Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

Costa Rica has announced that it will accept 25 migrants deported from the United States per week as part of an agreement to assist with President Donald Trump's policy of deporting immigrants to 'third countries'.The Central American nation joins a growing number of countries across Africa and the Americas that have signed contentious, often secretive agreements with the US to accept deportees from other countries.In many cases, critics say migrants who previously hoped to seek asylum in the US are left in a legal 'black hole' in foreign countries where they don't speak the language.Countries that have agreed to receive third-party migrants include South Sudan, Honduras, Rwanda, Guyana and several Caribbean islands like Dominica and St Kitts and Nevis.'Costa Rica is prepared to see this flow of people,' said Costa Rican Public Security Minister Mario Zamora Cordero in a video statement on Thursday.Costa Rica's government signed the pact on Monday during a visit from US special envoy Kristi Noem, who was recently named to oversee the so-called 'Shield of the Americas'.Noem, who was fired earlier this month from her role as secretary of Homeland Security, has been travelling through Latin America, with recent stops in Guyana and Ecuador.The Trump administration has spent at least $40m to deport about 300 migrants to countries other than their own, according to a February report by the Democratic staff of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

A United States judge has ruled that he will not dismiss the drug-trafficking and weapons possession charges brought against former Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores.In a Thursday court hearing, Judge Alvin Hellerstein questioned whether the US government has the right to bar Venezuela from funding Maduro's legal expenses. The hearing was the first for Maduro and his wife since a brief January arraignment, where they pleaded not guilty.Maduro and Flores have sought to have the charges against them thrown out. Hellerstein declined to do so, but he pressed the prosecution on some of the issues Maduro's legal team raised in its petition to dismiss the case. Among them was a decision by the administration of US President Donald Trump to prevent the Venezuelan government from financing Maduro's defence.Federal prosecutors argued that national security reasons prevented the US from allowing such payments. They also pointed to ongoing sanctions against the Venezuelan government. But Hellerstein pushed back against that argument, noting that Trump had eased sanctions against Venezuela since Maduro's abduction on January 3. He also questioned how Maduro might pose a security threat while imprisoned in New York.“The defendant is here. Flores is here. They present no further national security threat,” said Hellerstein. “I see no abiding interest of national security on the right to defend themselves.”Hellerstein emphasised that, in the US, all criminal defendants have the right to a vigorous defence, as part of the US Constitution's Sixth Amendment. Maduro, who led Venezuela from 2013 to 2026, has been charged with four criminal counts, including “narco-terrorism” conspiracy, conspiracy to import cocaine, the possession of machine guns and the conspiracy to possess machine guns and other destructive devices.He and his wife were taken into US custody on January 3, after Trump launched an attack on Venezuela. The Trump administration has framed the military operation as a “law enforcement function”, but experts say it was widely considered illegal under international law, which protects local sovereignty.Trump himself weighed in on the proceedings during a Thursday US Cabinet meeting, hinting that further charges could be brought against Maduro. “He emptied his prisons in Venezuela, emptied his prisons into our country,” Trump said of Maduro, reiterating an unsubstantiated claim. “And I hope that charge will be brought at some point. Because that was a big charge that hasn’t been brought yet. It should be brought.”

Following Donald Trump's recent claims that the US is engaged in 'strong talks' to end the war with Iran, Qatar took the unusual step of publicly distancing itself from any alleged diplomatic negotiations. The Gulf state's government spokesperson Majed al-Ansari explicitly stated, 'Qatar was not involved in any mediation efforts,' adding pointedly, 'If they exist.'This represents a significant departure from Qatar's traditional role as a chief mediator in Middle East conflicts, having previously facilitated negotiations between Israel and Hamas, the US and the Taliban, and peace deals in Lebanon and Sudan.Over the past three weeks, Gulf states have found themselves on the frontlines of the conflict after their mediation efforts to prevent war were ultimately rejected by the US. The pattern of broken negotiations is particularly telling: the US attacked Iran twice during talks aimed at halting the Iranian nuclear program, which were championed by Oman. Discussions last June were halted as the US and Israel conducted strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities, and revived talks in February were similarly undermined when Trump began bombing Tehran before the final round of meetings.Since the war began, Gulf states have been forced to spend billions defending against daily Iranian missile and drone attacks, with their economies and sovereignty suffering substantial damage. Analysts suggest their reluctance to engage with the alleged ceasefire efforts reflects both the heavy toll of continued warfare and lingering suspicion about whether Trump's peace initiatives are genuine or merely a pretext for further escalation.As Bilal Saab, senior managing director of advisory group Trends US and former Pentagon official in the first Trump administration, explained: 'They've been burned by their previous experience. They previously thought they played a useful mediating role – until they realised that it was all for naught. Not to mention that they have been directly implicated in the war and are still being attacked by the Iranians. So there's a lot of pent-up frustration and disappointment.'By Wednesday night, the Iranian regime had outright rejected Trump's 15-point plan to end the war, submitted to Tehran via Pakistani generals, as 'extremely unreasonable' and presented their own substantially different proposal.The concern among Gulf states is that any negotiations could become a front for military escalation or even the assassination of additional Iranian leaders. This anxiety is compounded by the simultaneous deployment of thousands of US troops to the region and the persistent fear of being used as pawns in the US and Israel's Middle East strategy.Professor Bader al-Saif of Kuwait University noted: 'Whenever the word negotiation was used by the Trump administration, we unfortunately ended up under the rubric of war.' He emphasized that while Gulf states are reluctant to engage with what they perceive as a potential Trumpian charade, they recognize the critical importance of shaping any realistic peace negotiations that could affect their future.The existential threat to Gulf economic ambitions is particularly concerning. The prospect of Trump ending the war with the current Iranian regime still in place—potentially more vengeful than before and acutely aware of the damage its missiles can inflict on multi-billion-dollar infrastructure—poses significant risks. Additionally, there remains no clear solution to Iran's effective control over the Strait of Hormuz, through which most of the region's oil and gas exports flow.Analysts suggest that beyond relying on US-led negotiations, Gulf states should pursue their own separate dialogue with Iran. As al-Saif stated: 'They shouldn't only count on the US to do the negotiation. They should go and strike a deal with Iran for themselves. This was not our war, and if we can shield ourselves from being impacted any further, we should do it to protect our own national interests.'

As Israeli settlers intensify violent attacks against Palestinian civilians in the West Bank, often while Israeli forces stand by, a notable shift is occurring in US political circles. Even staunch supporters of Israel within the Democratic party are now publicly denouncing the escalating violence.In recent days, dozens of settlers have engaged in apparently coordinated attacks, torching homes and vehicles while targeting Palestinian civilians. Since the beginning of the month, Israeli settlers and police have killed at least 10 Palestinian civilians in the occupied territory, including two young brothers and their parents who were returning from a Ramadan shopping trip.Among the voices breaking ranks is Ritchie Torres, a New York Democratic representative and one of Israel's most ardent supporters in Congress. In a statement this week, he declared that "the crisis of extremist settler violence in the West Bank must be confronted, and the perpetrators must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law." He called for "zero tolerance for violent extremism, no matter what form it takes."Another pro-Israel Democrat, Daniel Goldman of New York, condemned the violence as an "outrage" and urged House Speaker Mike Johnson to bring to vote proposed legislation seeking to impose sanctions against those "undermining prospects for a two-state solution by committing illegal violent acts." He also criticized the Trump administration for rescinding sanctions against violent settlers that had been issued under the Biden administration.Several other Aipac-backed politicians have joined the condemnation, including Arizona Senator Ruben Gallego, who called on the Israeli government to "stop being complicit," and Arizona Congressman Greg Stanton, who labeled the attacks "acts of terrorism." Ohio Democratic Congresswoman Shontel Brown accused Trump of "green-lighting settler violence," while Nevada Senator Jacky Rosen stated that "violence against Palestinian civilians in the West Bank is a national security threat to Israel and must be treated as such."The political shift comes as US public support for Israel has plummeted. An NBC News poll found that two-thirds of Democrats now say their sympathies lie with Palestinians over Israelis—a dramatic reversal with significant implications for upcoming elections. Meanwhile, 68% of Republicans continue to express stronger support for Israel.A Guardian analysis revealed that Israel has not prosecuted any of its citizens for killing Palestinian civilians in the occupied West Bank since the start of the decade. The UN has warned that the Israeli government has accelerated illegal settlement expansion, forcibly displacing approximately 36,000 Palestinians in the West Bank and East Jerusalem over the past year.Political analysts suggest these pro-Israel Democrats are "trapped between the money they've relied on to make their campaigns work and the voters they actually need to win," with condemnation of settler violence offering a way to express discontent without challenging the Israeli state itself.

The deadly conflict in Iran has precipitated what the International Energy Agency describes as the worst oil crisis in history, creating a complex situation for global clean energy efforts. While climate advocates are calling for accelerated transition away from fossil fuels, the war simultaneously presents both opportunities and significant challenges for renewable energy development.US-Israeli strikes on Iran have critically disrupted supply routes through the Strait of Hormuz, a maritime channel through which 20% of global oil flows. The conflict has also seen direct attacks on fossil fuel infrastructure by all parties involved, creating additional market shocks and uncertainty.Interestingly, reduced reliance on oil and gas is proving beneficial for some regions navigating the ongoing fuel crisis. As Jan Rosenow, a professor of energy at Oxford University, explains: Electricity generated from wind and solar is largely insulated from fossil fuel price volatility – once built, the fuel is free.Countries with substantial renewable energy investments are demonstrating greater resilience. Spain and Portugal have witnessed electricity prices decline in recent weeks, while Pakistan has experienced a surge in rooftop solar installations over the past five years, helping the nation weather oil and gas market disruptions.The electric vehicle revolution is also providing some economies with protection against gasoline price increases. In China, more than 50% of all new cars sold are electric, while in Nepal, that figure reaches an impressive 70%.However, the war is creating near-term challenges that could impede clean energy growth. The conflict has disrupted transport routes for metals essential in solar panel construction, particularly aluminum. The Middle East accounts for approximately 9% of global aluminum production, and regional producers have begun scaling back operations amid the hostilities.Furthermore, the inflationary pressures stemming from the conflict pose significant hurdles for renewable energy projects, which require substantial upfront investment for construction, equipment, and installation.Paradoxically, the war and resulting energy shocks have provided a short-term boon for fossil fuels, including coal. Many Asian countries heavily reliant on imported liquefied natural gas (LNG) are burning more coal to meet energy demand as LNG supplies through the Strait of Hormuz become constrained.The conflict has also incentivized increased oil and gas drilling and exploration, as countries scramble to replace disrupted LNG supplies and higher prices make previously unviable projects economically viable. US company Venture Global recently announced a new five-year contract to supply LNG, while Canadian energy company TC Energy indicated that Iran war disruptions are increasing the likelihood of expanding a massive LNG export facility.The Trump administration has further incentivized oil expansion, recently announcing plans to pay a French company $1 billion to abandon offshore wind farm projects in favor of fossil fuel initiatives.Experts propose various policy responses to encourage the green transition during this crisis. Rosenow advocates for tax reform to reduce the disproportionate burden on electricity compared to gas. Professor Gregor Semieniuk suggests imposing windfall taxes on oil and gas companies during the war, while Lauren Pagel of Earthworks calls for ending fossil fuel subsidies and making polluters pay for their environmental impact.Despite the current challenges, Kingsmill Bond, a strategist for the energy thinktank Ember, maintains that this crisis could ultimately accelerate the clean energy transition: This is the first oil shock in history where oil faces a superior alternative. Solar, wind and EV are cheaper, local, faster to deploy, and huge.

A newly expanded policy from the Trump administration could require travelers from five World Cup-qualified African countries to post a bond of up to $15,000 in order to enter the United States for the tournament.Visa bonds function as security deposits: a one-time payment that is meant to be refunded after a traveler exits the US under the terms of their visa. The amounts typically range between $5,000 and $15,000, and are required for passport holders from certain countries to enter the US legally under B-1 or B-2 visas, which are necessary for business travelers or tourists.The US State Department has mandated these bonds since launching a pilot program in late 2025, targeting many of the same countries affected by the Trump travel ban along with others – predominantly nations from Africa, the Middle East, Latin America and parts of Asia. Last week, the state department announced an expansion of the program, with visitors from 50 countries now required to submit the deposits if requested by US consular officials.Among those 50 countries, five have qualified for the World Cup, all from Africa: Algeria, Cape Verde, Côte d'Ivoire, Senegal and Tunisia. Though refundable, the cost of the bonds alone is sufficient to make travel to the US prohibitively expensive for most fans from these nations, where average annual income levels are approximately $5,000 per year or less. Tunisia is scheduled to play one group-stage game in the US with the other two in Mexico. Senegal and Côte d'Ivoire will play twice in the US and once in Canada. Algeria and Cape Verde will compete in all three of their group-stage matches in Mexico.Even if affordable for some supporters, the multi-thousand dollar requirement adds another significant complication for fans from these countries, including exorbitant ticket prices for the games themselves, hotel rates far above average, plus additional visa processing delays and potential safety concerns created by the presence of federal immigration officers from ICE and other agencies in US cities.It remains unclear which entities, if any, will be exempt from the visa bonds. While Trump's travel bans contain exemptions for athletes and officials participating in major sporting events like the World Cup, the visa bonds program contains no such provision.The 2026 World Cup is scheduled to commence on June 11, with the final taking place on July 19 at MetLife Stadium in East Rutherford, New Jersey.

Pakistan's military leadership has been playing a crucial role in attempting to broker negotiations between the US and Iran. The country's army chief, Asim Munir, recently had a call with US President Donald Trump to discuss the conflict. Diplomatic sources indicate that the US and Iran could meet for negotiations in Islamabad as early as this week to discuss an end to the war, which began almost a month ago. While Islamabad has yet to be officially confirmed as the venue, sources suggest that Tehran prefers Islamabad. Pakistani sources mention that US Vice-President JD Vance is being considered as a probable chief negotiator from the US side, rather than Trump's Middle East envoy Witkoff or Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner. Vance is viewed as a sceptic of the US decision to bomb Iran and has largely kept quiet on the conflict. After the phone call between Trump and Munir, Pakistan's Prime Minister, Muhammad Shehbaz Sharif, spoke to Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian on Monday. According to an official readout of the call, they agreed on the urgent need for de-escalation, dialogue, and diplomacy. Sources suggest that Iran's parliamentary speaker, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, is likely to lead any talks from the Iranian side. However, Ghalibaf has dismissed reports of talks between the two sides as 'fake news'. An Iranian diplomatic source confirmed that talks are expected this week but expressed 'zero trust' in Washington. They stated that Iran would not accept Witkoff and Kushner as negotiators for any discussions. Negotiations between the US and Iran were ongoing when the US began its bombing campaign. The Iranian regime views these negotiations as an attempt by the Trump administration to deceive Iran into thinking it wanted a diplomatic solution while planning to attack. On Monday, Trump indicated that he would be willing to halt US strikes, claiming that 'strong talks' were being held between Iranian officials and Witkoff and Kushner. Trump told reporters that they had 'very, very strong talks' and that they had 'major points of agreement, I would say, almost all points of agreement'. The US president has given a five-day deadline to an ultimatum he gave over the weekend, threatening to 'obliterate' Iran's power plants and energy infrastructure if they did not reopen the Strait of Hormuz, a crucial shipping route currently being blockaded by Iran's military. Trump's announcement of talks helped boost markets, bringing oil prices sharply down to below $100 (£75) a barrel, the lowest in days.

The ongoing conflict between the United States and Iran has sparked concerns about the motivations behind Donald Trump's continued military actions. Kenneth Roth, a Guardian US columnist and former executive director of Human Rights Watch, draws a striking parallel between Trump's approach and that of Richard Nixon during the Vietnam War. Nixon's quest for 'peace with honor' in Vietnam led to years of devastation, resulting in over 20,000 American soldiers killed and a significantly higher toll among Vietnamese, Cambodian, and Laotian civilians. Similarly, Trump's conflict with Iran appears to be driven by a desire to assert dominance and protect his political reputation, rather than a clear military objective. The article questions the rationale behind Trump's continued bombing of Iran, citing claims that Iran's ballistic missile capacity has been functionally destroyed and its nuclear program 'obliterated.' With 7,000 Iranian protesters killed in January, the Trump administration's call for regime change seems unlikely to succeed. The current fixation on Iran's blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, which carries 20% of the world's oil and gas, has led to soaring petroleum prices. Trump's threat to destroy Iran's electrical infrastructure by the end of the week, unless Tehran agrees to allow the strait to reopen, raises concerns about war crimes and humanitarian consequences. Roth suggests that a de facto ceasefire, where Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu stop bombing, could be a more fruitful path to deescalation. However, Trump's desire for 'unconditional surrender' and the Iranian regime's insistence on lifting sanctions and affirming its right to nuclear enrichment complicate negotiations. The article concludes that Trump's pursuit of 'honor' and 'victory' in the conflict may come at a significant cost to the people of Iran, the global economy, and the United States itself, echoing the lessons of the Vietnam War.

The recent sanctions imposed by the Trump administration against a UN human rights expert have raised alarm bells about the state of free speech and the ability to criticize government policies without fear of retribution. The expert, Francesca Albanese, was appointed by the United Nations to monitor human rights in occupied Palestine. Her offense was recommending that the International Criminal Court (ICC) issue arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for war crimes committed in Gaza. The sanctions, which amount to a "civil death," have effectively silenced Albanese, preventing her from opening a bank account, selling her Washington DC house, or drawing a salary from American universities that employed her. This has had a ripple effect, causing fear among faculty and students on campuses who are now hesitant to criticize Israel's human rights record. The executive order signed by Trump threatens to criminally prosecute anyone who provides Albanese or other designated figures with "funds, goods, or services." This vague language has led to a Maine university canceling an academic conference where Albanese was to make an unpaid appearance via Zoom. The authors of the article, a group of North American university professors and human rights lawyers, argue that this has created a chilling effect on free speech, deterring people from expressing their views for fear of facing sanctions or arrest. They have filed a "friend-of-the-court" brief in support of a lawsuit filed by Albanese's husband and daughter against Trump's unconstitutional sanctions. The targeting of Albanese has significant implications beyond those focused on Israel's human rights record. It should concern anyone who believes in free speech and the ability to challenge those in power without fear of retribution. When a government claims the authority to police ideas, everyone's liberty is on the line.