Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

MPs in the UK have rejected a proposal to ban under-16s from using social media for the second time, as the Prime Minister summoned tech bosses to demand tougher action on internet safety. The House of Commons sided with the government against a Lords amendment to the children's wellbeing and schools bill that imposed a new age limit on using social media platforms. The vote, which was 256 to 150, a majority of 106, against the change, marks a significant setback for campaigners who have been pushing for greater urgency in tackling online harms. The government is now pushing ahead with its own consultation into an under-16s ban and potential restrictions on social media platforms, which closes next month. The consultation will consider raising the age limit on social media from 13 to 16 and addressing the addictive nature of social media platforms by restricting features such as infinite scrolling. The Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, is set to meet senior leaders at social media companies, including TikTok, X, YouTube, Snapchat, and Meta, to demand swifter progress on internet safety. Campaigners and bereaved parents have urged the government to take tougher action to protect children online. Esther Ghey, mother of the murdered teenager Brianna Ghey, said the government consultation was 'delaying' action against online harms. 'We know that social media is addictive, we know about the things young people are accessing online,' she said. The Molly Rose Foundation, an internet safety charity, said the solution was not a ban but a commitment to strengthening the Online Safety Act. 'It's time to look beyond this false sense of safety and for the Prime Minister to decisively commit to strengthening regulation to make unsafe and addictive design a thing of the past,' said Andy Burrows, MRF's chief executive.

Pet owners in Britain may soon be barred from purchasing flea‑control products for cats and dogs at local shops. The government has opened an eight‑week public consultation to consider restricting sales to veterinarians or pharmacists, arguing that professional oversight will ensure correct usage and reduce environmental harm. Current regulations allow these topical treatments—containing potent insecticides such as fipronil and imidacloprid—to be bought in any pet store. Once applied, the chemicals disperse into the animal’s fur, enter waterways through washing or swimming, and have been linked to songbird nest failures and massive bee mortality. Water minister Emma Hardy emphasized the government’s commitment to “restore nature and clean up our rivers,” noting that while the products are vital for pet health, their distribution should be limited to professionals who can advise on safe application. Research funded by the Veterinary Medicines Directorate (VMD) found that pet owners’ use of these treatments contributes to detectable levels of fipronil and imidacloprid in rivers and lakes. Environment Agency data reveal fipronil residues in 98% of water samples and imidacloprid in 66%, often exceeding toxicity thresholds for aquatic insects. One monthly flea treatment for a large dog contains enough imidacloprid to kill 25 million bees, underscoring the broader impact on pollinator populations. In the UK, fipronil is an ingredient in 66 veterinary products, while imidacloprid appears in 21. Abigail Seager, chief executive of the Veterinary Medicines Directive, acknowledged the dual role of these chemicals in protecting pets and people from parasites, but warned that “they are entering our waterways and may be having wider environmental impacts.” She called for diverse stakeholder input to balance medicine availability with ecological protection. The consultation follows a recent governmental pledge to ban imidacloprid and two other neonicotinoids—clothianidin and thiamethoxam—from agricultural use, reflecting a broader strategy to safeguard biodiversity.

An international conference in Berlin has yielded pledges of over £1 billion to support Sudan, a country devastated by three years of conflict. The funding, which exceeds the initial target of $1 billion (£740 million) set by German ministers, aims to alleviate the world's largest humanitarian crisis.The financial commitments will help address a chronic humanitarian funding shortfall in Sudan, where two-thirds of the population, or 34 million people, require assistance. The crisis has been exacerbated by ongoing conflict between the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF) and the army.UN Secretary-General António Guterres urged international delegates to take action, highlighting 'credible allegations of the gravest international crimes' and the need for an immediate cessation of hostilities. He emphasized that 'funding alone cannot substitute for peace.'The UK Foreign Secretary, Yvette Cooper, called for a concerted international effort to stop the flow of arms into Sudan, while the US emphasized its commitment to a humanitarian truce that would allow aid to reach those in need.Despite the funding pledges, the prospect of peace remains distant, with scant progress reported on ceasefire talks and neither of Sudan's warring parties attending the conference.

Negotiations between Washington and Tehran are expected to resume in Islamabad within days, placing President Donald Trump under intense pressure to deliver an Iran accord that can be credibly billed as superior to the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) brokered by former President Barack Obama. Two tests dominate the diplomatic calculus: the deal must demonstrably exceed the Obama agreement, and it must ensure that Iran derives no lasting strategic advantage, particularly over the vital Strait of Hormuz. While direct comparisons with the 159‑page JCPOA are imperfect—given the evolution of Iran’s nuclear program and the emergence of non‑nuclear concerns—the Trump team is framing its objectives around four pivotal issues. 1. Enrichment suspension: In Geneva on 26 February, the U.S. demanded a 10‑year freeze on all domestic uranium enrichment, a figure Iran’s foreign minister deemed unrealistic beyond three years. In Islamabad, the U.S. escalated the ask to a 20‑year suspension, yet Trump publicly dismissed even that, insisting on a permanent ban. The practical timeline for Iran to restart enrichment after the damage to its facilities remains uncertain. 2. Highly enriched uranium (HEU) stockpile: The original JCPOA capped uranium enrichment at 3.65% and limited the stockpile to 300 kg. Iran now holds 440.9 kg of 60%‑enriched uranium—a material that can be rapidly converted to weapons‑grade (90%)—mostly stored as UF₆ gas in scuba‑tank‑sized canisters. Tehran offered to down‑blend this stockpile to 3.67% in an irreversible process, mirroring the 2015 deal’s provisions. The U.S., however, is pressing for the entire stockpile to be removed from Iran under American supervision, a stance that raises questions about the relative merits of in‑country down‑blending versus export. 3. Sanctions relief: The JCPOA promised the release of roughly $100 billion in frozen Iranian assets and the lifting of oil trade restrictions, while retaining sanctions on terrorism, human rights, and missile proliferation. In the Geneva framework, over 80% of sanctions would be lifted, leaving only human‑rights‑related measures. Trump’s administration, wary of political backlash, seeks to attach conditions on how Iran can spend the relief, a demand Tehran rejects, insisting on a permanent, irreversible lifting of sanctions. 4. Non‑nuclear issues: Trump has repeatedly criticized the JCPOA for isolating Iran’s nuclear program from its broader regional behavior. The current negotiations must grapple with Iran’s ballistic‑missile program, support for proxy forces, and the strategic future of the Strait of Hormuz. Iranian officials are divided: one camp favors leveraging the strait for immediate revenue and national pride, while another views it as a diplomatic lever to secure a lasting ceasefire and security guarantees. The confluence of these challenges creates a “marshmallow test” for both sides—whether they can forgo short‑term temptations in favor of a durable, long‑term settlement. As the Trump presidency approaches its final year, the ability to craft a deal that convincingly outperforms the Obama era while addressing the expanded nuclear and geopolitical landscape will determine the legacy of U.S. policy on Iran and its impact on regional stability.

British Chancellor Rachel Reeves has stepped up her criticism of Donald Trump's war on Iran, describing it as a 'mistake' that has destabilized the global economy and damaged living standards around the world.In a marked fraying of the transatlantic relationship, Reeves said Trump's decision to break off from diplomatic talks with Iran and launch airstrikes seemed to have left the president in a worse place than he started.“I think it was a mistake to end those [talks with Iran] and to enter into conflict, because I'm not convinced that we are safer today than we were a few weeks ago,” she told an event in Washington.Reeves' comments added to blunt criticism of Trump she made just before flying out on Tuesday, when she expressed frustration at the 'folly' of his decision to go to war without a clear exit plan.The criticism adds to an increasingly tense atmosphere between Downing Street and the White House, with Trump's attacks on Prime Minister Keir Starmer becoming increasingly personal.The IMF warned on Tuesday that a further escalation in the Iran war could trigger a global recession that would affect the UK more than any of the other G7 nations.Reeves called for the urgent reopening of the strait of Hormuz to calm global energy prices, saying the lack of clear US targets in negotiations with Iran had worsened the situation.“We had the waterway open a few weeks ago. So, if now the objective is to reopen the strait of Hormuz? Well it was open at the beginning of this conflict,” Reeves added.Reeves said she had come to the IMF meetings to “deliver that fair message” that the conflict in the Middle East was hitting living standards worldwide and required urgent de-escalation.

The Brexit debate has taken a significant turn, with Keir Starmer's government now openly acknowledging the need for closer ties with the EU. This shift in approach comes as the UK faces increasing global uncertainty, including Vladimir Putin's territorial aggression, Donald Trump's geopolitical vandalism, and China's emergence as a superpower.In opposition, Starmer had pushed Brexit to the margin of debate. However, in government, he has learned that Europe is central to Britain's interests, whether discussed or not. The avoidance of painful arguments from the past has turned out to be a handicap when making plans for the future.Labour's 2024 general election manifesto had pretended that Brexit was a historical event, something Boris Johnson got 'done' in 2020. However, the relationship with the EU cannot be settled due to its evolving nature and the UK's position as an ex-member on its border.The options are now more Brexit or less, never a steady state. Johnson's Brexit deal was structured to accelerate separation over time, with the theory that divergence from EU rules would give Britain a competitive advantage. However, this Eurosceptic fantasy has been exposed as wrong, with the UK now seeking to put Johnson's divergence ratchet into reverse.Downing Street's acceptance of this logic has been flagged by a gradual change in rhetoric, with the prime minister now listing Brexit as an affliction in the same category as the Covid pandemic. The chancellor, Rachel Reeves, identifies closer integration with Europe as 'the biggest prize' in a dash for growth.To facilitate a more intimate relationship, the government proposes legislation that will give ministers open-ended powers to adopt EU standards for various sectors of the economy. This 'dynamic alignment' is supposed to make it easier for businesses to move goods into the single market and make Britain a more attractive destination for investment.However, the Conservatives and Reform UK are appalled, objecting to the circumvention of future legislative scrutiny by the use of so-called Henry VIII powers. The real grievance is the old ideological one, equating any application of single market rules to colonisation by Brussels.As Starmer tries to go in this direction, he will collide with familiar Brexit obstacles. The European Commission will insist there can be no 'cherrypicking' from the single market; that non-member states wanting to enjoy the benefits of a European club can expect to pay subscription fees into European budgets.Opinion polls routinely show a clear majority of voters think Brexit has gone badly. The logic of pooling resources with continental neighbours can only grow in the light of wildfires started by Trump along the international horizon.Starmer knows these conditions permit a more assertive agenda of EU integration. However, it is hard to take bolder strides within red lines – no free movement; no single market membership; no customs union – drawn when Labour's Europe policy was defined by the preference to change the subject.

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.

The ongoing conflict in Iran has led to a significant increase in oil prices, with the world's top 100 oil and gas companies reaping enormous profits. In the first month of the war, these companies banked more than $30m every hour in unearned profit, according to exclusive analysis for the Guardian. This translates to estimated windfall profits of $23bn for the month of March, with Saudi Aramco, Gazprom, and ExxonMobil among the biggest beneficiaries.The surge in oil prices to an average of $100 (£74) a barrel has resulted in a substantial increase in profits for these companies. If the oil price continues to average $100, the companies are expected to make $234bn by the end of the year. The analysis uses data from a leading intelligence provider, Rystad Energy, analysed by Global Witness.The excess profits come from the pockets of ordinary people as they pay high prices to fill up their vehicles and power their homes, as well as from businesses incurring higher energy bills. Dozens of countries have cut fuel taxes to help struggling consumers, but this has resulted in reduced revenue for public services.Pressure is growing for windfall taxes on the war profits of oil and gas companies, with the European Commission considering a request from the finance ministers of Germany, Spain, Italy, Portugal, and Austria. The ministers argue that this would help ease the burden on the general public and finance temporary relief measures.Aramco is expected to make a war profit of $25.5bn in 2026 if the oil price averages $100. This is on top of the huge profits habitually made by the majority state-owned Saudi company – $250m a day between 2016 to 2023. ExxonMobil, which has a long record of denying climate change, will take in $11bn in unearned war profits in 2026 if the $100 price endures.The impact of the Iran war is likely to be long lasting, with the head of the International Energy Agency, Fatih Birol, describing it as the biggest shock ever to the global energy market. The UN's climate chief, Simon Stiell, warned that fossil fuel dependency is ripping away national security and sovereignty, and replacing it with subservience and rising costs.

The UK government is facing pressure to increase its military budget to ensure national security during a period of global volatility. A Treasury minister has argued that balancing welfare and defence spending is not a zero-sum game, suggesting that it is possible to increase investment in both areas.James Murray, the chancellor's deputy, stated that the government is committed to the biggest sustained increase in defence investments since the cold war. However, he did not provide a timeline for the publication of the delayed defence investment plan.Former defence secretary and head of Nato, George Robertson, has accused the Treasury of 'vandalism' for not sufficiently boosting the armed forces. He suggested that defence should be prioritized over welfare spending, warning that the UK cannot defend itself with an ever-expanding welfare budget.The government has committed to reaching 2.5% of GDP on defence from April next year and 3% in the next parliament. However, military chiefs believe there is still a £28bn shortfall after years of the armed forces being hollowed out by successive administrations.Murray countered Robertson's views, stating that the welfare system is not a fixed entity and includes targeted measures like the removal of the two-child benefit cap, which helps hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty.The debate over public spending cuts to fund defence has sparked an angry reaction on the left, with veteran MP Diane Abbott accusing Robertson of prioritizing 'guns over butter' and warning that such an approach could cost Labour votes.