Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

President Donald Trump signed an executive order on Saturday in the Oval Office, joined by podcaster Joe Rogan, to fast‑track the federal review of psychedelic drugs such as ibogaine, aiming to broaden treatment options for serious mental illness.The ceremony highlighted Rogan’s long‑standing advocacy for ibogaine, a plant‑derived compound used by some veteran groups to address post‑traumatic stress. Rogan recounted texting Trump about the drug, to which the president replied, “Sounds great. Do you want FDA approval? Let’s do it.”Trump framed the order as a lifeline for patients: “Today’s order will ensure that people suffering from debilitating symptoms might finally have a chance to reclaim their lives and lead a happier life.” He added that successful outcomes could have “a tremendous impact.”In a brief moment of levity, Trump joked, “Can I have some, please? I’ll take some.” He quickly refocused, noting he has no time for depression and stays busy instead.The move enjoys rare bipartisan backing, despite ibogaine and other psychedelics remaining classified under the federal government’s most restrictive drug schedule.Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. had previously pledged to ease medical access to psychedelics, a stance echoed in the new order, which directs the Department of Health and Human Services to allocate at least $50 million to states developing programs for serious mental‑health conditions.Simultaneously, the FDA is set to issue “national priority” vouchers for three psychedelic candidates. Commissioner Marty Makary said the vouchers will enable rapid approval “if they align with our national priorities.”The agency also plans the first human trials of ibogaine in the United States, overcoming earlier concerns about potential fatal heart effects.Ibogaine’s origins trace back to the Bwiti religious ceremonies in West‑Central Africa, where the plant has been used for centuries in spiritual contexts.Former Navy SEAL Marcus Luttrell, also present at the event, praised ibogaine, stating, “It absolutely changed my life for the better.”Rogan’s endorsement and the executive order have added a new dimension to Trump’s 2024 campaign narrative, even as he has publicly questioned the administration’s stance on the war with Iran.

The U.S. Congress has passed a 10‑day extension of the controversial Section 702 provision of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), keeping the authority in place until April 30. The measure cleared the House of Representatives and was signed off by the Senate on Friday. Section 702 permits the National Security Agency and other intelligence agencies to gather data on foreign individuals located abroad, a scope that can encompass their communications with U.S. citizens. Critics argue this creates a “backdoor search” that sidesteps traditional warrant requirements, raising alarm among privacy advocates. President Donald Trump had earlier urged Congress to approve an 18‑month renewal without amendments, claiming the law is essential for protecting troops overseas and preventing foreign terror attacks. His effort stalled after resistance from within his own party, notably from Republican Congressman Thomas Massie, who warned he would vote against the bill unless it included a warrant provision and other privacy safeguards. Senate Majority Leader John Thune acknowledged the need for reform, stating, "We’ve got to pivot and figure out what can pass, and we’re in the process of figuring out how to do that here." This signals ongoing bipartisan discussions about tightening oversight while preserving national security capabilities. Supporters of the provision, including Trump, maintain that any dilution could create a "lapse in national security" and hamper efforts to counter foreign threats. The short‑term extension therefore serves as a stop‑gap, allowing intelligence operations to continue while legislators negotiate potential amendments. Originally enacted in 1978, FISA was amended in 2008 to add Section 702 amid the U.S. “global war on terror.” Since then, revelations that the Bush administration had already employed similar tactics have fueled ongoing debates over the balance between security and civil liberties.

A Senate vote on Wednesday failed to block a proposed sale of military bulldozers to Israel, with the measure losing 40‑59. Only seven Democrats crossed party lines to side with the Republican majority, underscoring a notable, though limited, shift in congressional sentiment.Progressive Senator Bernie Sanders introduced the bill amid mounting outrage over Israel’s use of bulldozers to raze villages in Gaza and Lebanon—actions described by rights groups as ethnic cleansing. While the resolution did not pass, 36 Democratic senators also backed a separate effort to stop 1,000‑lb bombs from reaching Israel, more than double the support such measures received last year.Advocacy organizations seized on the vote as a historic moment. Hassan el‑Tayyab of the Friends Committee on National Legislation said the tally shows a majority of Senate Democrats now oppose unconditional aid, aligning with broader American opinion. A recent Pew Research Center poll found 60 % of U.S. adults hold unfavorable views of Israel, with even higher negativity among voters under 50.Republican senators remained uniformly opposed. Senator Rick Scott accused the Democratic supporters of siding with terrorism, arguing that the blocked sales would have helped allies confront threats. The partisan divide highlights the political risk for Republicans who break with former President Donald Trump on Israel policy.Prominent lobbying groups also weighed in. The pro‑Israel lobby AIPAC warned that curbing arms sales would jeopardize Israel’s security, while liberal Zionist organization J Street welcomed the growing willingness to question unconditional assistance. Jewish Voice for Peace’s political director Beth Miller called the vote an "inflection point," suggesting it reveals "massive cracks" in the long‑standing U.S.–Israel alliance.Within the Democratic caucus, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer faced criticism for voting against the resolution, prompting calls from progressive lawmakers like Rep. Ro Khanna for his resignation. Demonstrators outside Schumer’s and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand’s offices demanded they support the bill, reflecting intensified grassroots pressure.The episode signals a potential realignment in U.S. foreign‑policy calculations. As public fatigue with the Gaza war, the Lebanon conflict, and the stalled Iran confrontation grows, lawmakers appear increasingly wary of using American tax dollars to fund overseas military operations that could entangle U.S. troops and erode domestic support.

In a rare display of bipartisan cooperation, lawmakers across the US Congress are demanding greater accountability for sexual misconduct. This week, two US representatives, Eric Swalwell and Tony Gonzales, resigned amid a flood of allegations. Their departures have been hailed as a significant step towards addressing the issue.Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a Democrat, and Lauren Boebert, a Republican, have been at the forefront of the calls for accountability. Ocasio-Cortez described the resignations as “an important turning point” and emphasized that “abuse of power should never be accepted, especially in public office”. She also named Republican Cory Mills, who is under investigation for sexual misconduct, as the next lawmaker who should resign.Boebert has taken steps to strip Swalwell and Gonzales of their federal pensions and has urged those facing harassment in Congress to come forward. She said, “If your boss is mistreating you, or someone else in the office, tell somebody – come to my office. If you want to remain anonymous, remain anonymous”.The allegations against Swalwell and Gonzales are serious. Five women have publicly accused Swalwell of sexual abuse, with one accuser claiming he drugged and raped her in 2018. Gonzales admitted to having an affair with a staff member in 2024, which is prohibited by the House code of conduct.Lawmakers are now pushing for stricter rules and a safer environment for reporting misconduct. Representative Jackie Speier condemned the tendency for Congress to “basically look the other way” and called on leadership to take action.This movement towards accountability has been likened to the bipartisan push to compel the administration of US President Donald Trump to release investigative documents related to Jeffrey Epstein. The effort to hold lawmakers accountable for their actions marks a significant shift in the culture of Congress.

The U.S. House of Representatives voted to prolong Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for an estimated 350,000 Haitian nationals residing in the United States, marking a clear departure from President Donald Trump’s immigration agenda. In a tightly contested vote, the measure passed 224 to 204, with ten Republicans breaking ranks to join the Democratic majority. The legislation would keep TPS in place for an additional three years, citing the persistent violence and political instability that continue to plague Haiti. Following House approval, the bill proceeds to the Senate, where its fate remains uncertain. Should it clear that chamber, Trump has signaled he would veto the extension, setting up a direct showdown between the executive branch and a bipartisan Congress. Democratic Representative Ayanna Pressley, co‑chair of the House Haiti Caucus, hailed the vote as “a monumental victory” and emphasized that the decision reflects both practical policy and humanitarian responsibility. The legislation advanced through a bipartisan discharge petition, a procedural tool that circumvents the Republican leadership’s control of the House agenda, underscoring the urgency lawmakers feel about protecting Haitian residents. President Trump and his administration have repeatedly sought to roll back TPS designations, arguing that prior extensions exceeded executive authority and conflicted with U.S. “national interests.” This stance is part of a broader effort to tighten immigration controls, including proposals to deport Haitian legal permanent residents alleged to have gang ties. TPS, by design, shields foreign nationals already in the U.S. from removal when their home countries face temporary crises such as natural disasters or armed conflict, while also granting limited work authorization. Haiti’s deteriorating security situation—exacerbated since the 2021 assassination of President Jovenel Moïse—has seen powerful gangs dominate large swaths of Port‑au‑Prince, prompting the State Department to issue travel warnings for U.S. citizens. Advocacy groups warn that the looming threat of deportation adds severe stress to Haitian communities in the United States, urging Congress to act swiftly to prevent further trauma. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court is slated to hear a case that could accelerate the administration’s push to rescind deportation protections for both Haitians and Syrians, adding another layer of legal uncertainty to the issue.

West Bengal’s electoral rolls have been slashed by over nine million names, representing roughly 12 % of the state’s 76 million registered voters, after the Election Commission of India (ECI) completed its Special Intensive Revision (SIR) earlier this month. The purge has hit the Muslim community hardest. In districts where Muslims form a sizable share of the electorate, deletions total 460,000 in Murshidabad, 330,000 in North 24 Parganas and 240,000 in Malda. Analysts say the pattern suggests a strategic effort to reshape the voter base ahead of the assembly election scheduled for April 23 and April 29, with results due on May 4. One of the most striking cases is that of Nabijan Mondal, 73, who has voted in every national, state and local election for the past five decades. She discovered her name missing from the new list because her voter card bears the nickname “Nabijan” while her Aadhaar and ration cards use the formal name “Nabirul.” Her husband, children and their spouses remain on the roll, leaving her unable to vote. Overall, nearly six million of the removed voters were classified as absent, shifted, dead or duplicate, while the remaining three million must appeal to special tribunals. However, the Supreme Court of India has ruled that those with pending tribunal cases cannot cast ballots in the upcoming election, though it may permit the ECI to issue supplementary lists. West Bengal’s Muslim population stands at about 25 million (27 % of the state’s 106 million residents). The Trinamool Congress (TMC), led by Mamata Banerjee, has governed the state since 2011 and relies heavily on Muslim support to counter the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Banerjee has accused the ECI of partisan bias, claiming the SIR was “selectively applied … to benefit the BJP.” Conversely, the BJP frames the revision as a necessary measure against “illegal infiltrators,” linking the exercise to concerns over cross‑border migration from Bangladesh and Rohingya refugees. Independent research by the Kolkata‑based SABAR Institute supports the allegation of disproportionate impact. In the contested constituencies of Nandigram and Bhabanipur, where the BJP’s Suvendu Adhikari is challenging TMC leaders, over 95 % of the deleted names in Nandigram were Muslims, and 40 % of deletions in Bhabanipur involved Muslim voters, despite Muslims comprising only 25 % and 20 % of the respective populations. Women appear especially vulnerable. Legal scholar Swati Narayan notes that patrilocal customs and frequent name changes after marriage create documentation gaps that the SIR process penalises. Jesmina Khatun, a 31‑year‑old from Gobindapur, lost her name over a minor spelling inconsistency in her father’s surname, illustrating how minor clerical errors can disenfranchise voters. Political commentator Yogendra Yadav warns that the SIR places an “excessive burden” on female voters, who must produce proof from their natal homes while men can rely on documents from their current residence. With tribunals unlikely to clear the backlog before polling day, thousands of eligible citizens risk being excluded from a pivotal election that could reshape the political landscape of India’s most populous state.

The US Congress is embroiled in a heated debate over the renewal of Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), a law that grants the US government sweeping powers for warrantless surveillance. The law is set to expire on April 20, and lawmakers are divided over whether to reform it or extend it without changes.A coalition of progressive Democrats and far-right Republicans is pushing for reforms, while others are advocating for an 18-month renewal with no changes, in line with Donald Trump's demands. House GOP leaders delayed a procedural vote on a clean extension of Section 702 after the chamber's rules committee approved the measure, amid dissent from privacy advocates within their own party.Section 702 allows national security agencies to collect and review texts and emails sent to and from foreigners living outside the country without a warrant. If Americans are communicating with a non-American target living abroad, their communications can also be swept in. The law includes a provision that notes it will expire without periodically being reauthorized.Intelligence agencies have argued that a warrant requirement would be too burdensome, while privacy advocates argue that the law has been abused and that a warrant requirement is necessary to protect Americans' rights. The FBI has made 7,413 queries about Americans under Section 702 last year, according to the Department of Justice.The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court has expressed concerns about compliance problems with the FBI's querying procedures under Section 702, stating that they have been 'persistent and widespread.' The court's concerns highlight the need for greater oversight and reform of the law.The renewal of Section 702 comes as the Trump administration appears to be widening its surveillance arsenal, with the FBI resuming its purchase of sensitive location data to bypass warrant requirements. Privacy advocates are pushing for a warrant requirement, citing concerns about mass surveillance and the potential for abuse of power.

A three‑judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued a two‑to‑one decision on Tuesday that blocks District Judge James Boasberg from moving forward with contempt hearings against the Trump administration.The case stemmed from Boasberg’s attempt to determine whether officials violated his March 15, 2025 order to turn around two deportation flights while they were airborne. The flights had carried 137 Venezuelan nationals to El Salvador under the rarely used Alien Enemies Act, a 1798 statute granting presidents broad wartime powers.In the majority opinion, Judge Neomi Rao (a Trump appointee) wrote that Boasberg’s contempt inquiry was a “clear abuse of discretion,” noting that the district court’s order did not expressly forbid the transfer of the migrants into Salvadoran custody. She emphasized that criminal contempt applies only to violations of a “clear and specific” order.Judge Justin Walker, also appointed by Trump, joined Rao, while Judge J. Michelle Childs—a Biden appointee—dissented. The split reflects the broader partisan tension surrounding the case.Critics of the deportations argued that invoking the Alien Enemies Act represented presidential overreach and that the rapid operation denied the immigrants due process, including the ability to appeal. Some detainees were later released to Venezuela in a July 2025 prisoner exchange after spending months in El Salvador’s maximum‑security Centre for Terrorism Confinement (CECOT).Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche praised the ruling on X, stating it should “finally end Judge Boasberg’s year‑long campaign against the hardworking Department attorneys doing their jobs fighting illegal immigration.”The decision underscores the judiciary’s role in checking executive immigration actions, especially when emergency court orders intersect with national‑security‑related statutes. It also signals that future attempts to pursue contempt for alleged violations of ambiguous orders may face heightened scrutiny.

Eric Swalwell, a Democratic U.S. Representative from California, announced his resignation from Congress after a fifth woman accused him of unwanted sexual contact, alleging he drugged and raped her during a 2018 encounter. The claim was made public on Tuesday, intensifying a series of allegations that have already derailed his bid for the California governorship. Swalwell had suspended his gubernatorial campaign earlier in the week, a race in which polls had shown him as the front‑runner to replace Governor Gavin Newsom. The campaign collapsed after the San Francisco Chronicle and CNN reported multiple accusations, including a 2024 rape allegation by a former staffer in a New York City hotel that left the victim bleeding and bruised. Additional allegations surfaced that three other women received inappropriate Snapchat messages from Swalwell, a platform that automatically deletes interactions, complicating verification. In response, Lonna Drewes—one of the accusers—stated at a Los Angeles press conference that her hesitation to act earlier was driven by fear of Swalwell’s political power, not doubt about the allegations. Drewes’s attorney, Lisa Bloom, announced that a police report would be filed with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Office. The backlash was swift: supporters withdrew endorsements, and a coalition of bipartisan lawmakers called for an immediate vote to expel Swalwell from the House. The Manhattan District Attorney’s Office also confirmed it is investigating the sexual assault claims. Swalwell issued an apology to his family, staff, and constituents, describing his actions as “mistakes in judgment.” He emphasized his intent to fight what he called “serious, false allegations” and criticized the prospect of an expulsion vote without due process, stating, “Expelling anyone in Congress without due process, within days of an allegation being made, is wrong.” Republican Representative Anna Paulina Luna said she would withdraw her motion to expel Swalwell once his resignation became effective, confirming that his resignation letter had been submitted “effective immediately.” Meanwhile, Republican Representative Tony Gonzales announced his own retirement from Congress amid similar calls for expulsion over unrelated sexual misconduct allegations. Swalwell’s departure marks a dramatic end to a campaign that once positioned him as a leading contender for California’s top executive office, underscoring how personal misconduct allegations can swiftly upend political trajectories and trigger extensive legal scrutiny.