Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

President Donald Trump has taken a significant step to push for pharmaceutical deals by signing an executive order that could impose tariffs of up to 100% on some patented drugs. This move is part of his administration's effort to secure lower prices for medicines.Under the executive order, companies that have signed a 'most favoured nation' pricing deal and are actively building facilities in the US will have a zero-percent tariff. For those that don't have a pricing deal but are building such projects in the US, a 20 percent tariff will apply, but it will increase to 100 percent in four years.A senior administration official stated that companies still have months to negotiate before the 100 percent tariffs kick in. Bigger companies will have 120 days, and 180 days are offered for everyone else.The administration has already reached 17 pricing deals with major drugmakers, 13 of which have signed. The executive order aims to address the threatened impairment of national security posed by imports of pharmaceuticals and pharmaceutical ingredients.Critics, pharmaceutical leaders, and medical groups have warned of the consequences the new tariffs could bring, including increased costs and potential jeopardy to billions in US investments. The pharmaceutical company trade group PhRMA has expressed concerns that taxes on cutting-edge medicines will increase costs and could jeopardize investments.

Rising fortunes among the ultra‑rich under the Trump administration have ignited a wave of tax‑reform campaigns across the United States. In California, volunteers like Karen Sanchez are gathering signatures for a one‑time 5% wealth tax targeting the state’s 200‑plus billionaires to offset federal cuts to hospitals, education and food‑assistance programs.At least ten states are exploring similar measures. Washington recently enacted its first income‑tax aimed at roughly 20,000 millionaire households, while Massachusetts and Minnesota already channel wealth‑tax proceeds into preschool, K‑12 meals and transportation infrastructure.On the federal front, Senators Bernie Sanders and Representative Ro Khanna have introduced the “Make Billionaires Pay Their Fair Share Act,” proposing an annual 5% levy on billionaire net worth. Khanna argues that the ultra‑wealthy fund private health insurers, defense contractors and political campaigns, creating a stark fairness gap.Data from Oxfam shows that in the twelve months after Trump’s re‑election, billionaire fortunes grew at a rate three times faster than the average annual growth of the previous five years. Meanwhile, the federal minimum wage has remained stagnant at $7.25 for fifteen years, underscoring the widening economic divide.A Data for Progress poll released last fall found that 70% of Americans believe the economic system favours corporations and the wealthy. “People are angry and want change,” says Amy Hanauer of the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP), noting that activists are leveraging every level of government to seek relief.The movement draws on a two‑decade history of class‑based activism, from the Occupy Wall Street protests to Senator Sanders’ 2016 campaign that foregrounded wealth‑tax proposals. Yet inequality has deepened: CEOs of the five largest U.S. firms now earn, on average, **$52 million** annually—over a thousand times the typical worker’s salary.Political spending by billionaires has also exploded. A recent New York Times analysis reveals that billionaire contributions rose from **0.3% of campaign funds in 2008** to **19% in 2024**, amounting to more than **$3 billion** from roughly 300 ultra‑rich donors, many of whom supported candidates opposing wealth taxes, including former President Donald Trump.The war in Iran has further inflamed resentment, with the United States spending **$11.3 billion** in the first week of bombardment—far exceeding the annual budgets of agencies such as the CDC, EPA and the National Cancer Institute.Local victories are feeding the momentum. New York City’s mayoral race saw Zohran Mamdani win on a platform that includes taxing the rich to fund affordable housing, groceries and transit. Councilmember Chi Ossé led a 1,500‑person march to the state capitol, urging Governor Kathy Hochul to permit a city‑level millionaire tax, a move that now has backing from some state Democrats.Beyond New York, states like Rhode Island, Hawaii, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Illinois and New Mexico are debating various wealth‑tax mechanisms, including the popular “mansion tax” on high‑value home sales. Currently, **17 localities** have adopted such taxes, most passed between 2018 and 2023.California’s gubernatorial race has become a flashpoint. Billionaire‑backed candidates Matt Mahan and Tom Steyer are vying to replace Governor Gavin Newsom, with the tech elite—such as Sergey Brin and Joe Lonsdale—pouring money into campaigns opposing the billionaire tax. Of the 30 billionaires who have contributed to the race, **25 supported Mahan**, who has positioned himself as a staunch anti‑tax candidate.For Sanchez, the stakes are personal. The proposed tax seeks to replace **$100 billion** in federal health‑care funding cut by Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” which threatens hospital closures and layoffs in the nation’s fourth‑largest economy. She aims to collect **875,000 signatures** by late June to secure the initiative on the November ballot.“It’s creating a network of groups all working toward a common good,” Sanchez says, reflecting a broader sentiment that collective action could finally translate the public’s demand for fiscal fairness into concrete policy.

FIFA's failure to agree on a blanket tax exemption with the US government has left more than half of the World Cup-qualified countries facing additional costs and potential losses. The tax burden will disproportionately affect smaller national associations without a tax treaty with the US.Of the 48 World Cup qualifiers, only 18 countries have signed a double taxation agreement (DTA) with the US, exempting them from federal taxes. These countries are mostly from Europe, with a few exceptions like Australia, Egypt, Morocco, and South Africa.Smaller countries like Curaçao and Cape Verde, making their tournament debut, will face a larger tax liability compared to teams from countries with DTAs, such as England and France. The US federal corporate tax rate stands at 21%, and higher-rate taxpayers, including international footballers and coaches, face an income tax rate of 37%.“The teams that come from more advanced, sophisticated jurisdictions that have a tax treaty with the US, such as England and Spain, will have much lower costs than smaller countries,” said Oriana Morrison, a tax consultant.The situation is further complicated by varying state taxation levels in the US, with no state tax in Florida, 10.75% in New Jersey, and 13.3% in California. Canada and Mexico have granted tax exemptions to all associations, benefiting teams with group games in those countries.FIFA has declined to comment but sources indicate they are working with national associations to provide help and assistance on tax issues.

Washington state has taken a historic step towards a more progressive tax system by passing a 9.9% income tax on millionaires. The tax, which will take effect in 2028, targets the state's ultra-wealthy residents and aims to address the state's regressive tax system.The tax was championed by activists and lawmakers, including Noel Frame, who has been pushing for a wealth tax for over 15 years. Frame's efforts were previously met with resistance from the tech industry, particularly Microsoft and Amazon, which are headquartered in the state.The new tax is seen as a significant departure from the state's previous stance on taxation. Washington state has long been known for its lack of an income tax, instead relying on sales, business, and property taxes. However, this system has been criticized for being regressive, with the state's poorest residents paying a larger share of their income in taxes.The millionaire tax is expected to bring in much-needed revenue for public services, including public schooling and healthcare. The state's budget gap has been growing, and lawmakers have been struggling to find ways to balance the books.The tax is also seen as part of a national movement towards more progressive taxation. Several other states, including California, Colorado, Michigan, and New York, are considering wealth taxes. The movement is driven in part by growing public awareness of the wealth gap and the need for more equitable taxation.Despite the potential for the tax to drive away wealthy individuals and businesses, research suggests that taxation is not a major factor in decisions to move to a different state. Instead, factors such as work opportunities, family, and lifestyle choices play a much larger role.The tax is expected to face legal challenges and potential opposition from opponents who argue that it will harm the state's economy. However, supporters of the tax argue that it is a necessary step towards creating a more equitable tax system and providing more revenue for public services.

Australia's government has taken swift action to alleviate the financial burden on its citizens, announcing a plan to cut petrol and diesel taxes by half from April 1 to June 30. This move comes as the international benchmark for crude oil surged above $116 a barrel, its highest level in nearly two weeks, amid the escalating conflict in the Middle East.Prime Minister Anthony Albanese made the announcement on Monday, stating that the fuel excise would be reduced by half in recognition of the 'financial stress' caused by rising energy prices. The cut is expected to reduce the cost of petrol by 26.3 Australian cents ($.18) per litre, saving motorists nearly $19 ($13) on a 65-litre (17-gallon) tank of fuel.Albanese emphasized that the government is acting to be 'over-prepared' as the impact of the war on the other side of the world plays out in Australia. The government will also suspend its charge on heavy vehicles for three months. While Australia is a major exporter of coal and natural gas, the country sources about 80 percent of its refined fuel needs from overseas.However, some critics argue that the tax cut may not have a significant impact, as petrol prices have risen by about 33 cents ($0.21) per litre in the past two weeks alone. The National Roads and Motorists' Association in Australia noted that a similar tax cut after Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 was barely felt by motorists.Despite these concerns, the Australian government remains committed to supporting its citizens during this challenging time. Minister for Energy Chris Bowen assured parliament that Australia's energy supply remains secure, with all expected fuel deliveries arriving as scheduled, and that the country has 39 days of petrol in emergency stockpiles, as well as about 30 days each of diesel and jet fuel reserves.

Jeepney driver Arturo Modelo of Manila says his daily earnings have collapsed to roughly one‑third of the usual 600 pesos after fuel costs surged, leaving him unable even to afford his child’s lunch money.Modelo joined a two‑day transport strike on Thursday and Friday, hoping to make a “deaf government” listen to the plight of drivers who can no longer earn a living on the road.The iconic jeepney, born from repurposed U.S. military vehicles after World War II, remains the most affordable commuter option in the Philippines, yet its operators are now bearing the brunt of a global oil shock.Last week, jeepney owners walked out, and this week the protest expanded to include bus, taxi, minibus and motorcycle‑taxi drivers. Nearly a dozen national transport groups marched to the Presidential Palace demanding price caps on petrol and diesel, the removal of fuel taxes, and stricter regulation of the oil sector.Organised under the No to Oil Price Hike Coalition, the demonstrators also blamed “American aggression” against Iran for the domestic economic distress, with union chair Jerome Adonis likening the impact to “a bomb dropped on us”.In response, President Ferdinand Marcos Jr declared a national energy emergency on Tuesday night – the first such declaration in the country’s history. The emergency, set to last one year, grants the government powers to accelerate fuel procurement, curb hoarding and curb profiteering.Fuel prices remain among the highest in Southeast Asia: diesel is now about $2.3 per litre and petrol close to $2 per litre in the Philippines, versus $2.7 and $2.35 respectively in Singapore, while Malaysia, Vietnam and Thailand report roughly half those prices.To alleviate the burden, the administration has introduced a 5,000‑peso ($83) subsidy for motorcycle‑taxi drivers and other public‑transport workers, and disbursed 2.5 billion pesos (≈$414 million) in fuel subsidies to roughly 300,000 transport employees. Unions claim the sector employs about two million people, leaving many without aid.During the strike, picket lines appeared at 85 commuter terminals, and jeepneys were scarce on Manila’s usually congested streets. Authorities, however, argued that the action did not cripple the city’s transport network.Union leader Mody Floranda of the Piston group accused President Marcos of favouring oil companies, saying the president could issue an executive order to cap prices but has yet to act decisively.Energy officials note that 98 % of the Philippines’ crude oil is imported and that the country’s high 12 % value‑added tax, excise duties and a deregulated market – shaped by the Oil Industry Deregulation Law of 1998 – amplify price volatility. Professor Krista Yu of De La Salle University highlighted the nation’s limited refining capacity as a structural weakness.Chief economist Emmanuel Leyco warned that the law allowing industry‑driven price adjustments “is the main culprit”, especially as “half the population is poor”.Amid mounting pressure, Marcos signed legislation permitting the temporary suspension of fuel excise taxes when crude oil prices exceed a set threshold. Opposition lawmaker Renee Co urged that the 12 % VAT also be removed, calling both taxes “regressive” burdens on ordinary Filipinos.Co and other lawmakers have also filed a resolution demanding an immediate end to the U.S.‑Israel‑Iran conflict, linking regional geopolitics to the domestic fuel crisis.

India has taken a significant step to shield its consumers from the impact of rising global energy prices, slashing fuel taxes in the face of increasing tensions between the United States, Israel, and Iran. The move aims to prevent a sharp increase in fuel prices that could have been triggered by the crisis.Petroleum Minister Hardeep Singh Puri announced on Friday that the government had decided to reduce petrol duties from 13 rupees ($0.14) per litre to 3 rupees ($0.032) per litre. Additionally, the 10-rupee (0.11) per litre duty on diesel has been completely removed, effective immediately.The decision comes as oil prices have surged past $100 per barrel following Iran's near-closure of the Strait of Hormuz after Israel and the US launched attacks on February 28. India, being the world's third-largest crude importer, relies heavily on this passageway for its crude oil supply, with about 40 percent of its crude coming through the Strait of Hormuz.Despite concerns about potential shortages, authorities have assured that there is no shortage of crude and that current reserves will cover 74 days. The government also moved to quash rumours of an impending lockdown, with Minister Puri stating that such claims are 'completely false' and that India is 'resilient.'The impact of the tax cuts on pump prices for ordinary consumers remains uncertain. Analysts suggest that oil companies previously selling at a loss are likely to benefit from the tax reductions. According to economist Madhavi Arora from Emkay Global, the annualised fiscal hit from these cuts is estimated at nearly 1.55 trillion rupees ($16.3bn).In a related move, finance authorities have reimposed export taxes on diesel and aviation fuel, raising them to 21.5 rupees ($0.23) and 29.5 ($0.31) rupees per litre respectively. This comes after the taxes were previously scrapped in 2024.

Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia – For over a decade, Sanjeet, a business consultant from India, considered Malaysia his home. Having grown comfortable with the country's climate, people, and lifestyle, he had begun planning long-term investments, including property purchases.However, recent government initiatives to reduce Malaysia's reliance on foreign workers have abruptly disrupted these plans for Sanjeet and thousands of other expatriates. Starting June, minimum salary requirements for foreign workers will increase by up to 100%, while their maximum permitted stay will be limited to five or ten years."What was surprising was that this came out of the blue," Sanjeet, who requested to use a pseudonym, told Al Jazeera. "It does leave room for doubt in terms of long-term plans, which include things like buying a house or car here."Malaysia has long been an attractive destination for foreign labor, with approximately 2.1 million documented foreign workers currently in the country. While many take on manual labor at the minimum wage of 1,700 ringgit ($430) monthly, a smaller but significant pool of around 140 highly-paid expatriates contributes substantially to the economy.In 2024, Home Affairs Minister Saifuddin Nasution revealed that these high-salaried expatriates injected about 75 billion ringgit ($19 billion) into the domestic economy annually while contributing approximately 100 million ringgit ($25 million) in taxes.The government's latest five-year national strategy, released in 2025, warns that Malaysia's "continuous reliance" on low-skilled foreign workers has hampered technological adoption and created "ripple effects" in the labor market, including wage distortions and slow productivity growth.To address these concerns, authorities aim to reduce the foreign workforce proportion from 14.1% in 2024 to just 5% by 2035. This ambitious target is supported by new minimum salary requirements that will see thresholds increase from 10,000 to 20,000 ringgit ($2,500 to $5,000), 5,000 to 10,000 ringgit ($1,260 to $2,520), and 3,000 to 5,000 ringgit ($760 to $1,260) for different work permit categories.UK native Thomas Mead, a 28-year-old wealth manager who recently purchased property in Kuala Lumpur, expressed shock at the sudden policy changes. "However, the jump from RM10,000 to RM20,000 was quite a shock," he said, noting that some expatriates are already considering relocation options despite their reluctance to leave.The policy changes are also raising concerns among businesses. Douglas Gan, a Singaporean founder of a venture capital fund with Malaysian portfolio companies, warned that the new rules would drive up costs and make it challenging to recruit specialized talent. "If salaries increase to 10,000 ringgit, companies definitely won't bring them here," he said, advocating for a more tailored approach rather than a "blanket solution."Leonardo, an Indonesian professional working in Malaysia's computer games sector, faces downgrading to a lower employment pass category under the new rules, potentially jeopardizing his plans to bring his mother to live in the country. "My mum is alone and living in Indonesia. There was a thought that if I could settle here, I could bring her over," he said.Economic analysts caution that the success of these policies depends on Malaysia's ability to develop its local workforce. "The long-run gain depends less on blocking expats and more on whether Malaysia can actually supply the skills," said Wan Suhaimie, head of economic research at Kenanga Investment Bank. He emphasized that foreign workers on mid-tier employment passes are not extravagant hires but "core managers, engineers and specialists."Anthony Dass, CEO of FSG Advisory, noted that while the measures align with strengthening the local talent pipeline, their effectiveness will depend on complementary reforms in capability building and industry upgrading.As these policies take shape, expatriates like Sanjeet are already considering alternatives. "If Malaysia pursues these policies without a comprehensive rationale, then people like me will look for alternatives such as Vietnam, Thailand and elsewhere, which have favourable policies for expats," he concluded.

UK Chancellor Rachel Reeves is facing pressure to raise taxes on businesses generating 'windfall' profits linked to the US-Israel war on Iran to fund emergency cost of living support for UK households.A group of leading charities, campaigners, and trade unions, including Greenpeace UK, the National Education Union, and Tax Justice UK, have written an open letter to Keir Starmer and Reeves, urging the government to strengthen its existing North Sea energy windfall tax and introduce new levies for firms in other sectors that stand to financially benefit from the conflict.The letter highlights that energy companies, banks, agricultural commodities businesses, defence companies, and tech firms are likely to profit from the economic fallout of the war. The group argues that the extra revenue generated from taxing these 'excess profits' could be used to support households struggling with the cost of living and invest in the UK's future energy security.R Reeves has signalled that the government is ready to provide targeted help for households grappling with the economic fallout from the Middle East conflict, amid a surge in energy prices since the onset of the war. The chancellor has also warned companies that she will not tolerate corporates profiteering from the crisis, telling bosses that the Competition and Markets Authority has been put on notice to detect and crack down on price gouging.The UK already has a windfall tax on North Sea oil and gas firms, the energy profits levy, which is due to run until 2030. However, Reeves had been planning to ease the tax before the US and Israel attacked Iran on 28 February.