Senedd committee says £58m spending cannot be properly scrutinised and calls for major overhaul

A SENEDD committee has raised serious concerns about the Welsh Government’s approach to international relations, warning that a lack of clear strategy and financial transparency is undermining Wales’s work on the global stage.

In a report published on Tuesday (Jan 28), the Culture, Communications, Welsh Language, Sport and International Relations Committee said confusion, fragmented planning and weak accountability have made it difficult to assess priorities, impact or value for money.

While the Committee acknowledged that Wales benefits from international goodwill, expertise and global connections, it said the absence of a coherent long-term strategy meant those strengths were not being used effectively.

The Committee has now set out a new framework, called Mission Cymru, which it says should guide future Welsh Governments and place international relations on a more stable and transparent footing.

Committee chair Delyth Jewell said the inquiry had uncovered widespread uncertainty about what the Welsh Government is trying to achieve internationally and how success is measured.

She said evidence presented to the Committee repeatedly highlighted confusion over government priorities and a lack of clarity around outcomes.

“As we enter a period of growing global instability, the need for clear and measurable principles for Wales’s international engagement has never been greater,” she said.

“Geography may place Wales at the edge of a continent, but our voice should never be marginal.”

£58m spend ‘cannot be scrutinised’

One of the most serious criticisms in the report relates to financial transparency.

The Committee said it has been unable to scrutinise more than £58 million allocated to international relations during the current Senedd term, despite repeated attempts over several years to obtain detailed information.

It said gaps in reporting, late updates and incomplete data have made it impossible to assess whether the funding has delivered tangible benefits for Wales or represented value for money.

As a result, the Committee said it remains unclear whether significant public investment in international activity has aligned with government priorities or achieved its intended outcomes.

Poor oversight and accountability

The report also criticises the Welsh Government for what it describes as weak ministerial accountability.

Although international relations sit within the First Minister’s portfolio, the Committee noted that the First Minister appears before it only once a year and has declined to attend other scrutiny sessions, including those examining budget matters.

The Committee also highlighted failures to keep the Senedd properly informed about key developments, including the signing or renewal of international agreements, and said records of Wales’s international arrangements remain incomplete.

It warned that poor transparency not only limits democratic scrutiny but risks undermining confidence in Wales’s international work.

Call for ‘Mission Cymru’

Looking ahead, the Committee is urging future Welsh Governments to adopt Mission Cymru—a set of twelve principles designed to provide a clear, long-term vision for Wales’s international relations.

The Committee said the framework would help bring greater focus, coherence and accountability to international activity, ensuring Wales’s global engagement delivers measurable benefits at home.

The full report, Mission Cymru: Principles for international relations, has been published by the Senedd.

ONE year into Donald Trump’s second presidency, the United States is navigating a period of significant domestic and international turbulence. Recent events—including heckling at a rally in Iowa, backlash over federal immigration enforcement in Minneapolis, stalled progress on acquiring influence in Greenland, persistent economic pressures, and delays in releasing Jeffrey Epstein-related files—have raised questions about the administration’s direction and cohesion.

While President Trump and supporters highlight achievements such as economic growth initiatives and border security gains, polls show approval ratings in the low-to-mid 40s, with consumer confidence at its lowest since 2014. For Welsh and UK audiences, these developments carry potential repercussions for transatlantic trade, NATO alliances, and global stability.

Internal dissent visible at Iowa rally

On 27 January 2026, President Trump spoke at the Horizon Events Center in Clive, Iowa, focusing on the economy and positioning the visit as an early step in campaigning for November’s midterm elections. The event, however, was repeatedly interrupted by hecklers protesting rising costs, immigration policies, and other issues.

Trump described some demonstrators as “paid agitators” and credited law enforcement for their removal. Protesters outside chanted against ICE operations and called for the release of Epstein files. The incident occurred in a traditionally Republican-leaning state, underscoring growing frustration even among core supporters over affordability and policy delivery.

Administration officials have framed such disruptions as isolated, while critics point to them as signs of eroding base unity ahead of midterms that could reshape congressional control.

Minneapolis incidents spark bipartisan outrage

A focal point of recent controversy is the fatal shooting of Alex Pretti, a 37-year-old intensive care nurse and US citizen, by federal agents in Minneapolis on 24 January 2026. Pretti was killed during an encounter amid protests against immigration raids. Video evidence reviewed by multiple outlets shows him holding a phone—not a weapon—while being tackled.

Initial administration statements described Pretti as posing a threat, but later clarifications from the Department of Homeland Security indicated no weapon was brandished. The incident follows the earlier killing of Renée Good in similar circumstances, prompting protests and bipartisan calls for investigation.

President Trump has promised a “very honorable and honest investigation” and indicated a potential de-escalation of aggressive enforcement in Minnesota, including leadership changes. Supporters argue these operations target criminal elements and have reduced illegal crossings significantly. Critics, including civil liberties groups, highlight risks to citizens and a perceived overreach that has inflamed tensions.

For the UK, such domestic unrest could indirectly affect perceptions of US reliability in international partnerships.

Greenland gambit strains NATO ties

President Trump’s renewed interest in strategic access to Greenland—revived in early 2026—has met firm resistance from Denmark and Greenlandic authorities. At the World Economic Forum in Davos, Trump announced a “framework of a future deal” with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, suggesting enhanced US access without tariffs on certain European nations.

Details remain unclear, and Greenland’s government has reiterated that sovereignty is “not on the table.” Denmark has deployed additional forces to the territory in response to perceived pressure.

The episode echoes Trump’s 2019 proposal, which was dismissed as “absurd.” While the administration frames it as necessary for Arctic security against Russian and Chinese influence, allies view it as disruptive to NATO cohesion. For the UK, as a NATO member with Arctic interests, any strain on the alliance could complicate joint defense planning and raise questions about long-term transatlantic stability.

Economic pressures weigh on Households

US consumer confidence fell sharply in January 2026 to 84.5—the lowest since 2014—according to the Conference Board, driven by concerns over affordability, inflation, and job prospects. Respondents cited tariffs, high prices, and labour market uncertainty, with 20.8% saying jobs were “hard to get.”

President Trump’s approval on the economy hovers around 33-36% in recent polls, with overall job approval ranging from 38-42% (e.g., Civiqs: 39% approve, 57% disapprove; Reuters/Ipsos: 42% approve). The administration points to GDP growth, wage increases in some sectors, and initiatives like the “Great Healthcare Plan” to lower drug prices and premiums.

Tariffs, intended to protect domestic industries, have been blamed by economists for raising costs on everyday goods and contributing to supply chain issues. In rural areas like Iowa, farmers report challenges from trade disruptions. For Wales, potential US tariffs on European exports (including steel and agricultural products) could impact ports like Milford Haven or Welsh manufacturing, echoing Brexit-era trade frictions.

Epstein files delay fuels scrutiny

Bipartisan legislation (the Epstein Files Transparency Act) mandated the release of over two million Justice Department documents related to Jeffrey Epstein by 19 December 2025. As of late January 2026, less than 1% has been disclosed, with heavy redactions and no major new revelations on alleged co-conspirators.

The administration cites victim protection and ongoing reviews as reasons for the pace. Critics, including survivors’ advocates and some Republicans, accuse the Department of Justice of obstruction, renewing focus on Trump’s past association with Epstein (no wrongdoing alleged). The issue has become a distraction, with protests linking it to broader transparency concerns.

What this means for the Midterms and beyond

Trump’s second term has delivered on certain promises—such as border security enhancements and investments in technology and infrastructure—but faces headwinds from policy backlash, low consumer sentiment, and international friction. Approval ratings, while higher among Republicans, reflect broader dissatisfaction that could influence November 2026 midterms.

For the UK and Wales, implications include:

• Trade risks from tariffs or protectionist policies.
• NATO dynamics affected by US foreign policy approaches.
• Broader questions about US domestic stability influencing global leadership.

Presidencies often encounter early turbulence, and Trump has demonstrated resilience in the past. Whether these challenges mark a temporary phase or signal deeper shifts remains to be seen, but they underscore the interconnected nature of US politics and transatlantic relations.

BROADCASTER tells Florida court it has no jurisdiction and says claim over ‘fight like hell’ edit does not meet US defamation threshold

The BBC is seeking to have Donald Trump’s $10bn defamation lawsuit over an edited Panorama clip dismissed by a federal court in Florida.

Court documents show the broadcaster is preparing a motion to throw out the claim on a number of grounds, including that the Florida court lacks personal jurisdiction over the BBC, the venue is improper, and the case fails to set out a valid legal claim.

The lawsuit centres on a Panorama episode broadcast in 2024 which featured a spliced clip of Trump’s address at a rally on 6 January 2021, shortly before the attack on the US Capitol.

The programme used sections of the speech to create the impression Trump told supporters: “We’re going to walk down to the Capitol… and I’ll be there with you, and we fight. We fight like hell.” Reports say the words were drawn from parts of the speech delivered nearly an hour apart.

Trump alleges the edit falsely suggested he encouraged supporters to storm the Capitol, and he is seeking $5bn in damages on two counts – one for defamation and another under Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.

In its submissions, the BBC is expected to argue that it did not create, produce or broadcast the documentary in Florida, and that claims it was available to US audiences via BritBox are untrue.

The corporation is also challenging the legal basis of the defamation claim, arguing that Trump, as a public official, must meet the high US standard of proving “actual malice” – meaning the broadcaster knowingly published false information or acted with reckless disregard for the truth.

The BBC has asked the court to pause the pre-trial discovery process while the dismissal application is considered, warning that Trump could seek wide-ranging disclosure covering the BBC’s reporting on him over many years.

A trial date in 2027 has been proposed should the case proceed.

The BBC previously acknowledged the editing was an “error of judgment” and apologised, but has insisted there is no legal basis for a defamation case. It has said it will defend the action and will not comment further while legal proceedings are ongoing.