Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

Irish MEP Barry Andrews toured makeshift shelters in Beirut last month, where displaced families are living on dirty mattresses and blankets and suffering from infections. The conditions, he said, are worse than during Israel’s 2024 incursion, underscoring the human cost of Israel’s retaliatory strikes after Hezbollah fired rockets into Israel.On returning to Dublin, Andrews became one of the first European lawmakers to urge the European Union to revive sanctions against Israel. He argued that the EU must also address state‑backed settler violence in the West Bank, attacks on health workers in Gaza, and Israel’s recent move to reinstate the death penalty for Palestinians convicted of terrorism.The EU’s leverage lies in its association agreement with Israel, a commerce and cooperation accord that underpins a €68 billion (€59 bn) trading relationship and includes cooperation on energy and scientific research. Former EU representative to the Palestinian territories, Sven Kühn von Burgsdorff, says the bloc should suspend this agreement, halt all military aid, and cease trade with illegal settlements, warning that inaction will further damage the EU’s reputation.Andrews described the EU’s reaction to the Iran‑Israel‑Lebanon war as “weak and pathetic,” adding that it effectively gives Israel a “permission slip for endless war crimes.” The European Commission condemned the Knesset’s death‑penalty vote as “very concerning” and a “clear step backwards,” while the Council of Europe called it a “legal anachronism” incompatible with modern human‑rights standards.Human‑rights figures note that in the past four weeks more than 1,240 people have been killed in Lebanon—including at least 124 children—and over 1.1 million have been displaced. In Gaza, the death toll has risen by 673 since the October ceasefire, bringing the total to 72,260 deaths.EU leaders have been divided on how to respond. Former Commission President Ursula von der Leyen proposed unprecedented sanctions last September, citing a “man‑made famine” in Gaza, but the proposal failed to secure a majority in the Council of Ministers, losing momentum after the U.S. announced a cease‑fire plan.Member states also differ: Ireland, Spain and Slovenia champion the Palestinian cause, whereas Germany, Austria and Hungary—led by Viktor Orbán, a close ally of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu—have resisted measures such as sanctions on West Bank settlers.Despite these divisions, a senior EU diplomat warned in mid‑March that the bloc may need to “increase pressure on Israel again,” citing the “highly problematic” situation in Gaza and the West Bank. Another diplomat highlighted the importance of engaging with Israeli civil society, noting an open letter from 600 Israeli security officials urging an end to the Gaza war.In a recent statement, a Commission spokesperson reiterated that diplomatic engagement with Israel continues, describing it as the standard approach when partners “do not see developments eye to eye.” Yet former EU envoy Kühn von Burgsdorff cautioned that the EU cannot appear as a “sidekick” to an “erratic, unreliable” U.S. president or a “warmongering, annexationist” Israeli prime minister, as such a stance would undermine Europe’s global standing.

Washington, D.C. – In a historic session, the United States Supreme Court examined the Trump administration’s bid to curtail the long‑standing practice of granting citizenship to anyone born on American soil. The hearing drew a sizable crowd of civil‑rights and immigration advocates who decried the proposal as unconstitutional. Lawyers representing the administration argued that the 14th Amendment has been misread for over a century and that citizenship should be limited to children of parents who are legally domiciled in the United States. They contended that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” permits the exclusion of infants born to undocumented or temporary‑status parents. Opposing counsel from the ACLU and other groups countered that the amendment’s language, reinforced by the 1898 United States v. Wong Kim Ark decision and the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act, unequivocally guarantees citizenship regardless of parental status. “The rule was enshrined in the 14th Amendment to keep it out of reach of any official who might try to destroy it,” ACLU attorney Cecillia Wang said. The proceedings were underscored by President Donald Trump’s unprecedented presence in the courtroom, making him the first sitting president to attend Supreme Court oral arguments. Trump left the hearing abruptly, later posting on Truth Social that the United States is “the only country in the world stupid enough to allow ‘birthright’ citizenship.” Protesters such as 21‑year‑old Luis Villaguzman of LULAC expressed personal stakes, noting that the policy would strip benefits from pregnant immigrant mothers and jeopardize their children’s future. “This hits close to home,” he said. Justices probed the administration’s claims, with Justice Kentanji Brown Jackson asking, “Who is domiciled?” while Justice Samuel Alito highlighted the repeated references to “domicile” in the Wong Kim Ark opinion. Justice Brett Kavanaugh questioned why Congress had not clarified the citizenship scope in the 1952 statute, and Justice Amy Coney Barrett warned of the logistical chaos the order could create. Legal scholars warned that the executive order could affect roughly 255,000 infants annually, according to a joint analysis by the Migration Policy Institute and Penn State’s Population Research Institute, potentially creating a “self‑perpetuating, multigenerational underclass.” Outside the court, immigration advocates emphasized the broader implications: the measure could disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of children, many of Latino heritage, and compound the administration’s aggressive deportation agenda. The Court has not set a date for a final ruling, but the hearing offered a glimpse into the judicial scrutiny the case will face as the nation watches a potential reshaping of a core constitutional right.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi told Al Jazeera that he has exchanged messages with Steve Witkoff, the senior envoy appointed by President Donald Trump, but stressed that these contacts do not constitute formal negotiations. "I receive messages from Witkoff directly, as before, and this does not mean that we are in negotiations," Araghchi said, adding that all communications are routed through the Foreign Ministry and security agencies. The minister highlighted Iran’s historic mistrust of US diplomatic overtures, recalling Washington’s withdrawal from the 2015 nuclear agreement and two recent attacks on Iranian territory during ongoing talks. Araghchi noted that Pakistan has been facilitating the recent exchanges and has also hosted regional discussions involving Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey to build momentum for direct Iran‑US dialogue. Additionally, Pakistan’s Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar visited Beijing to seek Chinese backing for these efforts. Regarding the strategic Strait of Hormuz, Araghchi asserted that the waterway falls under the joint jurisdiction of Iran and Oman. He said that once hostilities cease, the two nations will decide its future, emphasizing that the strait should remain a "peaceful waterway." While acknowledging that Gulf states such as Qatar want a seat at the table, Araghchi maintained that the strait is open to commercial vessels from all nations except those actively at war with Iran, which is a standard wartime measure. He also mentioned that ships from India, Pakistan, Turkey and China have already negotiated transit through the strait, underscoring its continued commercial relevance. On the prospect of a US ground invasion, Araghchi warned that Iran is fully prepared to confront any such move. "We are waiting for them," he said, adding that Iranian forces possess the strength to repel a land assault and that the United States would be making a grave mistake by attempting one. These statements come as the Trump administration reportedly increases troop deployments in the Gulf and explores contingency plans for a possible invasion of Iran.

President Donald Trump has made a bold statement regarding the ongoing conflict with Iran, suggesting that the US could potentially end the war within two to three weeks. He emphasized that a deal is not a prerequisite for the US to withdraw from the conflict, indicating a possible shift in his diplomatic approach.Trump's comments come amid rising tensions and escalating energy prices, with domestic petrol prices in the US jumping past an average of $4 a gallon. The conflict has disrupted energy supplies and shaken the global economy, with Iran's attacks on Gulf oil facilities and its continued control over fuel supplies through the Strait of Hormuz, a vital waterway through which one-fifth of the world's oil and liquified natural gas passes.In a surprising move, Trump has criticized allied countries for not providing sufficient support in the conflict. He took aim at countries like the UK, telling them to either buy US fuel or get involved in the rapidly escalating war. 'Go get your own oil!' he stated, emphasizing that the US wouldn't be there to help them anymore.Trump's statements have been met with caution by experts, who note that it would not be easy for him to simply walk out of a conflict that has spread across the region and resulted in thousands of deaths. Trita Parsi, a foreign policy expert, suggested that Trump's comments should be treated with skepticism, predicting that the timeline for the conflict would likely continue to be extended.The conflict has also drawn in other countries, with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu arguing that the war on Iran was 'definitely beyond the halfway point.' The situation remains volatile, with experts warning that Iran will continue to control the Strait of Hormuz and potentially continue to target it.

Chicago Bears owners are flirting with a move to Hammond, Indiana, after stalled tax talks stalled their Arlington Heights stadium plan. The prospect has ignited outrage from fans, Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker, and even WWE star CM Punk, who called the maneuver “straight greed.” In response, U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders and Representative Greg Casar introduced the Home Team Act, legislation that would require professional‑sports owners to give their host community a one‑year window to purchase the team at fair market value before any cross‑state relocation. Casar emphasized that “sports in America should be about more than making billionaire owners richer,” noting that many municipalities have already poured billions into subsidies to keep profitable franchises at home. Sanders, a lifelong Brooklyn Dodgers fan, recalled the 1957 Dodgers’ move to Los Angeles as a formative moment that shaped his anti‑corporate stance. The Home Team Act defines relocation as any move that crosses state lines or shifts a franchise to a different metropolitan area. During the mandatory year, a broad range of buyers—including private individuals, municipalities, corporations, or community‑owned entities like the Green Bay Packers—could acquire the team at market price. The Packers’ unique structure, with over 500,000 shareholders and a cap of 200,000 shares per individual, has helped keep the team in Green Bay, though it remains an outlier. Relocation threats are common across the NFL and other leagues, typically driven by owners seeking future profit rather than current revenue. The bill’s co‑sponsor, California Congresswoman Lateefah Simon, points to Oakland’s recent loss of the Warriors, Raiders, and soon the Athletics as a cautionary tale: the exodus has crippled local businesses, eliminated jobs, and eroded cultural identity. Financially, the Bears are valued at roughly $8.9 billion. Even with wealthy backers, the fiscal burden on taxpayers to retain such a franchise would be massive, making community ownership an appealing yet largely theoretical solution. Passage of the Home Team Act faces steep hurdles. It must clear both chambers of Congress and win presidential approval from an administration friendly to billionaire team owners. Practical challenges also remain, such as defining the exact moment a relocation process begins and establishing an impartial method for fair‑market valuation. Nevertheless, proponents argue that if owners placed greater value on their communities, legislation like the Home Team Act might become unnecessary. For now, the bill represents a rare legislative attempt to rebalance power between affluent franchise owners and the fans and taxpayers who support them.

Donald Trump announced over the weekend that he wants to "take the oil in Iran" by seizing control of Kharg Island, the strategic outpost through which roughly 90% of Iran’s oil exports flow. Experts say the remark underscores a blatant disregard for international law and exemplifies what they term “fossil‑fuel imperialism.” Patrick Bigger, co‑director of the Transition Security Project, described the approach as a "might‑makes‑right" logic that is both "abhorrent and spectacularly miscalculated." Trump is slated to give an update on the Iran‑U.S. conflict on Wednesday. He previously claimed the war could end within weeks, a statement that sent the stock market soaring on expectations of de‑escalation. Iran, however, has insisted it needs guarantees against future attacks before halting its counter‑offensive. The fighting continues, highlighted by an Iranian strike on a fully loaded crude tanker in Dubai and threats to "blow up and completely obliterate" Iran’s energy infrastructure if the Strait of Hormuz is not reopened promptly. Kharg Island, a five‑mile strip that handles the bulk of Iran’s oil shipments, along with its power plants and oil wells, has been singled out by Trump. He told the Financial Times that U.S. forces should take over the island and the oil stored there. "My favorite thing is to take the oil in Iran," Trump said, adding that critics in the United States are "stupid people." Amir Handjani, an energy lawyer at the Quincy Institute, warned that the statement "completely discredited" the war’s stated objectives and revealed a classic play for natural resources. Handjani noted that Trump’s desire to seize Iranian oil is not new; he voiced similar ambitions in a 1988 interview while promoting The Art of the Deal, saying he would "do a number on Kharg Island" if elected. The former president has also floated comparable ideas for Iraq, Syria and Venezuela, suggesting the United States could appropriate their oil to offset war costs or bolster strategic reserves. Handjani emphasized that international law provides no framework for waging war to capture sovereign nations' natural resources. From a military perspective, taking Kharg Island would be extremely challenging. Iranian missile defenses have rendered regional U.S. bases inoperable, meaning any assault would likely require a parachute insertion of Marines into heavy fire, with the risk of massive Iranian retaliation. Handjani warned that such retaliation could target oil export terminals across the Persian Gulf, potentially driving crude prices to $200‑$300 per barrel and destabilising the global economy. The conflict has already caused the largest-ever disruption to global energy supplies, killing thousands and sparking sharp fuel‑price shocks. While consumers bear the brunt, major fossil‑fuel companies are enjoying windfall profits. Bigger noted that higher oil prices benefit oil majors and are being used as a pretext to expand U.S. drilling, further entrenching reliance on carbon‑intensive fuels. According to Bigger, Trump’s rhetoric reveals a belief that "fossil fuels are a linchpin of his domestic industrial strategy," and that controlling oil equates to controlling global power. He argues that this mindset threatens the international order and hampers the transition to cleaner energy.

The UK government's proposal to boost North Sea oil and gas drilling is unlikely to provide relief to consumers in the form of lower energy prices. Oil prices have surged to $100 a barrel following the US and Israel's attack on Iran, with potential increases to $150 a barrel due to supply issues in the Strait of Hormuz.Kemi Badenoch, leader of the Conservative party, has introduced a plan to 'get Britain drilling' by opening new oil and gas fields in the North Sea. However, experts argue that this will not reduce energy bills for UK consumers. Oil and gas are sold on international markets, and prices are set globally, so there is no direct discount for UK consumers.The Conservative party has previously acknowledged this, but now suggests that tax reforms and removal of VAT on bills could deliver £200 cuts to household energy bills. The plan involves scrapping the windfall tax on North Sea producers, which has raised about £12bn so far.Critics argue that the windfall tax is essential and that removing it would not stimulate production significantly. The tax does not increase prices to consumers and has the support of the International Energy Agency.Analysis suggests that redirecting tax revenues from the North Sea back to consumers would have a minimal impact on bills. A study found that households would gain only about £16 a year if tax revenues from a maximally exploited North Sea were redistributed.Badenoch's claims about job creation in the North Sea are also disputed. The sector is declining, and geology, not politics, will dictate the future of North Sea oil and gas. Most of the UK's sector has already been drained, with only about 218m tonnes of oil recoverable by 2050 from existing fields.New drilling could add only 74m tonnes of oil and 1.1% to gas production, equivalent to putting off the end of the North Sea by a year or two. Job losses in the sector are a concern, with at least 70,000 jobs lost in the decade to 2024.Experts stress that renewable energy sources are a more secure and sustainable alternative. The UK should focus on creating conditions for clean energy infrastructure to attract investment and drive growth.

The author spent a month testing Meta's smartglasses, which feature an integrated AI assistant voiced by Judi Dench. The glasses can take photos, provide directions, and answer questions, but the author found them to be unreliable and frustrating to use.The glasses raise significant privacy concerns, with the author noting that they can be used for covert recording and that people may not be aware when they are being filmed. The author also experienced creepy feelings while wearing the glasses, particularly when they were used to record strangers without their consent.The author concludes that while smartglasses have the potential to be useful assistive technology for people with disabilities, they are not yet reliable or functional enough to be widely adopted. The author also notes that Meta's plans for facial recognition and data collection raise significant concerns about privacy and surveillance.Experts warn that smartglasses may become a flashpoint in a bigger, existential discussion about how much integration we want with technology, and that regulation is needed to protect bystanders' privacy. The author ultimately decides that the glasses are not worth the risks and drawbacks, and that people should think carefully before adopting this technology.

Vice President JD Vance revealed that he will publish a new memoir titled "Communion: Finding My Way Back to Faith", scheduled for release on June 16 by HarperCollins. The work is billed as a spiritual chronicle of his journey back to Christianity after converting to Catholicism in 2019 at age 35.In a post on X, Vance described the project as a long‑standing effort that “captures my personal journey and how I found my way back to faith.” The publisher adds that the book will explore how his renewed belief guides his public‑service decisions and shapes his vision for the future.The announcement comes at a time when Vance is increasingly seen as an early frontrunner for the 2028 Republican presidential nomination. Political analysts note that releasing a memoir before a presidential run follows a well‑trodden path in U.S. politics, mirroring recent book launches by potential Democratic contenders such as Kamala Harris and Gavin Newsom.Vance’s emphasis on faith reflects a growing religious dimension to his political identity. His Catholic conversion has informed his positions on abortion, family policy, and immigration, where he has invoked the concept of ordo amoris (“order of love”) to justify prioritising citizens’ interests over non‑citizens. This stance has drawn criticism from senior Vatican figures, including a pre‑May‑2025 X account linked to Pope Leo XIV that challenged the White House’s deportation plans.Even the late Pope Francis, without naming Vance, warned in a 2025 letter that true ordo amoris should emulate the “Good Samaritan” parable, urging a love that embraces all people without exception."Communion" follows the massive success of Vance’s first bestseller, Hillbilly Elegy. The 2016 memoir spent over 200 weeks on the New York Times bestseller list and sold more than five million copies worldwide, later inspiring a Ron Howard‑directed film starring Glenn Close and Amy Adams.