Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

Argentina's congress has approved a bill promoted by President Javier Milei that authorizes mining in ecologically sensitive areas of glaciers and permafrost, sparking widespread environmental protests. The bill, which was already approved by the senate in February, will make it easier to mine for metals such as copper, lithium, and silver in frozen parts of the Andes mountains.The chamber of deputies approved the amendment with 137 votes in favor, 111 against, and three abstentions after nearly 12 hours of debate. Environmentalists argue that the legislative changes will weaken protections for crucial water sources, with thousands protesting outside parliament, holding banners with slogans such as “Water is more precious than gold!” and “A glacier destroyed cannot be restored!”Seven Greenpeace activists were arrested earlier in the day after scaling a statue outside parliament and unfurling a banner urging lawmakers “not to betray the Argentine people”. The passage of the amendment is a new coup for Milei, who pushed through looser labor laws in February despite repeated street protests.Environmental activists, such as Flavia Broffoni, argue that there is no possibility of creating a 'sustainable mine' in a periglacial environment. Argentina has nearly 17,000 glaciers or rock glaciers, with glacial reserves in the north-west shrinking by 17% in the last decade due to climate change.Milei, a free-market radical who does not believe in human-made climate change, says the bill is necessary to attract large-scale mining projects. The Central Bank of Argentina estimates that the country could triple its mining exports by 2030. Supporters argue that the bill will provide legal certainty and clear definitions, while critics, such as Enrique Viale, warn that it threatens the water supply for 70% of Argentinians.

As the clock ticked down to President Donald Trump’s 8 p.m. deadline to force the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, the six‑week Middle East conflict teetered on the brink of a far more devastating escalation.Trump’s rhetoric had escalated dramatically, with his Truth Social posts warning that the United States would unleash strikes capable of “decimating every bridge and power plant in Iran” and that “a whole civilisation will die tonight.” Legal experts labeled the language as bordering on a genocidal threat.Amid the rising tension, a series of rapid developments unfolded on Tuesday:12:06 GMT – Trump announced a plan to target Iran’s civilian infrastructure, promising total destruction of bridges and power facilities.15:21 GMT – Iranian media confirmed that US strikes hit Kharg Island, the nation’s primary oil‑export hub, but reported no significant damage.15:40 GMT – In the UN Security Council, China and Russia vetoed a Bahraini resolution aimed at protecting commercial shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, arguing the draft was biased against Tehran.16:54 GMT – Qatar’s defence ministry reported a successful missile interception, while the United Arab Emirates warned of a barrage of missile and drone attacks.18:23 GMT – Iran’s envoy to Pakistan, Reza Amiri Moghadam, signalled a “step forward” after a “critical, sensitive stage,” praising Pakistan’s “positive and productive” peace efforts.19:17 GMT – Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif appealed to Trump to extend the deadline by two weeks, urging Tehran to keep the Strait open as a goodwill gesture.20:25 GMT – Iran warned it would target US and Gulf‑allied energy infrastructure, threatening to block regional oil and gas supplies for years.20:41 GMT – Joint US‑Israeli airstrikes struck the Amirkabir Petrochemical Plant in Mahshahr, Iran, prompting local assessments of damage.With less than ninety minutes remaining, diplomatic channels intensified. Pakistani officials, including the military chief Asim Munir, facilitated talks that culminated in a two‑week, double‑sided cease‑fire announced by Trump at 22:45 GMT. The United States claimed to have received a “workable” 10‑point proposal from Tehran.Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi quickly confirmed the truce, stating Iran would honor it provided attacks on its territory ceased. Sharif then invited both Iranian and US delegations to Islamabad for further negotiations aimed at a permanent settlement.Early Wednesday, Trump’s tone shifted dramatically. In a Truth Social post he hailed the cease‑fire as a potential “Golden Age for the Middle East,” celebrating the pause in hostilities and the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz.The episode underscores how last‑minute diplomacy, spearheaded by Pakistan, averted a catastrophic escalation and opened a narrow window for a broader peace process in a region long mired in conflict.

Assam, India – Under the sweltering April sun, Akram Ali stood amid the rubble of his four‑room house, a home he had built over 45 years ago. The demolition, part of a government‑led bulldozing operation on March 14, turned his residence into a pile of debris.Bulldozers descended on Islampur, a Muslim‑majority neighbourhood on the outskirts of Guwahati, and for four hours razed homes across 177 hectares (437 acres). The sweep rendered 400 families homeless, including Ali, who now lives in a tarpaulin shanty a few kilometres from his former home.Ali, a daily‑wage worker, told Al Jazeera that despite identifying as Goriya – “son of the soil” – his house was destroyed. The Goriyas are an Assamese‑speaking Muslim community traditionally settled in the tea‑belt region. In 2022, the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) officially recognised the Goriya, along with four other Muslim sub‑groups, as “Indigenous” to Assam.While this designation has afforded the Indigenous Muslims a degree of cultural safety, it has not shielded them from the state’s aggressive land‑clearance drives. Ali questioned the distinction, asking, “Weren’t our homes demolished because we are Muslims?”Muslims make up more than a third of Assam’s 31 million residents, according to the 2011 census. Of these, roughly 6.3 million are Bengali‑speaking “miyas,” often labelled “outsiders,” while about 4 million belong to Indigenous groups like the Goriya.The BJP, led nationally by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, has been courting the Indigenous Muslim vote ahead of the April 2026 state elections, where it seeks a third consecutive term after governing since 2016. Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma, who has spearheaded the party’s crackdown on “miyas” since 2021, claims the government will “never target” Indigenous Muslims.Political analyst Bonojit Hussain explains that the BJP’s outreach serves two purposes: softening its communal image and capturing decisive vote blocks in constituencies where Indigenous Muslims and Hindus together decide the outcome. In seats such as Nalbari, where Indigenous Muslims account for over 25 % of the electorate, and Barkhetri, with roughly 80,000 Muslim voters, the community’s support can swing the result.Upper Assam, a region with a strong Assamese‑speaking identity, is especially critical. Journalist Firoz Khan notes that Indigenous Muslims influence the outcome in seven or eight of the 39 seats there, prompting the BJP to temper its overtly anti‑Muslim rhetoric in the area.Despite the party’s overtures, many Indigenous Muslims remain skeptical. Moinul Islam, spokesperson for the rights group Sadou Asom Goria Jatiya Parishad, warned that the BJP’s broader anti‑Muslim policies—evictions, voter‑list objections, and alleged deportations—are unlikely to win their votes.Earlier in 2025, similar demolition drives displaced hundreds of Goriya families in Lakhimpur and Golaghat districts, and a systematic campaign to challenge Muslim names on electoral rolls further strained relations.BJP spokesman Kishore Upadhyay dismissed the allegations as “malicious, biased and politically motivated,” but Indigenous groups argue the pattern signals an attempt to erase their cultural legacy.Recent actions by the state government reinforce this perception. Chief Minister Sarma renamed the only medical college in Barpeta—previously bearing the name of Goriya freedom fighter Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed—arguing that institutions should reflect their geographic location. Critics view the move as symbolic of a broader effort to marginalise Muslim contributions to Assam’s history.In December 2025, Sarma also proposed dropping the hyphen in “Sankar‑Azan,” a name that celebrated the syncretic legacy of 15th‑century polymath Srimanta Sankardev and 17th‑century Sufi saint Azan Peer. Communist Party member Isfaqur Rahman warned that such revisions reflect a “slow erasure of Assamese Muslim heritage.”For Ali, the demolition has hardened his political stance. “After being evicted, the chief minister called us illegal immigrants and broke our backs by destroying our homes,” he said. “We are the new miyas.”

Washington, D.C. – President Donald Trump declared a two‑week ceasefire with Iran on Tuesday, just hours after threatening a massive attack on the country. The pause will allow Iran to reopen the strategic Strait of Hormuz while both sides negotiate a longer‑term settlement. Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, a noted Iran hawk, welcomed the diplomatic move but stressed extreme caution. He praised the “hard work” of negotiators but warned that any agreement must be scrutinized, noting that Iran’s 10‑point plan reportedly offers sanctions relief and permits Tehran to retain control of the strait. Graham also warned that Iran must not be rewarded for its earlier attacks on the strait, writing on X: “We must remember that the Strait of Hormuz was attacked by Iran after the start of the war, destroying freedom of navigation. Going forward, it is imperative Iran is not rewarded for this hostile act against the world.” Democratic senators, while relieved that U.S. forces would be out of immediate danger, seized the moment to demand accountability. Senator Ruben Gallego said, “Stopping war is good… we can criticize why we got into this war, the illegality of it and hold the Trump admin accountable. But right now I am relieved.” Other Democrats, including Senator Ed Markey and Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio‑Cortez, warned that the ceasefire does not erase the fact that the conflict was launched without congressional authorization and that targeting civilian infrastructure may constitute war crimes. Ocasio‑Cortez wrote, “The President has threatened a genocide against the Iranian people… launched a massive war… without reason, rationale, nor Congressional authorization – which is as clear a violation of the Constitution as any.” Critics on the right, such as far‑right activist Laura Loomer and commentator Mark Levin, dismissed the truce as a temporary pause, predicting the war will resume. Loomer warned, “The negotiation is a negative for our country… I don’t know why people are acting like this is a win.” Levin added, “This enemy is still the enemy; they’re still surviving.” The conflict, which began on February 28 without a congressional war declaration, has already seen high‑profile strikes, including an attack that the article claims killed Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and a devastating strike on a girls’ school in Minab that killed over 170 civilians, mostly children. Economically, the closure of the Strait of Hormuz earlier in the war sent oil and gas prices soaring, underscoring the strategic importance of the waterway. Senator Chris Murphy (D) warned that allowing Iran to control the strait would be a “history‑changing win” for Tehran. Across the aisle, lawmakers agree that the ceasefire is not a clean slate. Advocacy director Raed Jarrar of DAWN urged an immediate congressional investigation into the war’s origins, funding, and accountability for civilian casualties. As the two‑week pause unfolds, U.S. officials and legislators will closely monitor negotiations, with the broader debate over war powers, constitutional authority, and potential impeachment of President Trump remaining front and center in Washington.

The United States government has reaffirmed its position that it plans to deport Salvadoran immigrant Kilmar Abrego Garcia to Liberia, despite arguments that doing so would be vindictive.On Tuesday, lawyers for the administration of President Donald Trump told US federal judge Paula Xinis that it remains committed to Liberia as a destination.Abrego Garcia, however, has said that, if he must be deported, he would prefer to be sent to Costa Rica, and the government there has indicated it would accept him.But the Trump administration’s insistence on sending Abrego Garcia to Africa has raised questions about its motive.Critics have accused the US government of seeking retribution against Abrego Garcia, whose case has spurred scrutiny over the legality of Trump’s mass deportation campaign.The case began with a high-profile mistake. In March 2025, less than three months into Trump’s second term, Abrego Garcia was wrongfully deported to his native El Salvador, in violation of a 2019 protection order that found he could face gang violence if returned to the country.The Trump administration, at the time, described Abrego Garcia’s removal as an “administrative error”.Still, it initially refused to seek his return, arguing that Abrego Garcia was a gang member and that, once abroad, he was subject to El Salvador’s leadership. Abrego Garcia, though, had no criminal record at the time of his deportation.Abrego Garcia was imprisoned, first at El Salvador’s Terrorism Confinement Centre (CECOT) and later in a second prison in Santa Ana, El Salvador.Meanwhile, lawyers in the US had turned to US courts to reverse his deportation.In early April 2025, Judge Xinis ruled that the US government had to “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s return to the country, and later that month, the US Supreme Court upheld her ruling in a unanimous decision.But it was only in June 2025 that Abrego Garcia was brought back to the US. In announcing Abrego Garcia’s return, the Trump administration revealed it would be filing criminal charges against him for human smuggling.He pleaded not guilty, but was forced to remain in jail. The Trump administration had deemed him a flight risk, and his own lawyers feared that stepping out of his jail cell would land him in immigration detention instead.When a court ordered his release in August, this is exactly what happened: Immigration agents took him back into custody within days.Authorities at the time said they would deport him to Uganda. Later, they changed the proposed destination to Liberia.Abrego Garcia was ultimately freed from immigration detention in December, but he continues to fight both his criminal charges and his deportation proceedings.At Tuesday’s hearing, Judge Xinis questioned why the Trump administration would not consider deporting Abrego Garcia to Costa Rica instead of Liberia.She pointed out that the country had recently inked an agreement to accept 25 removals from the US per week.In response, Ernesto Molina, the director of the Justice Department’s Office of Immigration Litigation, suggested that Abrego Garcia could “remove himself” to Costa Rica.But Xinis called the proposal a “fantasy” and noted that he cannot leave as long as the Justice Department is prosecuting him on criminal charges. He is legally required to attend his criminal hearings.After the tense exchange, Xinis set another hearing on the matter for April 28.

The documentary series 'Trust Me: The False Prophet' has shed light on the sinister activities of a polygamous Mormon cult led by Samuel Bateman, who is currently serving a 50-year sentence for luring minors into criminal sex acts.Director Rachel Dretzin, a former investigative journalist for Frontline, worked on the series, which follows a pair of documentary filmmakers, Christine Marie and Tolga Katas, who embedded themselves in Utah's Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (FLDS) community. They earned the trust of the cult members and were invited into Bateman's home, where he presided over 20 'wives', many of them underage.The filmmakers' incriminating footage and witness testimony were essential to the FBI's case against Bateman and other men charged with crimes. The series transcends the true crime genre's typical sensationalism, presenting its revelations thoughtfully and honestly.Dretzin notes that documentary filmmaking can be more effective than the legal system in effecting change, particularly in cases like this where the community is fiercely insular. The series raises questions about the ethics of documentary filmmaking and the blurred lines between observer and participant.The story also highlights the manipulation and indoctrination of young women within the cult, including Naomi, a young woman who becomes a pivotal witness. Her aunt Carole, who defected from the FLDS, shares her insights on how the cult grooms girls for exploitation.Dretzin believes that the story has echoes in our ordinary lives and political landscape, particularly in the era of 'fake news' and echo chambers. The series serves as a reminder of the dangers of closed systems and the importance of critical thinking.

BBC Two’s three‑part series ‘Michael Jackson: An American Tragedy’ attempts to map the arc of the King of Pop from a Midwestern child prodigy to a global phenomenon whose legacy is still contested. Released ahead of the family‑approved biopic Michael, the documentary does not promise fresh revelations; instead, it seeks to place the singer’s meteoric fame, legal controversies and post‑mortem financial empire within a single narrative. The first episode, titled Fame, foregrounds Jackson’s musical genius while also exposing the fraught dynamics of his family life. Interviews with siblings and childhood acquaintances depict a household where “six bunk beds in one room” were the norm, and where fear of their father, Joe Jackson, loomed large. La Toyia Jackson’s recollection that “Michael had a fear of my father – we all did” underscores the pressure that shaped his early years. In The Reckoning, the series shifts to the period of criminal investigations and media scrutiny. Former spiritual adviser Rabbi Shmuley Boteach describes the tragedy as a man who, despite unparalleled attention, remained “utterly lonely.” Prosecutor Ron Zonen argues that the sheer scale of the Jackson enterprise eclipsed the pursuit of justice, noting the obviousness of the abuse allegations in his view. The episode also revisits the 2003 Martin Bashir documentary, which Boteach recalls as a “shock” that contributed to the star’s eventual downfall. The final installment, The Resurrection, examines the attempts to revive Jackson’s career, his sudden death, and the ripple effects of the 2019 Leaving Neverland documentary. The review notes that the allegations have reshaped public perception to the point where many, including the reviewer, find it difficult to engage with his music. The series concludes that the ongoing legal battles—seven alleged victims are currently suing the estate—represent “the most extraordinary effort to uncancel someone in history.” While the documentary assembles an extensive roster of interviewees—family members, former managers, record executives, and even Donald Trump—it occasionally suffers from an overly broad brushstroke that blurs moral clarity. The reviewer acknowledges the valiant effort to strike a middle ground but questions whether such balance is sufficient for a story marked by “wild extremes.” Overall, the series provides a comprehensive, if not groundbreaking, overview of Jackson’s complex narrative, serving as a timely companion piece to the upcoming biopic and a reminder that the conversation around his legacy remains far from settled. Michael Jackson: An American Tragedy is currently streaming on iPlayer.

The chief executive of the British Horseracing Authority (BHA), Brant Dunshea, announced that the sport is prepared to consider more direct‑action protests as it confronts the government’s proposal to introduce affordability checks for punters. Last September’s one‑day strike, which forced the cancellation of four meetings, proved decisive: it helped the government abandon a planned increase in betting tax from 15% to 21%, a rise the BHA estimated would have cost the industry £330 million. Following the “Axe the Racing Tax” campaign, the BHA is now urging the government to rethink the affordability checks that could require up to 120,000 regular gamblers to provide personal documentation, according to the Betting and Gaming Council. Independent modelling by EY suggests that as many as 44,000 bettors might migrate to black‑market operators, eroding the industry’s betting turnover by tens of millions of pounds. Betting turnover has already fallen by £2 billion since 2021. The Gambling Commission is slated to decide on the checks next month, while more than 400 racing figures – including trainers and MPs – have signed an open letter to Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy demanding intervention. “Our campaign will continue, and direct action is part of our broader strategy, though we will not discuss specifics publicly,” Dunshea said. He highlighted the power of collective action, noting that the industry’s cultural and economic significance was recognised in the government’s recent budget announcement. Recent pilot schemes, involving three credit‑reference agencies, produced inconsistent outcomes for the same individuals, raising concerns that the checks could push more punters toward illegal markets. Data from Yield Sec shows that the share of the UK gambling market held by black‑market operators surged from 0.43% in 2020 to 9% last year, with £379 million wagered on unlicensed platforms that do not contribute to the exchequer. Dunshea stressed that any affordability measure must be truly frictionless. “Consumers are price‑sensitive and protective of their personal data; any intervention that feels invasive will drive them elsewhere,” he warned. Amid the upcoming Grand National at Aintree, Dunshea expressed surprise at recent comments from the RSPCA regarding horse deaths at Cheltenham, reaffirming the BHA’s commitment to a collaborative relationship with the animal‑welfare charity. He noted that over the past 25 years, the industry has invested £60 million in equine welfare, reducing fatality rates to 0.22% of runners, and emphasized that the BHA will continue to work constructively with the RSPCA despite recent tensions.

Cardiff Airport has emerged victorious in a legal challenge brought by Bristol Airport over a £205m subsidy package from the Welsh government. The Competition Appeal Tribunal's unanimous decision on Tuesday dismissed Bristol Airport's case, which argued that the subsidy distorted the market and breached the Subsidy Control Act.The Welsh government had announced the subsidy in April last year, with approximately half earmarked for developing new routes and the rest for maintenance facilities, hangars, and cargo capacity. Bristol Airport had claimed that the subsidy was unprecedented in the UK aviation industry and a breach of competition rules.The £205m subsidy is part of a decade-long plan to support Cardiff Airport, which has struggled to turn a profit since its nationalization in 2013. Despite £200m in bailouts, passenger numbers at Cardiff Airport have not recovered from the Covid pandemic, with 963,000 customers passing through in 2025, compared to a peak of 2 million in 2007.Bristol Airport expressed disappointment with the tribunal's decision, stating that it would study the ruling in detail before deciding on next steps. The company argued that the subsidy placed a burden on taxpayers and that the flexibility given by the Subsidy Control Act introduced after Brexit allowed the subsidy to proceed.The Welsh government welcomed the decision, hoping that both Cardiff and Bristol airports would continue to thrive and grow. The feud between the airports has been ongoing since 2013, when the Welsh government purchased Cardiff Airport for £52m, well above market value.