Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

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.

Brazil's Federal Police have launched an investigation into Flavio Bolsonaro, a right-wing presidential candidate, for allegedly issuing defamatory statements against his election rival, President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva. The probe was ordered by the Supreme Court's Justice Alexandre de Moraes and relates to posts Bolsonaro published in January.In the posts, Bolsonaro responded to the news of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro's abduction by the US with insinuations linking Lula to crimes. He wrote that Lula will be exposed and predicted the collapse of the left-wing alliance known as the Sao Paulo Forum due to scandals including international drug and arms trafficking and money laundering.Brazil's penal code considers defamation a criminal offence, with prosecutors able to seek heightened penalties for defamation against presidents or heads of state. The Federal Police have 60 days to carry out their initial investigation.The development comes as Bolsonaro and Lula are in a neck-and-neck race for the presidency ahead of October's general election. A recent poll showed Lula slightly ahead in the first round with 37% of the vote compared to Bolsonaro's 32%, but Bolsonaro polls slightly ahead in a one-on-one contest.Flavio Bolsonaro, a senator for Rio de Janeiro and the eldest son of former President Jair Bolsonaro, entered the 2026 presidential race with his father's endorsement. He has suggested that seeking his father's freedom would be part of his campaign.

President Donald Trump announced on Fox Business that he will dismiss Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell if the central‑bank chief does not vacate the post by the statutory end of his term on May 15. “I’ll have to fire him, OK, if he’s not leaving on time,” Trump said, adding that he had previously held back the decision to avoid controversy. Powell, who has just over a month left in his tenure, has repeatedly been criticized by Trump for what the president calls a “bad job” and for refusing to lower interest rates despite Trump’s repeated demands since his return to the White House in January 2025. In January, Trump nominated former Fed governor Kevin Warsh to replace Powell. Warsh, known for his criticism of the Fed’s relatively high rates, is expected to align more closely with Trump’s push for rate cuts. His confirmation hearing before the Senate Banking Committee is slated for April 21, but the outcome remains uncertain. Republican Senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina, a member of the banking committee, has signaled he will block Warsh’s nomination until the Department of Justice concludes its criminal investigation into alleged misconduct surrounding the Fed’s headquarters renovation in Washington, D.C. Tillis described the probe as “reaching the point of absurd,” yet insists the investigation must be resolved before moving forward. The probe appears active: prosecutors made an unannounced visit to the construction site this week, as reported by the Wall Street Journal, underscoring the seriousness of the inquiry. During the same interview, Trump dismissed the investigation’s relevance, claiming the project was “probably corrupt, but what it really is is incompetence,” and questioned whether a $25 million renovation could balloon to a $4 billion expense. Powell responded in January with a rare public rebuke, labeling the investigation a “pretext” aimed at pressuring the Fed to lower rates. He warned that political intimidation could jeopardize the Fed’s ability to set monetary policy based on economic evidence. The legal backdrop adds another layer of uncertainty. The Supreme Court has yet to rule on Trump’s authority to fire a Fed board member without cause—a question that resurfaced after the president’s attempted removal of Fed governor Lisa Cook last summer. Justices appeared skeptical of such unilateral action during oral arguments in January. With the Fed’s independence at stake, the coming weeks will determine whether Trump’s threat translates into action, whether Warsh can secure Senate confirmation, and how the renovation investigation will influence the broader debate over political interference in U.S. monetary policy.

Former Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen sharply criticized President Donald Trump’s repeated calls for the Federal Reserve to slash borrowing costs, likening the approach to the fiscal tactics of a “banana republic.”Trump has publicly urged the central bank to deliver the lowest interest rate in the world, arguing that cheaper financing would ease the service burden on the United States’ staggering $39 trillion debt.Speaking at an HSBC investor summit in Hong Kong, Yellen asked, “How often does the president of a developed country demand that interest rates be set to reduce debt‑service costs? This is what you hear in a banana republic.” She warned that such political meddling could unleash inflation if the Fed’s independence is compromised.The Fed, under Chair Jerome Powell, last lowered its policy rate in December to a range of 3.5 %–3.75 %. However, policymakers are growing uneasy about inflationary pressures, especially as the ongoing Iran conflict threatens oil supplies.Powell is slated to step down next month, but his successor—Trump’s nominee Kevin Warsh—has yet to secure Senate confirmation. Powell has indicated he will remain in his role if a replacement is not confirmed, and he may continue as a Fed governor until a pending Department of Justice investigation concludes.Trump has openly dismissed the idea of Powell staying on, telling Fox Business that he would “have to fire him” if the chair does not leave. Powell, for his part, describes the DOJ probe as a “pretext” aimed at pressuring the Fed to cut rates.Warsh, who argues that potential productivity gains from artificial intelligence could justify lower rates, faces skepticism from Yellen, who doubts he commands the same respect as former Fed chair Alan Greenspan. She noted, “Greenspan was widely respected for his expertise; I don’t think Warsh walks in with that level of credibility.”Trump’s broader effort to reshape the Fed board includes an attempt to remove Governor Lisa Cook, who is currently facing a Supreme Court case over alleged mortgage fraud.Meanwhile, finance ministers and central bankers have gathered in Washington for the International Monetary Fund’s spring meetings. Bank of England Governor Andrew Bailey warned that rising oil prices, driven by the Iran conflict, constitute a “major supply shock” that central banks must assess carefully.The IMF has cautioned that a prolonged closure of the Strait of Hormuz could trigger a global recession, underscoring the interconnected risks of geopolitical tensions, sovereign debt, and monetary policy decisions.

Gina Rinehart, Australia's wealthiest person, faces a potentially significant loss of wealth and control over her Pilbara iron ore empire as a court verdict looms in Perth. The Western Australian supreme court judgment will determine whether Rinehart must share the spoils of some of Hancock Prospecting's most lucrative iron ore projects with the family of her late father's business partner, Peter Wright.The dispute centers on the lucrative Hope Downs mining complex near Newman in north-west Western Australia, a joint venture between Hancock Prospecting and Rio Tinto, which delivered a $832m profit to Hancock Prospecting in 2025. The Wright family heirs claim they are entitled to an equal share of the 2.5% royalties coming from Hope Downs to Hancock Prospecting.Hancock Prospecting rejects the claim, arguing it undertook all the work and bore the financial risk of development, making it the legitimate owner of the Hope Downs assets. The judgment, expected to be appealed regardless of the outcome, may also impact Rinehart's children, who have accused their mother of an 'egregious fraud' against them.Rinehart's company and Hancock Prospecting have rejected all claims, with Rinehart's lawyers arguing that her actions were done to right an historic wrong by her father. The court's decision will also inform a separate federal arbitration process that will decide how Hancock Prospecting's shares are divided between the family.In a related development, Hancock Prospecting's latest annual report shows that more than $6.4bn in dividends have been placed in reserve pending the outcome of arbitration.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia has granted the Trump administration a brief reprieve, extending the pause on the White House ballroom construction until April 17. The move allows officials to pursue a potential Supreme Court review of a lower‑court injunction that barred further work. In a split decision, Judges Patricia Millett and Bradley Garcia formed the majority, while Trump‑appointed Judge Neomi Rao dissented. The majority questioned the administration’s repeated claim that the construction pause creates a national‑security risk, noting that the original order already exempts work necessary for the White House’s safety. Judge Richard Leon, appointed by former President George W. Bush, had issued the March 31 injunction, stating that a project of this magnitude requires explicit Congressional authorization. Leon’s order included a 14‑day stay to let the administration appeal, a stay that was set to expire this week before the appeals court’s extension. The court highlighted that the administration has not demonstrated how the injunction interferes with any existing security plans. As the majority wrote, “Defendants have not, on this record, explained how, if at all, the injunction interferes with their existing plans for safety and security.” Furthermore, the judges pointed out that the ballroom—spanning roughly 90,000 sq ft (8,360 m²)—was always projected to be a multi‑year undertaking. Planning documents estimate completion nearly three years after groundbreaking, raising doubts about the claim that a short‑term delay poses additional harm. In her dissent, Judge Rao argued that the majority’s demand for further fact‑finding would cause “irreparable injury” by halting construction, asserting that the aesthetic concerns raised by critics are outweighed by the administration’s interests. The controversy stems from the decision to demolish the historic East Wing, a structure dating back to 1902, to make room for the new ballroom. Critics, including the National Trust for Historic Preservation, contend the demolition was executed without notice and exceeds presidential authority, prompting a lawsuit that led to Leon’s injunction. While the appeals court has sent the case back to the district court for clarification on factual disputes and the scope of the security exemption, the extension effectively keeps the construction site active for another week, maintaining the political flashpoint surrounding one of the most transformative building projects on the nation’s capital in recent memory.

The US Court of International Trade is hearing oral arguments in a case aimed at overturning President Donald Trump's global import tariffs. The tariffs, which were imposed in February, have been met with opposition from several US states and small businesses.The plaintiffs, including 24 mostly Democratic-led states and two small businesses, argue that the 10% global import tax sidesteps a Supreme Court ruling that invalidated most of Trump's previous tariffs. They claim that the tariffs are based on archaic authority meant to protect the US dollar from sudden depreciation in the 1970s, not to address routine trade deficits.Oregon's lawyer, Brian Marshall, told the judges that they should block the tariffs rather than let them expire on the normal 150-day timeline, to prevent Trump from invoking laws to keep them indefinitely. "[If] we have a successive series where there's always tariffs in place, that's a problem," Marshall said.The Trump administration has argued that the global tariffs are a legal and appropriate response to a persistent trade deficit caused by the fact that the US imports more goods than it exports. "President Trump is lawfully using the executive powers granted to him by Congress to address our country's balance of payments crisis," White House spokesperson Kush Desai said.The case is significant as it challenges Trump's use of Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which authorises duties of up to 15% for up to 150 days on imports during "large and serious United States balance-of-payments deficits" or to prevent imminent depreciation of the dollar.

Argentina's glacier law has been in effect since 2010, and was the first legislation in Latin America to protect glaciers. It has been a point of contention for mining companies and provincial authorities ever since.The law bans 'any activity' that can affect the 'natural condition' of a glacier or the periglacial frozen land surrounding it, or that results in 'its destruction, movement or interferes with its advance'. That includes the construction of infrastructure not for scientific purposes and any industrial activity. Mining companies, including Barrick, have previously sought to have the law deemed unconstitutional, but the supreme court rejected the challenge.However, a recent reform to the glacier law driven by the far-right government of Javier Milei will relax restrictions, paving the way for mines in high-altitude areas blanketed with ice and snow, which are sources of water. The new law, approved on Wednesday by 137 votes to 111, with three abstentions, will enable provincial authorities to decide which glaciers are protected and which are open for development based on whether they represent a 'relevant water function'.Environmentalists and community members such as Zeballos, a 51-year-old accountant turned activist, have long alleged that Veladero, owned by Canada-based Barrick Mining Corporation and China's Shandong Gold, is operating illegally in an area considered off-limits by Argentina's Ley de Glaciares – or glacier law. The reform has sparked a wave of protests, with Greenpeace activists staging a demonstration on the steps of the National Congress.'What is at stake is the protection of key water reserves in Argentina,' says Andrés Nápoli, a lawyer and executive director of the Foundation of Environment and Natural Resources (Farn), an environmental and human rights NGO. 'Saying that you have to destroy glaciers to guarantee the energy transition is an oxymoron.'About 7 million people, 16% of the population in Argentina, live in areas that depend on glaciers, according to environmental organisations. Glaciers don't just feed rivers; they balance fragile ecosystems hit hard by a heating planet. In Argentina's northwest, scientists say they have shrunk by 17% in the past 10 years.

US President Donald Trump has announced that countries supplying Iran with military weapons will face immediate 50% tariffs on all goods sold to the United States, with no exemptions. This move comes hours after Trump agreed to a two-week ceasefire with Tehran.In a social media post, Trump stated that 'A Country supplying Military Weapons to Iran will be immediately tariffed, on any and all goods sold to the United States of America, 50%, effective immediately. There will be no exclusions or exemptions!'However, experts have raised questions about the legal authority behind Trump's announcement, as the Supreme Court struck down his use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose broad global tariffs in February. The IEEPA has been used extensively for decades to back financial sanctions against Iran, Russia, and North Korea.Rachel Ziemba, adjunct senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security, told Al Jazeera that 'it's a lot more complicated to do that after IEEPA was struck down. There's no immediate policy lever and authorisation that is available for the US to do that. So they need either an act of Congress or need to adapt some other trade tool.'Trump did not specify which countries could face punitive tariffs, but China and Russia have helped Iran build military capacity to counter US and Israeli pressure. The US imports from Russia have fallen sharply since the invasion of Ukraine in 2022 and the wave of financial sanctions imposed on Moscow.Josh Lipsky, vice president and chair of international economics at the Atlantic Council, said that 'this is a China-related threat, the way I read it. And China will read it that way.' However, he also noted that Trump was unlikely to follow through with new tariffs in the near term because that would derail his planned trip to Beijing to meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping in mid-May.