Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

The global super-rich may have as much as $3.55 trillion hidden away from tax authorities, according to estimates by Oxfam. This staggering amount is more than 3% of global GDP and is likely to be owned by the richest 0.1% of households.Oxfam's latest analysis reveals that total wealth held offshore has increased significantly to $13.25 trillion in 2023. While the share of secretive holdings hidden from tax authorities has fallen since the introduction of a new system of automatic information exchange between jurisdictions in 2016, Oxfam estimates that a substantial amount remains shielded from tax.The charity's lead on tax, Christian Hallum, emphasized that this isn't just about clever accounting, but about power and impunity. When millionaires and billionaires stash trillions of dollars in offshore tax havens, they place themselves above the obligations that bind the rest of society.Oxfam is part of a global campaign to mobilize calls for a global progressive wealth tax, including through negotiations at the UN on a framework for tax cooperation. The charity is also calling for countries in the global south to be included in the Common Reporting Standard – the system that allows for information exchange between jurisdictions.In the UK, Oxfam is urging Labour to implement a wealth tax, with the Green leader in England and Wales, Zack Polanski, suggesting a tax levied annually at a rate of 1% on assets worth more than £10m, and 2% above £100m. The Green party claims this policy would raise about £15 billion a year.

Ministers are rewriting planning rules to make it easier to approve intensive livestock farms, despite ongoing concerns about water pollution, air quality and local opposition.Freedom of Information documents obtained by the Guardian reveal that proposed changes to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) have been discussed in response to lobbying by the country’s leading chicken producers for at least two years.The British Poultry Council (BPC) told farming minister Angela Eagle last autumn that “access to more growing space is the number one priority for the poultry meat sector.”In a submission to the government’s farm profitability review, the BPC argued that the need for a solution—whether through planning reform or land‑use policy—“dwarfs all other issues currently facing us.”Ahead of a January round‑table with Eagle, the BPC urged the government to “develop national planning direction and oversight for food production … to safeguard the UK’s long‑term food security.”Eagle responded that the government has “announced proposals to reform the planning system to more quickly unlock food and farming infrastructure,” emphasizing that “planning should enable ambition, not stifle it.”Her briefing notes directly linked the proposed changes to industry lobbying, describing planning reform as one of the sector’s “biggest asks” and noting that the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government are working to “find solutions to planning barriers to poultry sheds and other infrastructure necessary for food production.”The draft NPPF includes several measures that could ease approval of new intensive livestock developments: a higher threshold for refusing applications on environmental grounds, reduced scope for local authorities to adopt tougher rules, greater weight given to “domestic food production,” and a new emphasis on “better accommodation for livestock.”The industry says it needs extra space to house chickens because of voluntary commitments to lower stocking density. Critics point out that these welfare commitments are not legally binding and that planning conditions do not guarantee long‑term compliance. Recent withdrawals by restaurant chains from the Better Chicken Commitment underscore the controversy.Richard Griffiths, chief executive of the BPC, said the reforms are needed to accommodate welfare improvements rather than to expand production, noting a voluntary reduction in stocking density from 38 kg to 30 kg per square metre.Griffiths warned that failing to support domestic production could increase imports, and the BPC has called for food production to be classified as “critical national infrastructure.”Prof. Paul Behrens of the University of Oxford countered that the food‑security case for intensive poultry is “illusory” because the sector depends on imported feed and vitamins and is vulnerable to disease outbreaks such as avian flu.Opposition to poultry megafarms is organised, with local residents raising concerns over water pollution, air quality and the climate crisis. The Environment Agency estimates agriculture accounts for roughly 70 % of nitrate and 25‑30 % of phosphorus pollution in UK waterways, and runoff from intensive poultry units contributes to that burden.Last year, Norfolk councillors rejected Cranswick’s plan for a 900,000‑bird chicken farm after the company failed to demonstrate that the development would not cause “significant adverse effects on protected sites.”The BPC has also urged early intervention by the Planning Inspectorate to minimise delays, arguing that centralised oversight would bring objectivity to a system where “naysayers, particularly via social media, have a disproportionate sway in the decision‑making process.”Campaign group Communities Against Factory Farming warned that the proposed regime “risks embedding decades of industrial livestock land use in rural and green‑belt locations without adequate scrutiny,” giving “substantial weight” to the economic benefits of intensification.A government spokesperson rejected claims that the NPPF proposals are driven by lobbying, stating that they have been carefully considered to balance sector support with broader priorities such as food security and environmental protection.

In a primetime address to the nation, Donald Trump claimed that the US war in Iran is 'nearing completion' and that the US has accomplished 'all of America's military objectives.' However, the conflict continues to escalate, with thousands of deaths in Iran and across the Middle East, and oil prices soaring due to the closure of the strategic strait of Hormuz.Trump argued that Iran's navy and air force have been decimated, leaving the country weak and 'no longer a threat' to the US and the world. He also claimed that the US has become energy independent and blamed Iran for a 'short-term' rise in gas prices. However, the economic pain caused by the conflict is evident, with the cost of gas surging past an average of $4 a gallon for the first time since 2022.The conflict has also caused significant human suffering, with estimates suggesting that at least 1,900 people have been killed and 20,000 injured in Iran since the war began. In Lebanon, more than 1,300 people have been killed, and in Israel, 19 people have been killed and 515 injured. Additionally, at least 13 American service members have been killed, with hundreds more troops wounded.Despite Trump's claims of progress, the war is grinding on, with thousands of US troops remaining positioned in the region, providing the option of a broader ground campaign after weeks of airstrikes targeting Iran. The US president has also faced criticism for his handling of the conflict, with mixed and contradictory signals about the US's objectives and lashing out at US allies for not joining the war effort.

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian has urged the American people to look beyond the distortions and narratives surrounding the US-Israeli war on Iran and ask a critical question: whose interests are being served by this conflict?In an open letter addressed to the US public, Pezeshkian questioned whether President Donald Trump's 'America First' policy is truly a priority for the US government. He emphasized that the massacre of innocent children, destruction of cancer-treatment facilities, and boasting about bombing a country 'back to the stone ages' only serve to damage the United States' global standing.Pezeshkian also rejected portrayals of Tehran as a threat, noting that Iran had been attacked twice while its negotiators were engaged in nuclear talks – once by Israel in June 2025, with the US briefly joining in, and again at the end of February this year.The Iranian president stressed that attacking Iran's vital infrastructure, including energy and industrial facilities, directly targets the Iranian people and constitutes a war crime. Such actions, he argued, generate instability, increase human and economic costs, and perpetuate cycles of tension.Pezeshkian's letter comes amid escalating tensions, with Trump threatening to 'blast Iran into oblivion' unless the Strait of Hormuz is reopened. The US president also claimed that Iran's 'new regime president' had requested a ceasefire – a claim denied by Iranian officials.The Iranian leader also questioned whether the Trump administration was manipulated by Israel in launching the war against Iran. He asked whether America has entered this aggression as a proxy for Israel, influenced and manipulated by that regime.

Russia's Ministry of Defence has declared that its forces have gained complete control over the Luhansk region in eastern Ukraine. This development comes as Moscow continues its efforts to expand its territorial control in the region. The ministry stated that units of the 'West' military grouping have completed the 'liberation' of the Luhansk People's Republic, a term used by Moscow to refer to the Ukrainian region. However, there was no immediate confirmation of this claim from Ukrainian authorities. Luhansk, along with Donetsk, forms the broader Donbas area. More than 99 percent of Luhansk has been under Russian control since the beginning of the 2022 invasion. The region was one of four Ukrainian territories annexed by Russia in 2022. Additionally, Russia controls approximately three-quarters of Donetsk. The Kremlin reiterated its demand for Ukrainian forces to withdraw from the entirety of Donetsk, which Kyiv has consistently rejected. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov urged Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to withdraw his forces from the Donbas area, suggesting that this would bring an end to what Russia refers to as the 'hot phase' of the war. In related developments, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy reported that Russia used 339 drones in overnight attacks on Ukraine. These attacks resulted in the deaths of two women in a civilian car in the Kherson region. Zelenskyy also mentioned that he would be holding a video call with US envoys to discuss stalled negotiations with Russia. Meanwhile, Ukrainian drones have been reported to have crossed into the airspace of several countries, including Estonia, Finland, and Latvia. Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha clarified that Ukraine never aimed drones at these countries.

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.

Italy awoke on Wednesday in a state of anger and disbelief after the Azzurri were eliminated from the FIFA World Cup 2026 qualification by a 4-1 penalty shoot‑out defeat to Bosnia and Herzegovina, following a 1‑1 draw in regular time.The loss represents the third straight playoff elimination for Italy – previous setbacks came against Sweden and North Macedonia – and has revived what the front page of Corriere della Sera dubbed the "World Cup curse."Italian media, including La Gazzetta dello Sport and Corriere dello Sport, echoed the sentiment with headlines proclaiming “We’re all staying at home,” underscoring the depth of national disappointment.Key moments in the match included a red card for Alessandro Bastoni in the 42nd minute for a last‑man tackle, a turning point that shifted momentum despite Italy leading at the time.Fans expressed their shock and frustration: "Everything went badly from the start of the match. The team wasn’t good, players out of form… it makes no sense," said Davide Caldaretta, a spectator in a Rome pub, to Reuters.Melanie Cardillo, also speaking to Reuters, described herself as “really upset and disappointed,” adding that the repeated failures have eroded hope.Beyond football, Italy recently celebrated a record 30 medals at the Milan‑Cortina Winter Olympics and 40 medals at the 2024 Paris Summer Games, highlighting the country's broader sporting prowess, from speed skater Francesca Lollobrigida to tennis champion Jannik Sinner.Nevertheless, the football debacle prompted a political backlash. Sport Minister Andrea Abodi called on FIGC President Gabriele Gravina to resign, stating, "Italian football needs to be rebuilt from the ground up, starting with changes at the top of the FIGC."Gravina refused to step down, noting that a board meeting next week will determine his future. Tensions have risen between the government and the federation, with Gravina accusing the state of treating football as a "state sport" while favoring other disciplines.Former Prime Minister Matteo Renzi weighed in, calling the elimination “unfortunately not an April Fool’s joke” and emphasizing that football is integral to Italy’s cultural identity.In response to Gravina’s remarks, speed skater Francesca Lollobrigida posted sarcastically on Instagram, "I’m an amateur," underscoring the broader debate over responsibility for the missed qualification.As Italy prepares for the next board meeting, the nation faces a pivotal moment: whether to overhaul its football governance or continue grappling with a perceived "curse" that has kept the Azzurri out of the world stage for three consecutive cycles.

Iranian authorities have publicly asserted that the nation’s universities are facing systematic targeting, a claim that underscores growing tensions over academic autonomy and possible foreign influence.According to the statements, the alleged pressure on higher‑education institutions is intended to undermine Iran’s scientific and educational development. Officials argue that such actions could have broader implications for the country’s research capabilities and its position in regional knowledge networks.While the specifics of the alleged targeting remain unclear, the accusations highlight a broader narrative of perceived external threats to Iran’s domestic sectors. The government’s response suggests a readiness to defend its academic infrastructure against what it describes as hostile maneuvers.Observers note that any sustained pressure on universities could affect student enrollment, research funding, and international collaborations, potentially reshaping Iran’s educational landscape.

Iran has strongly denied US President Donald Trump's claim that the Iranian president has requested a ceasefire amid the ongoing conflict with the United States and Israel. A senior Iranian official stated that there has been no such request, contradicting Trump's post on social media.According to Al Jazeera's Ali Hashem, reporting from Tehran, the Iranian government is refuting Trump's claim, stating that they have not asked for any ceasefire. This development occurs as the US and Israel continue their military actions against Iran, leading to soaring global energy prices and widespread opposition among the US public.Trump's claim came just hours before he was scheduled to deliver a speech in Washington, DC, which the White House described as an 'important update on Iran'. In his social media post, Trump mentioned that his administration would consider the purported ceasefire request once the Strait of Hormuz is 'open, free, and clear'. He also threatened to continue 'blasting Iran into oblivion' until this condition is met.The ongoing conflict has raised serious concerns about a global economic downturn, particularly due to the critical nature of the Strait of Hormuz, through which about one-fifth of the world's oil and liquified natural gas supplies transit. Experts, such as Mohamad Elmasry from the Doha Institute for Graduate Studies, have expressed concerns over Trump's aggressive rhetoric and its implications for civilian infrastructure in Iran.Al Jazeera's Alan Fisher, reporting from the White House, suggested that Trump is unlikely to announce an immediate end to the war during his address. Instead, sources indicate that he may state the conflict will continue for a couple of weeks, acknowledging the financial strain on the public but framing it as a short-term pain.