Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

Fifteen people who were deported from the United States have arrived in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). The deportees landed in the capital, Kinshasa, overnight Thursday to Friday as part of an agreement between the US and the DRC.The group includes nationals from Peru and Ecuador, with seven women among them, according to a diplomatic source. An official at the DRC migration agency confirmed the arrivals but did not provide details.US lawyer Alma David, who represents one of the deportees, said the deportees are all from Latin America and the Congolese government plans to keep them in the country for a short period. All the deportees have legal protection from US judges shielding them against being returned to their home countries, David told The Associated Press.The DRC Ministry of Communications announced earlier this month that it would temporarily accept migrants deported from the US. It said that Washington would cover the costs involved, and that facilities had been prepared near Kinshasa to accommodate them.The International Organization for Migration (IOM) said that the DRC asked the UN agency for humanitarian assistance with the migrants. The IOM may also offer assisted voluntary return to those migrants who request it.The US policy has drawn criticism from rights groups over the legality of sending deportees to countries where they are not from and could face human rights violations. In some cases, the deportees have been later sent back to their home countries despite receiving legal protection from US courts to prevent that from happening.The Trump administration is thought to have spent at least $40m to deport about 300 migrants to third countries up to the end of January, according to a report compiled by Democrats on the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Countries have received lump sums ranging from $4.7m to $7.5m to receive deportees.

Ben Roberts-Smith, a 47-year-old former Australian special forces soldier and Victoria Cross recipient, has been granted bail after spending 10 days in prison. He was arrested in Sydney last week and charged with murdering five people in Afghanistan between 2009 and 2012.Roberts-Smith, who was heralded as an Australian war hero and even honoured as the nation’s “father of the year,” denies all charges. The alleged crimes include the murder of unarmed Afghan prisoners by Australian troops. He faces a maximum sentence of life imprisonment if found guilty.The Australian Federal Police (AFP) Commissioner Krissy Barrett stated that “it will be alleged the victims were not taking part in hostilities at the time of their alleged murder in Afghanistan.” The prosecution will also allege that the victims were shot by Roberts-Smith or by subordinates acting on his orders and in his presence.Roberts-Smith's reputation was called into question in 2018 when news reports linked him to the alleged murder of unarmed Afghan prisoners. A judge found in 2023 that many of the journalists’ claims were “substantially true.”Australia deployed 39,000 troops to Afghanistan over two decades as part of US and NATO-led operations against the Taliban and other armed groups.

British food critic and journalist Grace Dent and Irish chef Anna Haugh have taken over as the new co-hosts of the popular cooking competition MasterChef. The duo, who have previously served as guest judges on the show, bring their unique blend of humor, warmth, and culinary expertise to the program.Dent, who grew up watching MasterChef with her father, says she never imagined she'd be hosting the show. 'We used to laugh our heads off at the critics,' she recalls. 'Just utterly ridiculous people, with their overblown egos, thinking their opinions on food matter. Who are these people?'Haugh and Dent make a wonderful pair, with Dent being funny and warm, and Haugh being pristine in her chef's whites and demanding of excellence. They come from working-class families and have succeeded in male-dominated fields. Dent believes that 'tenacity, hard work' are key to success, while Haugh thinks that 'success is authenticity. It's being able to pay your bills, [but] it's not about somebody else telling you that you're great. You have to be able to acknowledge it yourself.'The new hosts are focused on celebrating culinary ambition and promoting opportunities in the hospitality industry. 'MasterChef opens that door,' says Haugh. 'Tons of people, whether they win the show or not, enter into hospitality because they entered MasterChef. Our industry really needs that.'MasterChef starts on Tuesday, April 21, on BBC One at 9 pm. Don't miss the new season with Dent and Haugh at the helm!

Wrexham AFC, the football club co-owned by Hollywood stars Ryan Reynolds and Rob Mac, has been awarded a £3.8m government grant without a contract or a completed state aid assessment in place. This has raised questions over whether the award was lawful.The club has received a total of £18m in taxpayer-funded grants to help redevelop its stadium, the Racecourse Ground. This is significantly more than any other club in the UK.Responses to freedom of information requests suggest that Wrexham county borough council awarded the money before completing the usual steps. Alexander Rose, a partner specialising in subsidy control at law firm Ward Hadaway, stated that the lack of a final state aid assessment at the time the grant was awarded would have left it vulnerable to legal challenge by a rival.However, there is little prospect of Wrexham AFC being forced to repay the cash, as the one-month window for challenges to be filed has since closed. The leader of Wrexham council, Mark Pritchard, said: “All due diligence and checks were in place ahead of the transfer of any funding and we refute any accusations to the contrary.”Reynolds and Mac took over the club in 2021, bringing with them a wave of sponsorship and global interest via their Disney TV series Welcome to Wrexham. The club has been able to far outspend their lower-league rivals, transforming the club’s fortunes.Wrexham, which was granted city status in 2022, awarded the £18m to the star-studded club as part of its “Wrexham Gateway” urban improvement scheme. Most of the money went towards developing the stadium, despite the club having deep-pocketed owners.The first £3.8m tranche of cash was awarded on 8 February 2022, less than a year after Reynolds and Mac’s takeover. Another £14m was awarded in September 2025.Public authorities that give out grants are required by law to judge if they comply with the principles of subsidy control, to ensure taxpayer money is not misspent. However, in response to a freedom of information request, Wrexham council said it only had “draft assessments” in place before the money was awarded.The council said the final assessment it provided was submitted nearly five months later, on 6 July 2022. In response to questions, the council shared a draft assessment it said dated from 7 September 2021.Rose said: “At the time the £3.8m grant was awarded there was a duty to carry out a principles assessment. Evidence that this assessment wasn’t finalised when the grant was given would certainly have helped a challenger, for example a rival football club.”“Subsidy control rules exist to ensure there’s a level playing field in which businesses can compete,” he added. “That includes in professional football. They’re also an important protection for the taxpayer, preventing wasteful and unnecessary subsidies from being awarded.”Recipients of large grants almost always sign contracts to ensure taxpayer money is spent as promised. Yet the council said the grant was authorised by its executive board and “provided in advance of the finalisation of the grant funding agreement”.The council said the grant funding agreement – apparently covering the whole £18m – was only created in July 2023.The contract was then completed on 17 September 2025, when the £14m tranche was awarded.The two-year delay between the creation of the contract and its signing also offered another potential benefit to Wrexham council: new subsidy control laws that came into force days earlier in August raised the threshold for mandatory scrutiny of the grant by the Competition and Markets Authority.Delaying the subsidy meant the award to Wrexham AFC was not subject to this scrutiny.While it was tapping taxpayer money, the club was also able to raise huge amounts from private backers. In the year to June 2025 it raised £36m through share issues. Three months after the second grant, Reynolds and Mac announced the sale of a stake in the club to Apollo, one of the world’s largest private equity firms.Bloomberg reported that Wrexham was valued as high as £350m. The club then raised another £47.8m in January, according to corporate filings.In the year before it received the £14m grant, Wrexham was able to repay loans worth £10.6m to Ryan Reynolds’s company, according to accounts published last month. It also lost £3.8m from the collapse of Argentex, a currency brokerage that entered special administration in July 2025 because of failed foreign exchange trades.Pritchard, the council leader, said: “The grant represents a small investment compared to what the club will be investing at the Racecourse … In fact, as the club has grown in both stature, ambition and from external investment, the percentage of public investment compared to that of the club has shrunk from roughly 68% of the project costs to around 25% currently.“This demonstrates further value for money in regard to the initial investment from the public purse.”Wrexham AFC said the club is itself making a “significant financial investment with the support of our ownership group and investors”. Accounts published last month show the club has signed a £69.2m contract to build a new stand.The spokesperson said the “funding ensures the facility can be brought up to the required standard to host international sporting events, including international football and rugby matches (as opposed to just meeting domestic football criteria)”

Argentina’s justice system has reopened the case surrounding the death of football icon Diego Maradona, with prosecutors branding his medical team as “a bunch of amateurs” who missed a critical window to save him.The trial of seven healthcare professionals—doctors, psychologists and nurses—resumed on Tuesday in San Isidro, a suburb of Buenos Aires, after the original proceedings were annulled when a presiding judge was found to have participated in a documentary about the case.Maradona, who died in November 2020 at age 60 while recuperating from surgery for a brain clot, is alleged to have suffered from heart failure and acute pulmonary edema two weeks post‑operation. Prosecutor Patricio Ferrari asserted that the patient began to deteriorate 12 hours before his official death and that a timely transfer to a clinic could have prevented the fatal outcome.According to the indictment, the defendants’ decision to keep Maradona at home rather than in a hospital, coupled with a series of “omissions” described as “cruel,” constitutes homicide with possible intent. If convicted, each could face prison terms ranging from eight to 25 years.The new proceedings, expected to conclude by July at the earliest, will hear testimony from roughly 120 witnesses. Among the accused, former team doctor Leopoldo Luque and other staff members will be scrutinized for their role in the athlete’s care.Maradona’s family—daughters Dalma, Gianinna and Jana, and former partner Veronica Ojeda—attended the hearing, urging the courts to deliver “justice for Diego” and allow the legend to “rest in peace.” Outside, about 50 supporters waved Argentine flags and signs demanding accountability for the beloved “D10s.”Defense counsel Vadim Mischanchuk argued that the former star’s death resulted from a “progressive decline in his health” rather than medical malpractice, emphasizing that the condition was natural and unavoidable.Legal analyst Fernando Burlando, representing the Maradona family, highlighted the absence of a stethoscope on the legend’s chest during the critical two‑week period, using the instrument as a stark symbol of alleged negligence.The case revives national grief that first erupted when Maradona’s body lay in state at the presidential palace, drawing tens of thousands of mourners amid the COVID‑19 pandemic.

In a landmark decision, a Manhattan federal jury determined that Live Nation and its Ticketmaster subsidiary wield a monopolistic grip on major concert venues across the United States. The four‑day deliberation ended Wednesday with a finding that the ticket‑selling platform had overcharged buyers by $1.72 per ticket, a figure that will now be used by a judge to calculate total damages. The case, originally spearheaded by the federal government and later joined by dozens of states, accused Live Nation of leveraging its extensive venue network to stifle competition. Plaintiffs argued that the company barred venues from using alternative ticket sellers and retaliated against those that attempted to do so. Attorney Jeffrey Kessler, representing the states, called Live Nation a “monopolistic bully” that inflates prices for concertgoers. He cited the company’s control of 86% of the concert‑ticket market and 73% of the combined concert‑and‑sports market, underscoring the breadth of its influence. Live Nation, which reported over $22 billion in annual revenue, rejected the monopoly label, insisting that pricing decisions rest with artists, sports teams, and venue owners. Company counsel argued that the firm’s size reflects “excellence and effort,” not antitrust violations. The jury’s finding arrives amid a broader regulatory push. In 2024, the Federal Trade Commission required Ticketmaster to disclose ticket fees up front, prompting the company to eliminate a post‑checkout processing charge. However, a recent Guardian investigation revealed that Ticketmaster introduced alternative fees to offset lost revenue, raising questions about compliance with FTC rules. Earlier, the Department of Justice settled with Live Nation under the Trump administration, creating a $280 million settlement fund for participating states. The agreement also imposed caps on service fees at select amphitheaters and opened the door—though not the obligation—for venues to work with Ticketmaster rivals such as SeatGeek and AXS. More than 30 states declined the settlement and pursued the trial, arguing that the federal government’s concessions were insufficient. During the proceedings, Live Nation CEO Michael Rapino testified, including about the 2022 Taylor Swift ticket fiasco, which he attributed to a cyber‑attack. Internal communications from Live Nation executive Benjamin Baker surfaced, in which he described certain pricing practices as “outrageous” and disparaged customers as “so stupid,” later apologizing for the “very immature and unacceptable” remarks. Live Nation has announced its intention to appeal the verdict, stating confidence that the ultimate outcome will align with the original DOJ settlement framework. The case continues to spotlight the tension between dominant market players and antitrust enforcement in the live‑entertainment industry.

A Chinese national has been sentenced to one year in prison and fined by a Nairobi court for attempting to smuggle thousands of ants out of Kenya, a lucrative trade in east Africa that was exposed last year.The insects are mostly destined for China, the US, and Europe, where they become pets and can be worth about $100 each.Ant smuggling made headlines last year when two Belgian teenagers were arrested in possession of nearly 5,000 ants, mostly stored in small test tubes. They were fined about $7,700.Zhang Kequn, who evaded capture until his arrest on 10 March, had been linked to another case involving two people, one Vietnamese and one Kenyan.More than 2,200 ants – including 1,948 prized Messor cephalotes – were found in test tubes in Zhang’s luggage at Nairobi’s international airport that was destined for China.He was initially charged with wildlife trafficking without a permit and conspiracy, which carries a seven-year sentence, his lawyer said. He pleaded guilty after latter charge was dismissed.At the court in Nairobi, the judge, Irene Gichobi, described Zhang as lacking in remorse and “not an entirely honest person”.She said he would be fined 1m Kenya shillings ($7,700) and handed down a one-year jail sentence, after a 14-day appeal. She said he would then be “referred to his home country”.“There is need for a stiff deterrent sentence,” she said, noting the “rising cases of dealing in large quantities of garden ants and the negative ecological side-effects”.

Kevin Warsh, a former Federal Reserve governor nominated by President Donald Trump to replace Jerome Powell, has filed ethics disclosures showing personal assets well above $100 million. If confirmed, he would become the wealthiest central‑bank leader in U.S. history. The 69‑page filing, released on Tuesday, lists two private‑fund investments each valued at over $50 million in the Juggernaut Fund LP, plus $10.2 million in consulting fees from the investment office of Wall Street titan Stanley Druckenmiller. Many holdings are described only in broad categories because “pre‑existing confidentiality agreements” prevent full disclosure; Warsh has pledged to divest these assets should his nomination be approved. Federal Reserve ethics rules, tightened in 2022, prohibit officials and their families from owning bank stocks, crypto‑related assets, and impose strict limits on buying and selling securities. The Fed’s own standards, set by the Federal Open Market Committee, are stricter than those governing other federal employees. Beyond the large private‑fund stakes, Warsh’s disclosures reveal a portfolio concentrated in emerging sectors such as artificial intelligence and cryptocurrency. Notable entries include the robotic‑coffee‑bar platform Cafe X, wearable‑tech firm Cionic, an Ethereum layer‑two project dubbed “Blast,” and a reversible male‑contraceptive solution called Contraline. Details for many of these positions are omitted, again citing confidentiality. The filing also enumerates assets held by Warsh’s spouse, Jane Lauder—a member of the Estee Lauder family with an estimated net worth of $1.9 billion. Her holdings feature municipal bonds listed simply as “over $1 million.” Liabilities appear modest in comparison: a 2015 mortgage of up to $5 million with JPMorgan Chase at a 2.75% rate, a revolving credit line of up to $5 million from PNC Bank at roughly 6%, and a $1.95 million capital commitment to THSDFS LLC, an interest Warsh has also pledged to divest. Ethics analyst Heather Jones of the Office of Government Ethics confirmed that Warsh’s divestiture promises would bring him into compliance with the Ethics in Government Act. Nonetheless, the breadth of undisclosed holdings is likely to dominate his upcoming confirmation hearing, scheduled for April 21. Political dynamics add further uncertainty. A key Republican senator has signaled intent to block Warsh’s confirmation until a Department of Justice investigation into Powell’s oversight of Fed‑headquarters renovations concludes. Although a federal judge recently dismissed two subpoenas targeting Powell—citing a perceived attempt to pressure him on interest‑rate policy—the Justice Department plans to appeal, potentially delaying any Senate vote. Powell has indicated he will remain “pro tem” if Warsh is not confirmed by the end of his term on May 15, and he could retain his governor seat until 2028 if he chooses.

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.