directed at Keir Starmer’s government. These are not isolated outbursts, but part of a broader pattern that calls into question the durability of transatlantic goodwill.
Besides insulting the British armed forces, earlier this year, Trump dismissed the UK’s deal to hand sovereignty of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius while leasing back a key military base as an “act of great stupidity.” He has threatened tariffs on European allies and has taken aim at London mayor Sadiq Khan, calling him a “nasty person” who had done a “terrible job.”
The ‘jewel in the Brexit crown’ that never shone
This US hostility towards Britain matters in the Brexit debate. Leaving the EU rested on an implicit pivot towards the United States as Britain’s principal economic and strategic partner. Yet under successive governments, efforts to formalise this relationship fell short.
The June 2023 Atlantic Declaration, agreed by Rishi Sunak and Joe Biden, was a watered down and limited framework, far removed from the full-fledged free trade deal promised before and after the 2016 referendum.
And with Trump back in office and peeved by Britain’s refusal to fall obediently into line, the prospect of a close economic partnership, the central prize of that Atlantic pivot, appears more elusive than ever.
Trump’s erratic and hostile approach to alliances has laid bare the fragility of the assumptions underpinning Brexit. As Financial Times chief economics commentator Martin Wolf has argued, the US now looks less like a stable anchor of global leadership and more like “an unpredictable wrecking ball.” In that context, the logic of Brexit, loosening ties with Europe while leaning into the US, begins to fall apart.
There is an irony closer to home, too. British voters remain deeply hostile to Trump, whose net favourability recently stood at minus 65. Polling for Politico this week shows how much the British public is losing patience with Trump, with two-thirds saying the US creates problems around the world and fewer than a quarter believing it helps solve them.
Public opinion is also firmly against the US-Israeli assault on Iran, with 59 percent against and just 25 in support. Trump’s attacks may be intended to undermine Starmer, but they may do the opposite – strengthen the prime minister rather than weaken him. Were Starmer to take a firmer line, and suspend support for the US military, as figures on the left such as Zack Polanski and Caroline Lucas are urging, he may even win over some on the left, where he remains deeply unpopular.
If Trump hoped to tilt British politics towards more populist figures like Nigel Farage, he may instead be pushing it in the opposite direction.
The reset
All of this is sharpening the case for a UK-EU reset. What once looked like a cautious effort to smooth over the rough edges of Brexit is fast becoming something more fundamental.
As global instability grows and the US proves a less reliable partner, the pull of Europe, economically, politically and strategically, is becoming harder to resist.
With the US no longer a reliable ally for Europe, Brussels and London should “rebuild bridges that were demolished in 2016,” Ian Bond, deputy director of the Centre for European Reform, said earlier this year.
Bond argues that, sooner or later, the British government will have to accept that “it will not enjoy the same relationship with Washington in the future, however difficult it finds it.”
This would amount to the construction of a European alliance positioned in opposition to the US. Because, if Britain were to move closer to the EU, which Trump and JD Vance openly oppose, the United States “would likely end intelligence and security cooperation,” Bond warns.
How bold Starmer is willing to go in re-engaging with Europe is dubious, probably through fear of provoking those still wedded to the Brexit utopia, a constituency that, while diminished, remains vocal and influential in shaping the terms of debate.
Predictably, each time the government moves the UK even a millimetre closer to the EU, Reform UK, the Conservatives, and the pro-Brexit press, denounce it as a betrayal of the British people’s will, as expressed in the 2016 referendum. Take the Express’s recent front page, which read:
“Brexit reset will cost UK £3bn a year.”
The coverage focused on criticism from shadow chancellor Mel Stride, who accused Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves of committing the UK to substantial payments “with no say, no vote and no scrutiny.”
Yet what this familiar “Brexpress” narrative struggles to confront is that the very arrangements now being criticised once underpinned economic stability and regional investment, both across the EU and within the UK itself. The outrage obscures a deeper contradiction: the benefits of cooperation are being attacked precisely because they require the kinds of contributions Brexit was supposed to eliminate.
It is little wonder, then, that committed Brexiteers appear increasingly tangled in their own arguments.
Earlier this month, Starmer said Britain needed to forge a “closer partnership” with the European Union on defence, security and the economy, citing the war in the Middle East. He told a news conference that “our long-term national interest requires closer partnership with our allies in Europe and with the European Union.”
Last week, the PM’s address to the nation was described by the Financial Times as “the most pro-European speech that he has given since winning power.” Acknowledging that “Brexit did deep damage to our economy,” he argued for a more ambitious partnership with the EU, suited to “the dangerous world that we must navigate together.”
And this week, he delivered one of his strongest criticisms of Trump yet, telling ITV’s Robert Peston he is “fed up” with how the actions of both Trump and Putin are affecting energy prices for UK residents. He also described the airstrike on Lebanon as “wrong” and “unjustifiable.”
As confidence in the US as an ally wanes, the UK is strengthening ties with Europe. On March 30, the European Council formally opened discussions with the UK on restoring cooperation in key areas, including financial contributions to the EU’s cohesion policy, participation in the internal electricity market, and re-entry into programmes such as Erasmus+. Framed by the government as a pragmatic ‘reset,’ these talks signal a steady move back towards structured cooperation.
Before Brexit, the UK contributed between £2.5 billion and £4 billion annually to the EU’s cohesion policy, funding that supported development in less prosperous regions across Europe, including Cornwall and West Wales. The arrangement was reciprocal, not one-sided, yet it was routinely portrayed by Brexit advocates as an intolerable burden.
Yet as reset inroads are made, Starmer’s formal position remains guarded. He has ruled out rejoining the customs union or single market, let alone the EU itself, likely wary of alienating pro-Brexit voters in former Labour strongholds. But the strategic case for closer alignment is strengthening by the day: a war in Ukraine that shows no sign of ending, and a volatile United States that looks increasingly unreliable as a partner.
If that trajectory continues, the political debate may shift more dramatically than Labour currently admits. As Gideon Rachman, chief foreign affairs columnist for the Financial Times,argues, a truly bold approach would be to make the case openly for rejoining the EU.
“That would give Labour something that it currently sorely lacks – a bold and positive agenda for the future. Rejoining the EU already commands majority support in Britain and is particularly popular among the young voters that Labour is losing to the Greens.”
And therein lies the deeper irony. Brexit was sold as a decisive break from Europe; yet, step by step, Britain is being drawn back towards it. The louder its original champions protest, the clearer it becomes that the settlement they fought for is proving neither stable nor sufficient. In the end, the forces that drove Brexit may also help to unravel it.
And none more so than a certain Donald J. Trump.
Gabrielle Pickard-Whitehead is author of Right-Wing Watch
Left Foot Forward doesn't have the backing of big business or billionaires. We rely on the kind and generous support of ordinary people like you.
You can support hard-hitting journalism that holds the right to account, provides a forum for debate among progressives, and covers the stories the rest of the media ignore. Donate today.
More than 17,000 people have put their name to a petition urging the UK government to pursue membership of the European single market, arguing that doing so would give British businesses a stronger and more stable trading relationship with Europe.
The petition was launched by the European Movement UK, a cross-party organisation campaigning for closer ties between the UK and its European neighbours. It argues that leaving the single market has been a “catastrophe” for many UK businesses, citing increased trade barriers, additional checks and paperwork, delays at borders, and the loss of investment, growth, and jobs. It also warns that the UK is increasingly diverging from the rules and standards of its largest trading partner.
The European single market is the world’s largest integrated trading bloc. It brings together all 27 member states of the European Union, along with Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland through related agreements. Established in January 1993, it allows for the free movement of goods, services, capital and people, treating the area as a single market for economic purposes.
The UK left the single market on December 31, 2020, at the end of the transition period following the Brexit referendum. Since then, businesses have faced new regulatory and administrative requirements when trading with EU countries.
According to the petition, rejoining the single market would significantly reduce friction at the border and make it easier for British companies to trade, collaborate and recruit across Europe. The campaign says it is seeking to amplify the voices of small and medium-sized enterprises, which it argues have been “ignored for a decade” in debates over the UK’s economic relationship with Europe.
“It would make it easier for British companies to trade, collaborate and hire, and it would help restore the confidence international investors once had in the UK as a gateway to Europe,” the petition states. “This is not about reopening old arguments, it is about choosing what works best for our economy now and for the generations to come.”
The campaigners also note how the political climate is shifting. Earlier this year, Keir Starmer said he wants to take the UK deeper into the European Union single market, if Brussels will let him.
Speaking to reporters during a visit to China, the PM said he wanted to “go further” in aligning with the European market where it is “in our national interest.”
The petition calls on the government to move towards membership of both the single market and a customs union with the EU. It also argues that any negotiated arrangement should include freedom of movement and that small and medium-sized businesses must play a central role in shaping the UK’s future engagement with Europe.
Left Foot Forward doesn't have the backing of big business or billionaires. We rely on the kind and generous support of ordinary people like you.
You can support hard-hitting journalism that holds the right to account, provides a forum for debate among progressives, and covers the stories the rest of the media ignore. Donate today.
Tracy Brabin, Labour mayor of West Yorkshire, has urged the prime minister to reconsider his Brexit ‘red lines’ and explore joining a customs union with the EU, arguing that the current settlement is holding back growth across her region.
Labour’s 2024 manifesto committed the party to ‘reset’ relations with the EU by reducing trade barriers, while ruling out rejoining the single market or customs union. Since taking office, Starmer has maintained that position, repeatedly insisting the UK will not return to those frameworks or to EU membership.
But following a recent trade mission to Switzerland and Germany, Brabin has signalled local economic realities, particularly in West Yorkshire, demand a more ambitious approach. A customs union, which allows tariff-free trade between members, would in her view remove significant friction for exporters and help revive regional growth.
“If we are serious about growth, we must be braver about our relationship with Europe,” she said. “That means a customs union relationship with the EU.”
Her argument is rooted in the day-to-day experience of businesses across West Yorkshire. In practical terms, she says, Brexit has translated into fewer orders for manufacturers in Bradford, increased administrative burdens for health tech firms in Huddersfield, and missed opportunities for financial services companies in Leeds.
“In West Yorkshire, the value of goods we exported to Europe in 2023 was barely any higher than in 2018,” she said.
These local concerns mirror national trends. Since the UK’s departure from the EU, exporters have faced additional costs and bureaucracy. A late-2023 survey by the British Chambers of Commerce found that 49 percent of businesses view customs checks and declarations as a barrier to exporting, rising to 62 percent among manufacturers. Tariffs and duties were cited by 40 percent of firms, while 38 percent pointed to regulatory hurdles such as product certification. Together, these factors have made trading with Europe more complex and less competitive.
The government is attempting to ease some of these pressures. A proposed Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) agreement with the EU aims to reduce paperwork and costs, particularly in the agri-food sector. Earlier this month, environment secretary Emma Reynolds said such a deal could eliminate “mountains of paperwork” and reduce delays, with a target start date of mid-2027.
Chancellor Rachel Reeves, who represents a neighbouring Leeds constituency, has acknowledged that Brexit has weighed on growth and living standards.
“Brexit has not been good for our country, for growth, for prices in the shop. It’s almost 10 years since we voted Leave,” said the Chancellor.
“That ship has sailed but there’s an awful lot we can do to improve our trading relations. Where that requires alignment in our national interest, we should absolutely align.”
Locally, Tracy Brabin’s intervention resonated, prompting supportive reaction across social media. Many commenters framed her proposal as a practical, common-sense response to the pressures facing businesses in West Yorkshire.
One user described the idea as “a no-brainer,” arguing that the benefits would extend well beyond Bradford, Huddersfield and Leeds to the wider regional economy. Another simply wrote: “She’s spot on.”
Left Foot Forward doesn't have the backing of big business or billionaires. We rely on the kind and generous support of ordinary people like you.
You can support hard-hitting journalism that holds the right to account, provides a forum for debate among progressives, and covers the stories the rest of the media ignore. Donate today.
One of the longest-running sagas of the Brexit aftermath has been the unresolved status of Gibraltar. The British Overseas Territory, perched on Spain’s southern tip, was left out of the 2020 EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement, and has existed in legal limbo ever since.
Nearly a decade after the 2016 referendum, that uncertainty is finally easing. On February 17, the European Commission confirmed it had finalised the legal text of a new UK-EU agreement on Gibraltar. The deal will be provisionally applied once approved by EU ministers, pending formal consent from the European Parliament.
Published in draft on 26 February, it will be provisionally applied once approved by EU ministers, pending the European Parliament’s consent.
At its core is the restoration of practical freedom of movement across the Gibraltar – Spain border. Physical checks at La Línea are set to be removed for the roughly 15,000 people who cross daily for work and other purposes. Gibraltar will effectively join the EU single market for goods, scrapping checks and controls on goods moving between the territory and Spain.
Passengers arriving by air and sea will face dual controls, one by Gibraltarian authorities and another by Spanish officials acting on the EU’s behalf. A tailored customs model is also intended to eliminate most routine goods checks.
In 2016, 96 percent of Gibraltarians voted to remain in the EU, compared with 48.7 percent across the UK. Yet successive governments under Theresa May and Boris Johnson opted to leave the single market and end freedom of movement, prolonging uncertainty. Frequent changes of UK government further slowed talks between the UK, Spain and the EU.
The border fence is expected to come down from April 10, when provisional implementation begins, reportedly timed to coincide with the launch of the EU’s new Entry/Exit System.
Needless to say, the right-wing Eurosceptics didn’t waste any time in venting their fury.
“PM in fresh crisis over Gibraltar as ‘national asset’ to fall under EU control in ‘surrender’ deal,” splashed GB News. The article quoted former cabinet minister, long-standing Brexiteer, and now shadow foreign secretary, Priti Patel, accusing the government of “surrendering sovereignty” and alleging a “dodgy cover-up” over plans for Gibraltar’s airport to be jointly managed with Spain and headquartered in an EU country.
The Telegraph followed suit, leading with: “Spanish police to patrol Gibraltar… Brexit pledge broken as officers handed power to make arrests and monitor borders.”
But for pro-Europeans, the deal is long overdue for a community that voted overwhelmingly to remain. Others noted the irony that while Gibraltar regains elements of free movement and single market access, the rest of the UK remains outside.
As one observer put it: “Good. Now to be done for the whole of the UK.”
Left Foot Forward doesn't have the backing of big business or billionaires. We rely on the kind and generous support of ordinary people like you.
You can support hard-hitting journalism that holds the right to account, provides a forum for debate among progressives, and covers the stories the rest of the media ignore. Donate today.
Login
