
Robert Jenrick accuses Zia Yusuf in antisemitic tweet row
Mr Yusuf has apologised for the incident, which comes after an anonymous X user posted a video that appeared to show Mr Yusuf liking a tweet attacking Mr Jenrick's wife, who is Jewish.
One of the team who post to my X account accidentally pressed like on an awful antisemitic tweet earlier today.
I apologise for this.
The post also refers to 'brown savages', and is equally racist against me. Clearly it was not intentional.
The amount of antisemitism and…
— Zia Yusuf (@ZiaYusufUK) July 18, 2025
Since last summer, likes on X have been privatised, so that only the liker and the poster can see them, rather than a wider audience.
In a message posted on X on Friday, Mr Yusuf said: 'One of the team who post to my X account accidentally pressed like on an awful antisemitic tweet earlier today.
'I apologise for this.'
Mr Yusuf said the post in question is 'equally racist against me' and contains reference to 'brown savages'.
I call bullshit.
You've spent the last 48 hours calling me a 'traitor' for not drawing attention to a leaked spreadsheet with our special forces and MI6 officers' names on.
But we're meant to believe this tweet attacking me as a traitor for having a Jewish wife & family was… https://t.co/2vhitrKDCL
— Robert Jenrick (@RobertJenrick) July 18, 2025
'The amount of antisemitism and racism on this platform is spiralling out of control, and I hope that changes soon,' he added.
Mr Jenrick called the apology 'bullshit'.
'The mask has slipped,' he added.
'Likes are private. You thought nobody would ever know. Unfortunately for you, the racist account who posted the tweet and could see the likes exposed you.
Well said, Rob. Well said indeed. https://t.co/y03TsueaDF
— Kemi Badenoch (@KemiBadenoch) July 18, 2025
'Reform should give you the boot.'
Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch said Mr Jenrick's message was 'well said'.
Mr Yusuf is head of Reform's initiative to drive down local public spending, based on the US's department of government efficiency, also known as Doge.
He was given the position after he quit as party chairman.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Telegraph
38 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Mental health crisis is overblown, say public
The mental health crisis is overblown and people often exaggerate their problems, according to a poll of public beliefs. More than half (56 per cent) of the public believe mental health conditions are exaggerated, while three quarters (76 per cent) think some people mistake life's normal ups and downs for mental illness, according to the survey of more than 2,000 adults by Electoral Calculus. With the Government facing a backbench rebellion over its efforts to restrict welfare benefits, the survey also suggests that ministers – rather than their backbenchers – may have better judged the pulse of the nation. The poll showed more than half of voters (52 per cent) believed that it was too easy for people to claim benefits for mental health illnesses, against 35 per cent who thought it was too hard and 13 per cent who believed it was about right. Last month, Sir Keir Starmer was forced to back down on controversial plans to slash disability and sickness benefits after more than 120 of his MPs threatened to vote against the proposals. Although the public believe benefits are too readily available, they are evenly divided on whether it is too easy or too hard to prove a mental illness in the UK. Some 44 per cent said it was too easy, while 43 per cent said it was too hard. However, Tory and Reform supporters were more likely to believe it was too easy to be diagnosed as suffering from a mental health condition, with 74 per cent of Conservative voters and 55 per cent from Nigel Farage's party saying it was the case. It comes as the head of the Government's workplace review said that employees who have 'I hate my boss syndrome' should not be signed off sick with a mental health condition. Sir Charlie Mayfield said he was concerned some problems are being 'over-medicalised' when they could be solved in the office. The former John Lewis chairman has been appointed by Liz Kendall, the work and pensions secretary, to come up with plans to stop workers leaving their jobs because of poor health. His report is due this autumn. One in five people of working age have a health condition that affects their job and there are 2.8 million people inactive due to ill health – up from 2.1 million since before the Covid pandemic, although the numbers had been rising for several years. Sir Charlie told The Sunday Times: 'The last thing I wish to do is trivialise [mental health conditions] but I agree that things do get over-medicalised.' Half of those polled (49 per cent) agreed that society spends too much time talking about minor mental illnesses. This rose to 77 per cent of Conservatives and 62 per cent of Reform supporters compared with just 35 per cent of Labour voters. Three quarters (74 per cent) said that social media often led to people thinking they had a mental illness when they did not. However, despite the scepticism about 'over medicalisation' of mental ill health, the public believe by five to one majority (68 per cent to 14 per cent) that there were not enough services available to meet the needs of people suffering from mental health problems. Eight in 10 people believed that mental illness had been stigmatised for too long and that it was healthy for people to talk about it more. Seven in 10 also felt that people with serious mental illness are losing out because of the attention given to the growing numbers of people saying they have less serious mental illness. Martin Baxter, the chief executive of Electoral Calculus, said: 'The public shows strong support for tackling stigma and being open about mental health, yet many worry that everyday challenges are being labelled as mental illness, risking the needs of those with serious conditions being overlooked. 'Mental health policy looks set to become a key political battleground, and these findings suggest that politicians will need to tread carefully as they respond to growing public scepticism and a system that most feel isn't working.'


Telegraph
38 minutes ago
- Telegraph
The secrecy on migrant crime statistics must end
There is nothing more emblematic of Broken Britain than our porous borders. If an island nation can't secure its borders, what can it do for God's sake? Middle England is in revolt at the persistent failure to stop the boats (yes, under multiple governments – as I would be the first to admit). They have been made to endure the costs of illegal migration for far too long and their patience snapped long ago. When I've been in quiet towns this past week, I've heard their worries about asylum hotels. It's the talk at the school gates, at the hairdresser's, in the pub. 'I know you're a father, Mr Jenrick,' a woman said to me, walking her dog beside the harbour in Fareham. 'Would you want an asylum hotel on your street?' I don't want my young daughters to share a neighbourhood with men who broke into this country illegally, about whom we know next to nothing. And I don't want anyone else's family to have it forced upon them either. First and foremost, because they have no right to be here, having entered in flagrant breach of our laws. But it's not just that. They impose economic costs on cash-strapped councils, diverting resources away from Brits in need. They totally change the character of areas. And there's another, darker reason, one that few will confront: small boats are fuelling crime and making everyone less safe. The press reports only seem to get worse: drug dealers, rapists, murderers and even terror suspects are arriving on small boats. If you're unlucky enough to have an asylum hotel in your area, you are almost certain to have been impacted by the petty crime that accompanies them. Somehow it's still a taboo for the Government to admit it publicly. The furthest the Home Office has gone to acknowledge the problem is issuing guidance to migrants in hotels explaining what sexual abuse is and that it's illegal. But sensible countries do not bury their heads in the sand. When I visited the notorious Eagle Pass checkpoint on the US-Mexican border in 2023, America's border force openly displayed the data on the criminal pasts of those they intercepted. In that small section of the border 113 convicted sex offenders had been intercepted that year; across the whole of the southern border they had stopped 15,267 convicted criminals in total. The lesson is that when the unfiltered truth about illegal migration is out there, the authorities have no choice but to respond. This issue propelled Trump to the Presidency with a mandate to end the disorder. Just as in America, the border crisis here is a national security emergency. But instead of trusting the public with the truth, this Labour Government has force-fed the public the lie that the majority of people arriving are women and children. Fact check: 75 per cent have been adult men. In our topsy-turvy world, the British public are asked to deny reality. The facts about crime are covered up because of a toxic combination of bureaucratic inertia and weak leaders who pussyfoot around the truth. It's flat out wrong. I tabled an amendment to lift the veil of secrecy over migrant crime under the last Government and I have just done so again under Keir Starmer. I won't stop until the Ministry of Justice publishes the background of criminals by their nationality, country of birth, visa status, asylum status and their method of entry to the UK. Our membership of outdated international treaties like the ECHR will look trivial when it's clear the safety of our communities – of our children and loved ones – is at stake. We have enough problems with law and order already without making it worse. When the British state finally acknowledges that, they might just be shamed into stopping the boats.


The Herald Scotland
an hour ago
- The Herald Scotland
Columbia's $221 million deal with Trump may predict what comes next
Closer look: Details of Columbia settlement Learn more: How other colleges are dealing with pressure. "It is our hope that this is going to be a template for other universities around the country," said Education Secretary Linda McMahon. "Numerous other Higher Education Institutions that have hurt so many, and been so unfair and unjust, and have wrongly spent federal money, much of it from our government, are upcoming," Trump posted on Truth Social in announcing the settlement. A number of high-profile universities have had federal money withheld while being investigated by the administration. Which colleges have been targeted? Can't see our graphics? Click here to view them. The administration is investigating a number of U.S. universities, including high-profile institutions like Harvard, on accusations that include antisemitism amid protests of the war in Gaza after Hamas invaded Israel in 2023. Those investigations have been going on since March. They include: Columbia University Accusation: Jewish students weren't protected from antisemitism and discrimination. Jewish students weren't protected from antisemitism and discrimination. When: March 2025. A settlement was announced July 23. March 2025. A settlement was announced July 23. Columbia will pay: $221 million in legal settlements. $221 million in legal settlements. Columbia will get: $400 million in federal funds reinstated. University of Pennsylvania Accusation: Violating administration policy on transgender athletes. Violating administration policy on transgender athletes. When: March 2025 March 2025 Penn could have lost: $175 million in federal funds had been suspended. $175 million in federal funds had been suspended. Status: Funding was restored in July 2025 after Penn apologized and changed its policy. Brown University Accusation: Failing to stem antisemitism on campus. Failing to stem antisemitism on campus. When : April 2025 : April 2025 Brown may lose: Administration has paused $510 million in federal contracts and grants. Administration has paused $510 million in federal contracts and grants. Status: Pending Cornell University Accusation: Failing to protect civil rights and failing to restrain antisemitism and racial discrimination. Failing to protect civil rights and failing to restrain antisemitism and racial discrimination. When? April 2025 April 2025 Cornell may lose: $1 billion in federal funding has been halted. $1 billion in federal funding has been halted. Status: Pending Northwestern Accusation: Failing to protect civil rights and fight antisemitism and racial discrimination. Failing to protect civil rights and fight antisemitism and racial discrimination. When? April 2025 April 2025 Northwestern could lose: $790 million in federal funding has been halted. $790 million in federal funding has been halted. Status: Pending Princeton University Accusation? Failing to restrain antisemitism on campus. Failing to restrain antisemitism on campus. When? April 2025 April 2025 Princeton could lose: Nearly $210 million in federal research grants have been suspended. Nearly $210 million in federal research grants have been suspended. Status: Pending Harvard Accusation: Failing to fight antisemitism on campus. Failing to fight antisemitism on campus. When? June 2025 June 2025 Harvard may lose: $2.6 billion in federal grants. $2.6 billion in federal grants. Status: Harvard is appealing in federal court. New investigations announced Additional investigations by the State Department and the Department of Education were reported on July 23. The State Department is investigating whether Harvard is still eligible to be a sponsor for the Exchange Visitor Program. The Education Department said it will investigate whether five universities that have scholarships specified for undocumented students are discriminating against those born in the United States. The universities are: University of Louisville University of Nebraska, Omaha University of Miami University of Michigan Western Michigan University The administration has accused elite universities of antisemitism and ideological indoctrination, according to The New York Times. But it has made no secret of its disdain for many universities, especially the richest and most selective ones. CONTRIBUTING Zachary Schermele and George Petras SOURCE USA TODAY Network reporting and research; Reuters; Center for American Progress;