Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

During Donald Trump’s January 2025 inauguration, Giorgia Meloni was the only European leader invited, underscoring a brief period of close personal and diplomatic ties between Italy’s right‑wing government and the new U.S. administration. A month earlier she had been photographed sharing a private conversation with Trump at the Élysée Palace while President Emmanuel Macron celebrated the reopening of Notre‑Dame. From the outset of Trump’s second term, the Italian premier was hailed by the U.S. president as a “real live wire” and the European ally who could help “straighten out the world.” Meloni embraced the role, describing Trump as a “brilliant man” and promising to "make the West great again" together. That camaraderie has now eroded. In the wake of the US‑Israeli military action against Iran, Meloni told reporters during a Gulf‑region visit that "when we don’t agree, we must say it", explicitly rejecting the war. Her stance was reinforced a week earlier when Italy denied U.S. bombers permission to refuel at a southern base. Political analysts note that Meloni’s shift marks a decisive break from Trump’s agenda. Roberto D’Alimonte, a political‑science professor at Luiss University, warned that her earlier attempt to act as a bridge between Trump and European allies has become a “liability” she now seeks to repair. Public opinion reflects the change. Recent polls show a solid majority of Italians oppose the Iran war, and support for Trump in Italy has plunged from 35 % to just 19 %. The backlash also manifested in a recent referendum on judicial reform, where 61 % of voters aged 18‑34 rejected Meloni’s proposal—a defeat analysts link more to dissatisfaction with her foreign‑policy alignment than to the reform itself. Beyond politics, the conflict threatens Italy’s economy. As the EU’s second‑largest natural‑gas consumer—accounting for roughly 40 % of its energy mix—Italy is feeling the impact of soaring energy prices caused by the near‑total shutdown of traffic through the Strait of Hormuz. The Bank of Italy now projects only a 0.5 % growth rate for 2026‑27, down from earlier forecasts, while the national statistics office reported that Italy’s fiscal deficit has breached the EU’s 3 % ceiling, limiting fiscal flexibility ahead of next year’s elections. Despite these pressures, Meloni has not completely abandoned the United States. In March she declined Trump’s request to dispatch Italian warships to the Strait of Hormuz, aligning with other European nations, yet she stopped short of condemning the US‑led operation outright. Experts argue that Meloni’s approach is deliberately cautious. “She is pragmatic and politically skilled,” D’Alimonte said. “She will continue to balance criticism of Trump’s aggressive foreign policy with the need to preserve strategic ties, moving step‑by‑step toward a stronger European alignment without burning bridges.”

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

Iran and the United States have agreed to a two-week ceasefire, with talks set to begin in Islamabad, Pakistan, on Friday. The ceasefire comes after US President Donald Trump said he was calling off a threat to bomb Iran's power plants and bridges and suspending attacks on the country for two weeks.The truce is contingent on Iran agreeing to the 'complete, immediate and safe opening' of the Strait of Hormuz, a critical waterway through which a fifth of global oil supply passes. Iran's partial blockade of the strait has disrupted global trade, driving up oil prices and causing fuel shortages worldwide.Iran's National Security Council has confirmed that Tehran has agreed to talks based on a 10-point proposal from Iran. The proposal calls for Iranian dominance and oversight of the Strait of Hormuz, the withdrawal of all 'US combat forces' from bases in the Middle East, and a halt to military operations against allied armed groups across the region.The proposal also demands 'full compensation' for war damages, the lifting of all sanctions by the US, the United Nations Security Council, and the International Atomic Energy Agency, and the release of frozen Iranian assets abroad.Pakistan's Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif said the warring sides had agreed to an 'immediate ceasefire everywhere', including Lebanon and elsewhere. He extended an invitation to US and Iranian delegations to Islamabad on Friday to further negotiate a conclusive agreement.

U.S. crude futures tumbled about 16.5% to $94 a barrel after President Donald Trump declared a two‑week ceasefire with Iran. The announcement sparked a broad market rally: S&P; 500 futures jumped over 2%, the dollar weakened across the board, and 10‑year U.S. Treasury futures rose roughly 15 ticks. Investors welcomed the prospect of resuming oil and gas flows through the strategic Strait of Hormuz, a chokepoint that carries roughly one‑fifth of global petroleum shipments. The ceasefire, which Trump said would halt U.S. attacks for two weeks, is being coordinated with the Iranian Armed Forces, and Tehran has pledged to cease its own strikes if the United States does the same. Since the U.S. and Israel launched attacks on Iran at the end of February, markets have been volatile. The conflict forced Iran to effectively close the Strait, contributing to the . The new de‑escalation offers a potential relief valve for inflation‑sensitive economies and could restore confidence in energy‑intensive sectors. "Markets have been predicting that Trump was looking for an off‑ramp in Iran," said Jamie Cox, managing partner at Harris Financial Group. "Today, he got one and took it." The sentiment was echoed by analysts who see the ceasefire as a "good start" that may pave the way for a more permanent reopening of the waterway, though many uncertainties remain. Asian equity futures also pointed higher, reflecting the global impact of lower oil prices on regional markets that have been battered by the war and soaring energy costs. Meanwhile, the dollar's retreat underscores its recent role as a safe‑haven currency during the turmoil. Trump added that the United States had received a "10‑point proposal" from Iran, which he described as a workable basis for negotiations toward a long‑term peace settlement. While the ceasefire is limited to two weeks, analysts such as IG's Tony Sycamore caution that "lots of ifs still to work out" before a durable resolution can be achieved.

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

The fragile ceasefire between Iran and Israel faced a serious crisis on Wednesday as both sides presented conflicting accounts of the agreement. The development raised concerns about the potential collapse of the truce.Israel escalated its military operations in Lebanon, launching its heaviest attack yet on over 100 targets, resulting in at least 254 fatalities. This move directly contradicts the claims of Iran and Pakistan, who brokered the 11th-hour truce and asserted that the ceasefire included Lebanon.In response, Iran halted the passage of oil tankers through the Strait of Hormuz, citing an alleged Israeli breach of the ceasefire. The Fars news agency reported that oil prices had dropped sharply below $100 a barrel following the truce announcement, leading to a global stock market surge.The White House disputed Iran's claims about the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, calling the reports 'false' and stating that US President Donald Trump expected it to reopen 'immediately, quickly and safely.' The US signaled its continued adherence to the ceasefire, even as it threatened to unravel.Iran and the US have different interpretations of the agreement. Trump conveyed a version suggesting a 15-point proposal from the US, which included no enrichment of uranium and the destruction of Iran's highly enriched uranium stockpile. In contrast, Iran's 10-point plan, which Trump initially referred to as a 'workable basis for negotiation,' included the right to enrich uranium and the full lifting of sanctions.The US and Iran are set to engage in talks in Islamabad, Pakistan, this weekend, with a US negotiating team led by Vice-President JD Vance. The talks aim to cement the ceasefire into a more durable peace agreement, but significant gaps remain to be bridged.The situation in the Gulf remains fragile, with the US and Israel claiming to have destroyed Iran's industrial base and significant military assets. Iran, on the other hand, portrays the truce as a victory, with senior politician Ali Akbar Velayati stating that 'America was forced to accept a ceasefire.'

At a Pentagon briefing, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth asserted that Iran’s request for a temporary cease‑fire was a direct result of the United States’ intensive air campaign, which he described as having reduced Iran’s weapons factories to rubble and rendered its military ineffective for years to come. Hegseth, standing beside Joint Chiefs Chairman Dan Caine, said the final wave of strikes before President Donald Trump announced a two‑week pause had completely destroyed Iran’s defense industrial base. While Iran can still fire from existing stockpiles, it can no longer replace lost munitions, according to the secretary. President Trump posted on Truth Social that he had agreed to suspend hostilities less than two hours before his self‑imposed deadline to “decimate the entirety of Iranian civilization.” The decision followed a last‑minute diplomatic push by Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and army chief Gen Asim Munir. Iran’s foreign minister Abbas Araghchi confirmed Tehran’s acceptance of the pause, and the country’s supreme national security council announced it would send a delegation to Islamabad for formal talks starting Friday. Both sides claimed victory: Iran’s security council said it had achieved “nearly all the objectives of the war,” while the United States highlighted the crippling of Iran’s military capabilities. The cease‑fire ends a conflict that began on 28 February, when the U.S. and Israel launched nearly 900 strikes in a 12‑hour window against Iranian military infrastructure, missile sites, and leadership. The opening day saw the death of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, with his son Mojtaba Khamenei named successor on 8 March. Hegseth warned that the United States had prepared additional strikes on Iran’s power plants, bridges and energy infrastructure—targets he said Iran could not defend or rebuild for decades—if Tehran had refused the pause. According to Joint Chiefs Chairman Caine, 13 U.S. service members were killed during the fighting. Total casualties across the region exceed 5,000, including over 1,600 Iranian civilians and at least 1,497 deaths in Lebanon. By the sixth day of the war, U.S. military spending had reached roughly $12.7 billion, with a pending supplemental request of $200 billion before Congress. The future of a lasting settlement remains uncertain. Trump later announced that Iran would hand over its enriched uranium and cease all enrichment activities, while Iran’s supreme national security council released a 10‑point counter‑proposal that explicitly demands the right to continue enrichment. Disagreements also persist over the cease‑fire’s scope. Israel maintains that the pause does not apply to Lebanon, where ground and air campaigns are at their most intense since Israel’s northern invasion. Both Pakistan and Iran, however, have stated that Lebanon is included in the cease‑fire. Subsequent reports indicated Iranian missile and drone attacks on Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates, as well as strikes on Iran’s oil infrastructure on Lavan Island. Iran’s supreme national security council warned that its forces remain on high alert, stating, “our hands are on the trigger, and any mistake by the enemy will be met with full force.” When asked about the long‑term U.S. presence in the region, Hegseth replied unequivocally: “We’re not going anywhere.”

The Football Association's proposal to restructure the Women's National League has sparked controversy, with many criticizing the plan to include four Women's Super League (WSL) academy sides in the third tier of the pyramid from 2027. The idea, which has been described as 'repackaged B teams,' has received a mixed reaction from club staff and supporters. The changes, which are still under consultation, would also introduce a mid-season split similar to that used in Scotland, as well as a potential investment package of about £1m and enhancements to legal and medical support in the loan system. Critics argue that the plan could lead to the best young players being loaned into WSL or WSL2 teams, increasing the risk of injuries to these players. Some have also expressed concerns that the introduction of B teams could undermine the competitiveness of the Women's National League. However, not all reaction has been negative. Some top-tier teams have welcomed the idea, and Arsenal Women's under-21 coach, David Pipe, described it as a 'brilliant idea, in principle.' An FA spokesperson said: 'We are exploring a range of initiatives to drive continued improvements across the Women's National League. Our priority is to ensure the women's football pyramid in England continues to grow in a sustainable way, improving the quality, professionalism and competitiveness of the Women's National League.'

Opening new oil and gas fields in the North Sea would send a shock wave around the world, senior climate diplomats warned, saying the move would imperil international climate targets, erode the United Kingdom’s reputation as a climate leader and embolden developing countries to exploit their own fossil‑fuel reserves.The UK government faces intense lobbying from the oil industry, Conservative MPs, Nigel Farage’s Reform UK party, certain trade unions and factions within the Treasury. Yet research shows that new drilling would do little to lower energy prices and would have almost no impact on gas imports.Two of the remaining large North Sea prospects – the Rosebank and Jackdaw fields – sit in a basin that is over 90% depleted and increasingly costly to develop. Even if fully exploited, they would displace only about 1% and 2% of the UK’s gas imports respectively, according to recent analysis.Senior figures in international climate diplomacy described the prospect of new drilling as dangerous for global emissions‑reduction efforts and a step back from the phase‑out of fossil fuels.Lord Nicolas Stern, professor at the London School of Economics, warned that “new drilling and a slowdown in climate action would be bad for growth and for energy security in the UK, and a damaging signal for the world.” He added that the UK’s pioneering climate legislation and its role as the first G7 nation to commit to net‑zero by 2050 give its actions “extra weight” on the global stage.An anonymous senior African negotiator reacted angrily to the proposal, stating that Africa would “reject any proposal for the UK to expand oil drilling” because it is “fundamentally inconsistent with both the letter and spirit of the Paris Agreement” and would “weaken trust with climate‑vulnerable nations”.Christiana Figueres, former UN climate chief and co‑founder of the Global Optimism think‑tank, argued that true energy independence lies in “scaling clean, domestic energy, not in extending the life of declining industries”. She cautioned that reverting to old‑fashioned oil expansion would lock in infrastructure at odds with the direction of the global energy system.The UK has been a vocal supporter of an upcoming conference in Colombia on the “transition away from fossil fuels”, a pledge made three years ago at COP28 that remains largely unfulfilled. However, the Guardian learned that Ed Miliband, the UK secretary of state for energy security and net‑zero, will not attend; the government’s climate envoy, Rachel Kyte, will travel in his place.Campaigners had urged Miliband’s presence, citing his pivotal role in securing a last‑minute deal at COP30 in Brazil last November.Experts caution that licensing new fields before the Colombian summit could undermine progress in persuading developing nations to forgo fossil‑fuel‑based economies and adopt cleaner energy pathways.Mohamed Adow, director of the Power Shift Africa think‑tank, warned that a UK approval would “send a shock wave around the world that short‑term interests are being prioritised over long‑term responsibility”. He stressed that many African countries are being asked to leapfrog to clean energy with limited financial support, and that wealthy nations continuing to invest in fossil fuels “undermine this message and diminish their credibility”.Several developing‑country officials echoed this concern, asking, “Why shouldn’t we tap into our own fossil‑fuel resources if the UK is doing so?” They argued that leadership on climate must be consistent with actions.An ally of Miliband praised the UK’s stance, calling “no new exploration licences” a “landmark global leadership position” that shows a major oil‑producing country can align policy with climate science to avoid a 3‑4°C warming scenario.A government spokesperson reaffirmed the administration’s commitment, stating that the UK has placed “clean energy and climate at the heart of its agenda”, and that it will continue to “stop issuing licences to explore new fields, in line with the science and in securing a just transition in the North Sea”.