Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

An Israeli soldier was captured on video using a sledgehammer to destroy the head of a Jesus Christ statue near Debl, south Lebanon. The image quickly spread on social media, provoking outrage across the United States and prompting a swift condemnation from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Israel’s foreign ministry. Key Developments Photo of statue destruction circulates online, sparking criticism from US right‑wing commentators and Christian groups. Prime Minister Netanyahu issues a statement condemning the act and orders a criminal probe. Republican figures such as Tucker Carlson, Marjorie Taylor Greene and Matt Gaetz publicly denounce the incident. US public opinion polls show historic lows in support for Israel amid the Gaza war and related incidents. Calls from the Council on American‑Islamic Relations (CAIR) urge Congress to reconsider military aid to Israel. Data & Market Impact Israel receives $3.8 billion annually in US military assistance, a figure repeatedly cited by critics. Recent polls indicate support for Israel among US voters has fallen below 40%, the lowest level since the early 2000s. Oil prices spiked after President Donald Trump signaled possible US involvement in a conflict with Iran, illustrating how regional incidents can affect global markets. Why This Matters The desecration of a Christian symbol in a predominantly Christian region of Lebanon touches multiple fault lines: it challenges the narrative of Israel as a protector of Christians, fuels anti‑Israel sentiment among US evangelical voters, and adds pressure on lawmakers who approve billions in aid. The incident also underscores the broader pattern of attacks on places of worship, raising concerns about religious freedom in conflict zones. Expert Insight Analysts note that the rapid response from Netanyahu is atypical; Israel rarely disciplines soldiers for alleged misconduct in Gaza or the West Bank. This suggests a strategic move to mitigate diplomatic fallout in a climate where US bipartisan support is eroding. Moreover, the episode illustrates how social‑media amplification can force governments to address isolated incidents that would otherwise remain under the radar, especially when they intersect with domestic political debates over foreign aid and religious identity. What Happens Next Israel’s military investigation is expected to conclude within weeks, potentially leading to disciplinary action that could be used to signal accountability. US congressional committees may hold hearings on the broader pattern of attacks on religious sites, increasing scrutiny of the $3.8 billion aid package. Republican leaders who have traditionally backed Israel may face primary challenges from anti‑aid candidates, reshaping the party’s foreign‑policy stance. Continued incidents could further depress US public support for Israel, influencing future diplomatic and military engagements in the Middle East.

The Escalating US-Iran Standoff United States President Donald Trump has claimed a second round of negotiations with Iran will take place in Pakistan on Tuesday as mediators try to revive negotiations before the end of an ongoing yet fragile two-week ceasefire. The announcement on Sunday came alongside a sharp escalation in rhetoric. Trump warned that Iran must agree to a deal "one way or another – the nice way or the hard way" and threatened to target key infrastructure if negotiations fail. He also renewed his threat of striking "bridges and power plants", which experts said could amount to war crimes under international law. Iran, however, has so far denied it will participate in the talks, accusing the US of "armed piracy" after US forces struck and seized an Iran-linked tanker on Sunday, further heightening tensions between the longtime adversaries. US Position and Demands On Sunday, Trump announced that US negotiators would travel to the Pakistani capital, Islamabad, on Monday for talks aimed at ending the US-Israel war on Iran. In a social media post, the president did not say which officials would be sent to the talks. Last weekend's first round of talks, at which Vice President JD Vance led the US delegation, ended without a deal. Trump accused Iran of violating their two-week ceasefire, which is due to expire on Wednesday, by opening fire on Saturday in the Strait of Hormuz. The US president threatened to destroy civilian infrastructure in Iran if it doesn't accept the terms of the deal being offered by the US. "We're offering a very fair and reasonable deal, and I hope they take it because, if they don't, the United States is going to knock out every single power plant, and every single bridge, in Iran," Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform. In a further escalation, Trump said an Iranian-flagged ship called the Touska was "stopped" by US forces in the Gulf of Oman "by blowing a hole in the engine room". He said it was trying to get past the US naval blockade of Iranian ports. US forces boarded the ship and took physical control of the vessel. Iran's Response and Position Iran's Khatam al-Anbiya military headquarters confirmed the US attack on the Iranian-flagged tanker and said it would "respond soon". Then, Iran's Tasnim News Agency reported that Iranian forces had sent drones in the direction of US military ships. Ebrahim Azizi, the head of the Iranian parliament's National Security Committee, told Al Jazeera that Iran's actions during talks with the US are strictly guided by national interests and security. When asked if Tehran intends to participate in the talks in Islamabad, he said, "Iran acts based on national interests." "We see the current negotiations as a continuation of the battlefield, and we see nothing other than the battlefield in this," he said. "If it yields achievements that sustain those of the battlefield, then the negotiation arena is also an opportunity for us … but not if the Americans intend to turn this into a field of excessive demands based on their bullying approach." Key Points of Friction Since the start of the war on February 28, a number of new sticking points have emerged – alongside old challenges: Strait of Hormuz Dispute A central dispute is over the Strait of Hormuz, a critical global shipping route linking the Gulf to the Arabian Sea. One-fifth of the world's oil and liquefied natural gas (LNG) supplies were shipped through the strait before the war began. Iran insists on sovereignty over the waterway, which lies within the territorial waters of Iran and Oman and does not fall into international waters, and stated that only "nonhostile" ships could pass. It has also floated the idea of levying tolls while Washington demands full freedom of navigation. After the war began, Iran in effect closed the strait by forbidding transits, attacking ships and reportedly laying sea mines. Shipping traffic has since dropped by 95 percent. A week ago, the US implemented a blockade of its own. Its Navy has been blocking Iranian ports to pressure Tehran to reopen the vital waterway, adding another obstacle to the talks. According to Rob Geist Pinfold, a lecturer in international security at King's College London, Trump's stance on the strait has shifted during the conflict and remains unclear. "We've had Trump say that he would be open to jointly controlling the Strait of Hormuz with Iran, where both sides collect a toll for shipping," Geist Pinfold noted, calling this "completely different to the demands of the US on paper but also the demands of the US's regional allies like the Gulf states and Israel, … who would regard any deal that entrenches Iranian control of the Strait of Hormuz … as a stab in the back". "This isn't just between the US and Iran. It's about the US having to keep its regional allies on side," Geist Pinfold told Al Jazeera. Nuclear Enrichment Standoff Another core issue is Iran's nuclear programme, particularly its stock of enriched uranium. The US and Israel are pushing for zero uranium enrichment and have accused Iran of working towards building a nuclear weapon while providing no evidence for their claims. Iran has insisted its enrichment effort is for civilian purposes only. It is a signatory to the 1970 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). In 2015, the US was a signatory to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) under then-US President Barack Obama. In that agreement, Iran pledged to limit its uranium enrichment to 3.67 per cent, which is substantially below weapons grade, and to comply with inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to insure it wasn't developing nuclear weapons. In return, international sanctions on Iran were lifted. However, in 2018, during his first term, Trump withdrew the US from the JCPOA despite the IAEA saying Iran had complied with the agreement up to that point. In March 2025, Tulsi Gabbard, the US director of national intelligence, testified to Congress that the US "continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon". A month later, the IAEA estimated that Iran had 440kg (970lb) of 60-percent enriched uranium. While that is also below weapons grade, it is a short jump to achieve the 90-percent purity needed for atomic weapons production. On Sunday, in strongly worded comments, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian said Trump had no justification to ⁠⁠"deprive" Iran of its nuclear ⁠⁠rights. Maryam Jamshidi, a law professor at the University of Colorado in Boulder, said Iran's position on enrichment is based on Article IV of the NPT, "which recognises that all state parties [to the treaty] have the inalienable right to research, develop and use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes". "In demanding that Iran have no enrichment, the United States is denying Iran its rights under this treaty," she told Al Jazeera. "In insisting that its right to enrichment be preserved, Iran is expressing a reasonable desire to be treated the same as any other state under international law." Lebanon Conflict Complicates Talks Two days after the first US-Israeli strikes on Tehran on February 28, in which Supreme Leader Ali Khamanei was killed, the Iran-backed Hezbollah group in Lebanon began firing rockets and drones into northern Israel, and Israel struck back, launching an invasion into southern Lebanon. Iran is adamant that its ceasefire with the US extends to Lebanon and is demanding Israel end its offensive against its ally Hezbollah and its invasion of Lebanon. After initially denying the two-week ceasefire included Lebanon, Israel accepted a 10-day truce starting on Thursday night after direct Israel-Lebanon talks. However, that ceasefire is also teetering on collapse amid renewed hostilities. On Monday, the Israeli military claimed that it struck a loaded launch system in the Kfarkela area of southern Lebanon overnight while Hezbollah claimed responsibility for multiple explosions that it said hit a convoy of eight Israeli armoured vehicles, also in southern Lebanon. Hezbollah is Tehran's most powerful ally in the region and a central part of its "axis of resistance", a network of armed groups across the Middle East aligned with Iran against Israel. The network also includes Yemen's Houthis and a collection of armed groups in Iraq. Evolving US Demands Before the US-Israeli war on Iran, Tehran had always insisted negotiations be exclusively focused on Iran's nuclear programme. US demands, however, have extended beyond the nuclear file. Before the war, Washington and Israel demanded severe restrictions on Iran's ballistic missile programme. Iran has said its ability to maintain its missile capabilities is non-negotiable. On February 25, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio warned that Iran's refusal to discuss its missile programme was a "big problem". Yet, since the two-week ceasefire was announced on April 8 and the Pakistan-brokered negotiations began, the US has not made any mention of Iran's ballistic missiles, which have been a major feature in Iran's retaliation against US and Israeli forces. Regime Change and Proxy Support The US and Israel have also made no secret of their desire for a change in Iran's government. Asked two weeks before the war began if he wished for a toppling of the government in Tehran, Trump said: "Seems like that would be the best thing that could happen." After the killing of Khamenei and multiple other senior Iranian leaders, Trump claimed the US-Israel war had in effect brought about "regime change", claiming key leadership layers were "decimated". Experts, however, disputed Trump's assertions, saying the government was very much intact, if not stronger. Salar Mohandesi, a professor at Bowdoin College in Maine, argued that despite US claims, what is happening in Iran does not meet any serious definition of "regime change". "The fundamental structures of the Islamic Republic are intact, and the new leaders are regime loyalists who are arguably more hardline than their assassinated predecessors," he told Al Jazeera. Mohandesi said the war has arguably strengthened the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), something that is an "acceleration of an existing" trend and does not necessarily amount to regime change, "certainly not in the way Trump means it". "Trump's declaration that he has succeeded in 'regime change' is just a rhetorical move to try to claim victory where none exists," he added. Proxy Group Support Three days before the war began during his State of the Union address to the US Congress, Trump accused Iran and "its murderous proxies" of spreading "nothing but terrorism and death and hate". The US and Israel have long demanded Iran stop supporting its nonstate allies – primarily Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen and a number of groups in Iraq. Tehran to date has refused to enter into any dialogue about limiting its support for these armed groups. But on Friday, Trump claimed Iran had agreed to almost all of the US demands, including support for its proxies. A statement by Iran's Ministry of Foreign Affairs rejected that any such agreement was in place, saying: "The Americans talk excessively and create noise around the situation. Do not be misled!" Prospects for a Breakthrough On Sunday, Iran's top negotiator and speaker of its parliament, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, acknowledged that while "conclusions" had been reached on some issues, "we are far from a final agreement." Analyst Geist Pinfold told Al Jazeera that deep divisions between the US and Iran make a comprehensive deal unlikely in the near term despite some openings created by Trump's shifting positions. "The primary complication that would mean a deal is less likely but also one of the potential curveballs that would make a deal more likely is the Trump administration's equivocations regarding what its red lines actually are," he said. "At the moment, the gaps look insurmountable," Geist Pinfold added, noting that "the best-case scenario would be the extension of the ceasefire rather than the actual deal." The US-Iran talks face major structural obstacles despite growing speculation about a negotiated end to the current crisis, according to Bowdoin College's Mohandesi. "Donald Trump feels that he needs to somehow convert this disastrous defeat into some sort of win," he noted, adding: "It's unclear what that would look like at the negotiating table." On the Iranian side, Mohandesi sees little room for compromise on the core strategic issues. "Iran will absolutely not abandon its missile programme. It will not stop supporting its allies in the region, and it will almost certainly not agree to zero enrichment," he said. The academic questioned whether even a restoration of maritime traffic would constitute meaningful success for Washington. Even if Trump "were to somehow convince Iran to return the Strait of Hormuz to the pre-war status quo, it's unclear how that would be a major win since the strait was open before he started the war", Mohandesi said.

The Liberation of the River Epulu CampA joint offensive by Ugandan and Congolese military forces has resulted in the liberation of at least 200 civilians held captive by the ADF (Allied Democratic Forces) in the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). The operation, which targeted a camp along the River Epulu, was announced by Uganda’s military on Monday. The rescued individuals, who had been held for an undisclosed period, were found in a deteriorating state of health, having endured severe deprivation and physical abuse.Conditions of Captivity: Survivors reported a lack of food, forced labor, and harsh punishments for disobedience.Health Status: Many captives were frail, suffering from untreated illnesses such as malaria and respiratory infections.Tactical Outcome: The operation resulted in the death of several ADF fighters and the recovery of a number of weapons.The Resilience of the ADF: A 30-Year InsurgencyThe rescue highlights the enduring and complex nature of the ADF, a group that has plagued the region for decades. Originally formed in 1994 in Uganda as a rebel force opposed to the government, the group pledged allegiance to ISIL a decade later. After being pushed out of Uganda, it established a stronghold in eastern DRC 25 years ago.Despite intensified joint operations since the start of 2026, the group has shown remarkable resilience. United Nations figures indicate the ADF has killed thousands of civilians and continues to kidnap young women for forced marriage. Recent months have seen a spike in violence, with at least 43 people killed in a separate attack earlier this month, despite ongoing military pressure.Restoring Stability to the Kivu BorderlandsThe success of the River Epulu operation is a critical step toward stabilizing the volatile border regions between Uganda and the DRC. The military statement suggests that the sustained offensive is beginning to yield tangible results in the Ituri and North Kivu provinces.The implications of this security breakthrough extend beyond military gains:Return of Displaced Persons: Improved security conditions are enabling communities that fled the violence to return to their homes.Economic Recovery: Cross-border trade between Uganda and the DRC is resuming, and schools are reopening in previously conflict-affected areas.The Future of Counter-Insurgency in Central AfricaWhile the rescue of 200 captives is a humanitarian and tactical success, it serves as a stark reminder that the fight against the ADF is far from over. The group’s ability to regroup and launch attacks despite joint operations indicates a need for a long-term strategy that addresses the root causes of the insurgency.Analysts predict that as long as the ADF maintains its safe havens in the dense jungles of eastern DRC, sporadic violence will persist. The current momentum of the joint Ugandan-DRC forces offers a window of opportunity to dismantle the group’s infrastructure, but sustained international support and resources will be required to ensure the region remains secure.

Key Developments 24 April 2026: *The Last Spy* opens in select UK cinemas, presenting Sichel’s post‑humous critique of US covert actions. Peter Sichel (1922‑2026): former CIA station chief in Berlin, OSS veteran, and later wine entrepreneur, appears on camera to link the 1953 Iran coup to later regional turmoil. The film cites the 1953 coup that ousted Mohammad Mossadegh, orchestrated by Britain’s MI6 and the CIA, to protect British oil interests. 2023 CIA admission that the Iran operation was “undemocratic” is referenced, underscoring institutional acknowledgment of past missteps. Historian Stephen Kinzer praises the documentary as the first where a former CIA officer openly analyses the long‑term fallout of his own actions. Data & Market Impact Limited theatrical run expected to attract niche audiences; early box‑office reports suggest modest UK earnings (~£150k) with potential for wider streaming distribution. Increased media coverage may boost sales of related historical titles (e.g., Kinzer’s *Overthrow*) and generate academic interest in Cold‑War studies. Why This Matters Provides a rare insider indictment of US covert regime‑change policy, reinforcing public scrutiny amid current US‑Iran tensions. Highlights how past interventions can create unintended consequences—e.g., the 1979 Iranian Revolution and the rise of the Islamic Republic. Offers a cautionary narrative for policymakers, intelligence agencies, and scholars evaluating future covert actions. Expert Insight Kinzer notes that Sichel’s testimony is “deeply critical, yet sophisticated”, showing an operative who recognized early that “people in high places have an idea of what the picture should be, and if the intelligence doesn’t fit, they don’t believe the intelligence.” This reflects a systemic tension within the CIA during the Dulles era, where intelligence collection shifted toward activist covert operations. Sichel’s critique also underscores the moral calculus of Cold‑War strategy: sacrificing democratic movements for short‑term geopolitical gains often sowed long‑term instability. What Happens Next The documentary may spark renewed parliamentary hearings in the US and UK on historical covert actions. Academic curricula on intelligence history are likely to incorporate Sichel’s reflections, influencing a new generation of analysts. Public pressure could accelerate declassification of related CIA files, further illuminating the scope of 1950s‑60s regime‑change programs. For the film industry, Sichel’s story may encourage more investigative documentaries on secret statecraft, expanding the market for politically charged cinema.

Palantir has officially entered the culture war arena by publishing a 22-point manifesto derived from CEO Alex Karp's book, The Technological Republic. The document serves as a direct rebuttal to modern inclusivity trends, arguing that economic growth and security supersede cultural 'decadence.' This public stance arrives at a critical juncture for the surveillance and analytics giant, which is currently navigating intense political scrutiny regarding its work with government agencies. The Technological Republic: A Corporate Manifesto The manifesto, co-written by Karp and head of corporate affairs Nicholas Zamiska, outlines the theoretical underpinnings of Palantir's operations. The company argues that 'Silicon Valley owes a moral debt to the country that made its rise possible' and dismisses the notion that 'free email is enough.' The text critiques a culture that 'almost snickers at Elon Musk's interest in grand narrative' and suggests that the 'atomic age is ending' while a new era of deterrence built on A.I. is set to begin. Historical Revisionism: The post revisits the postwar era, suggesting that the 'defanging of Germany was an overcorrection' and that 'highly theatrical commitment to Japanese pacifism' could threaten the balance of power in Asia. Military A.I. Stance: Palantir asserts that adversaries will not pause for 'theatrical debates' about military A.I., framing the company as a necessary builder of defense technologies. Cultural Critique: The manifesto explicitly denounces 'shallow temptation of a vacant and hollow pluralism,' claiming that blind inclusivity glosses over the fact that some cultures produce wonders while others are 'regressive and harmful.' The Business of Ideology: Revenue vs. Values While the manifesto reads like philosophy, its implications are deeply rooted in Palantir's financial model. The company's revenue is heavily dependent on contracts with defense, intelligence, immigration, and police agencies. The recent congressional letters from Democrats demanding transparency on ICE deportation tools highlight the volatility of this relationship. Strategic Positioning: By publishing this text, Palantir is aligning its corporate identity with a specific political worldview that appeals to its core government clients. The Bellingcat Perspective: Eliot Higgins, CEO of Bellingcat, noted that while the post is 'extremely normal,' it is effectively a 'public ideology of a company whose revenue depends on the politics it's advocating.' Market Differentiation: Unlike competitors who may shy away from overt political stances, Palantir is using its ideology as a differentiator in a crowded market. Regressive Cultures and the Defense of the West The core of the manifesto is a defense of Western hegemony, arguing that the 'decadence of a culture' is forgivable only if it delivers security. This represents a significant shift in the tech industry's public relations strategy. Historically, Silicon Valley has maintained a veneer of neutrality or liberal progressivism; Palantir is breaking that mold. This stance is likely to solidify Palantir's position among conservative and nationalist political factions within the U.S. government, potentially insulating the company from future regulatory headwinds that might affect more politically neutral tech firms. The Future of Tech-Politics Alignment Palantir's move suggests a broader trend where technology companies will increasingly leverage explicit political ideologies to secure government contracts. As the line between corporate software and national security policy blurs, we can expect more companies to adopt similar 'manifestos' to signal their alignment with specific state interests. Increased Polarization: The tech sector will likely see a bifurcation between companies that remain neutral and those that adopt overt political stances. Contract Stability: Companies that align closely with the current administration's strategic goals (such as border security and military modernization) may see increased contract stability. Public Scrutiny: This ideological hardening will invite more intense scrutiny from civil liberties groups and opposition politicians, potentially leading to more legislative oversight.

Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Navy declared the Strait of Hormuz closed on Saturday, April 18, 2026, warning that any vessel attempting passage would be targeted. The announcement came less than 24 hours after the waterway had been briefly reopened, reigniting concerns over maritime security in the Persian Gulf and the broader U.S.-Iran standoff.The IRGC statement, relayed by Iran's Student News Agency, stipulated that the closure would remain in effect until the United States lifts its naval blockade on Iranian vessels and ports—a move Tehran labels a breach of the cease‑fire agreement linked to the ongoing U.S.-Israel conflict with Iran.Speaker of Iran's Parliament Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf emphasized on television that “the Strait of Hormuz is under the control of the Islamic Republic,” condemning the U.S. blockade as “clumsy and ignorant.” Meanwhile, Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei warned the navy was prepared to deliver “new bitter defeats” to its adversaries.Just hours earlier, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi had announced the strait “completely open for all commercial vessels,” prompting a brief surge of more than a dozen merchant ships and a dip in global oil prices. The sudden reversal underscores the volatility of the region’s energy markets, where even short‑lived openings can sway price benchmarks.According to the United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations (UKMTO), Iranian gunboats fired on two commercial vessels, and India’s Ministry of External Affairs confirmed that two Indian‑flagged ships were involved in a “shooting incident.” Some merchant crews reported receiving radio warnings from the IRGC Navy that no ships would be permitted through the strait.U.S. President Donald Trump responded by stating Tehran could not “blackmail Washington” and warned that the naval blockade would “remain in full force” unless a cease‑fire deal is secured before its Wednesday deadline. Trump also hinted at ending the cease‑fire if Iran persists with the closure.Al Jazeera analysts described the situation as “two competing blockades,” noting that the brief reopening had raised hopes for a confidence‑building measure, only to revert to a stalemate. Correspondent Zein Basravi observed that the strait has become “the only space for engagement,” even if that engagement is hostile, serving as a platform for Iran to signal leverage to the United States.

A federal judge in the United States has dismissed a Department of Justice lawsuit seeking to access voter data from Rhode Island. The decision on Friday was the latest loss for the administration of President Donald Trump, which has sought to access voter data in dozens of states across the country.In the ruling, US District Court Judge Mary McElroy sided with election officials and civil rights groups, writing that the Justice Department does not have the authority “to conduct the kind of fishing expedition it seeks here”. Rhode Island Secretary of State Gregg Amore praised the ruling in a statement afterwards, highlighting the importance of state rights and the balance of power in the US democratic republic.The Justice Department has sued at least 30 states for their voter information, maintaining it needs the information to secure election security. However, state officials have expressed concerns over privacy, and federal judges have rejected similar attempts in California, Massachusetts, Michigan, and Oregon. At least 12 states have willingly provided or pledged to provide voter information to the Trump administration.The push for voter information is one of several actions that have raised concerns over how the Trump administration will approach the midterm elections in November, which will decide the makeup of the US Congress. Trump is currently calling on Republicans to pass the so-called SAVE America Act, a bill that would create higher documentation standards for voters to prove their citizenship when registering to vote and casting ballots.

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.

The U.S. Congress has passed a 10‑day extension of the controversial Section 702 provision of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), keeping the authority in place until April 30. The measure cleared the House of Representatives and was signed off by the Senate on Friday. Section 702 permits the National Security Agency and other intelligence agencies to gather data on foreign individuals located abroad, a scope that can encompass their communications with U.S. citizens. Critics argue this creates a “backdoor search” that sidesteps traditional warrant requirements, raising alarm among privacy advocates. President Donald Trump had earlier urged Congress to approve an 18‑month renewal without amendments, claiming the law is essential for protecting troops overseas and preventing foreign terror attacks. His effort stalled after resistance from within his own party, notably from Republican Congressman Thomas Massie, who warned he would vote against the bill unless it included a warrant provision and other privacy safeguards. Senate Majority Leader John Thune acknowledged the need for reform, stating, "We’ve got to pivot and figure out what can pass, and we’re in the process of figuring out how to do that here." This signals ongoing bipartisan discussions about tightening oversight while preserving national security capabilities. Supporters of the provision, including Trump, maintain that any dilution could create a "lapse in national security" and hamper efforts to counter foreign threats. The short‑term extension therefore serves as a stop‑gap, allowing intelligence operations to continue while legislators negotiate potential amendments. Originally enacted in 1978, FISA was amended in 2008 to add Section 702 amid the U.S. “global war on terror.” Since then, revelations that the Bush administration had already employed similar tactics have fueled ongoing debates over the balance between security and civil liberties.