Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

Rising fortunes among the ultra‑rich under the Trump administration have ignited a wave of tax‑reform campaigns across the United States. In California, volunteers like Karen Sanchez are gathering signatures for a one‑time 5% wealth tax targeting the state’s 200‑plus billionaires to offset federal cuts to hospitals, education and food‑assistance programs.At least ten states are exploring similar measures. Washington recently enacted its first income‑tax aimed at roughly 20,000 millionaire households, while Massachusetts and Minnesota already channel wealth‑tax proceeds into preschool, K‑12 meals and transportation infrastructure.On the federal front, Senators Bernie Sanders and Representative Ro Khanna have introduced the “Make Billionaires Pay Their Fair Share Act,” proposing an annual 5% levy on billionaire net worth. Khanna argues that the ultra‑wealthy fund private health insurers, defense contractors and political campaigns, creating a stark fairness gap.Data from Oxfam shows that in the twelve months after Trump’s re‑election, billionaire fortunes grew at a rate three times faster than the average annual growth of the previous five years. Meanwhile, the federal minimum wage has remained stagnant at $7.25 for fifteen years, underscoring the widening economic divide.A Data for Progress poll released last fall found that 70% of Americans believe the economic system favours corporations and the wealthy. “People are angry and want change,” says Amy Hanauer of the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP), noting that activists are leveraging every level of government to seek relief.The movement draws on a two‑decade history of class‑based activism, from the Occupy Wall Street protests to Senator Sanders’ 2016 campaign that foregrounded wealth‑tax proposals. Yet inequality has deepened: CEOs of the five largest U.S. firms now earn, on average, **$52 million** annually—over a thousand times the typical worker’s salary.Political spending by billionaires has also exploded. A recent New York Times analysis reveals that billionaire contributions rose from **0.3% of campaign funds in 2008** to **19% in 2024**, amounting to more than **$3 billion** from roughly 300 ultra‑rich donors, many of whom supported candidates opposing wealth taxes, including former President Donald Trump.The war in Iran has further inflamed resentment, with the United States spending **$11.3 billion** in the first week of bombardment—far exceeding the annual budgets of agencies such as the CDC, EPA and the National Cancer Institute.Local victories are feeding the momentum. New York City’s mayoral race saw Zohran Mamdani win on a platform that includes taxing the rich to fund affordable housing, groceries and transit. Councilmember Chi Ossé led a 1,500‑person march to the state capitol, urging Governor Kathy Hochul to permit a city‑level millionaire tax, a move that now has backing from some state Democrats.Beyond New York, states like Rhode Island, Hawaii, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Illinois and New Mexico are debating various wealth‑tax mechanisms, including the popular “mansion tax” on high‑value home sales. Currently, **17 localities** have adopted such taxes, most passed between 2018 and 2023.California’s gubernatorial race has become a flashpoint. Billionaire‑backed candidates Matt Mahan and Tom Steyer are vying to replace Governor Gavin Newsom, with the tech elite—such as Sergey Brin and Joe Lonsdale—pouring money into campaigns opposing the billionaire tax. Of the 30 billionaires who have contributed to the race, **25 supported Mahan**, who has positioned himself as a staunch anti‑tax candidate.For Sanchez, the stakes are personal. The proposed tax seeks to replace **$100 billion** in federal health‑care funding cut by Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” which threatens hospital closures and layoffs in the nation’s fourth‑largest economy. She aims to collect **875,000 signatures** by late June to secure the initiative on the November ballot.“It’s creating a network of groups all working toward a common good,” Sanchez says, reflecting a broader sentiment that collective action could finally translate the public’s demand for fiscal fairness into concrete policy.

Brady Ebert, the former guitarist of the Grammy-winning US hardcore band Turnstile, has been charged with attempted second-degree murder after allegedly hitting the father of the band's frontman, Brendan Yates, with his car.On March 29, police found William Yates outside his home with trauma to his lower extremities, with a broken bone protruding from his leg. According to reports, Ebert drove up to the house, honked and swore, then drove off, before returning. Yates's family members said that Ebert drove into him as he attempted to run away after Yates threw a rock at his car. Ebert allegedly returned an additional time to tell Yates that he 'deserved it'.Ebert, 33, was arrested and taken into custody on March 31. He is also charged with one count of first-degree assault and is being held without bond. In court, Ebert protested his innocence and insisted that surveillance footage of the incident would 'contradict' his accusers' statements.The band Turnstile stated that William Yates is recovering from surgery to treat 'severe physical trauma' to his legs and expressed their gratitude at his survival. Ebert was a founding member of Turnstile, formed in 2010, and a childhood friend of Brendan Yates. He left the band in 2022.In their statement, the band explained that they had cut ties with Ebert 'in response to a consistent pattern of harmful behaviour' affecting himself, the band, and the community.

In Barcelona, anti‑tourism demonstrators have added a culinary twist to their demands, chanting “Stop brunch!” alongside the more familiar “Ban Airbnb” as they protest soaring rents and the loss of local character.The rise of generic brunch venues—identical hipster cafés with the same menu, décor and background music—has become a symbol of overtourism, pushing out neighbourhood bars and eateries that once served the resident community.In response, Albert Molins, a journalist for La Vanguardia, launched a simple Google Maps list in autumn 2020. The list quickly evolved into a city‑wide movement to resurrect the Catalan tradition of esmorzar de forquilla (literally “fork breakfast”).This hearty mid‑morning meal, historically a 19th‑century labourer’s fuel, typically includes a main dish, wine, bread and coffee, and can be enjoyed for under €15. It is now served in modest, no‑frills taverns that showcase authentic Catalan flavours.Signature dishes differ sharply from the typical brunch fare. Patrons can savour trinxat—a pan‑fried potato and cabbage hash topped with crisp pancetta—fricandó (stewed veal with mushrooms), bacallà amb samfaina (fried cod on stewed vegetables), and the richly spiced botifarra sausage. For off‑al lovers, options such as callos (tripe stew), peus de porc (pigs’ feet) and the indulgent cap i pota (veal head and feet stew) are on offer.The original map has since been redeveloped into the functional EsmorzApp, uniting a growing community of “fork‑breakfast enthusiasts” and attracting younger diners alongside long‑time local patrons.Restaurant owner Gerard Llopart notes that his establishment in Barcelona’s Eixample district now welcomes a broader, more diverse crowd, proving that the revival resonates beyond its traditional base.While the movement does not single‑handedly solve overtourism, it demonstrates how locals can reclaim cultural space and invite tourists to partake in genuine culinary heritage. As Molins puts it, the fork breakfast is “our history,” and visitors are encouraged to download the app and ask for un cap i pota, si us plau?

Police forces in Gambia resorted to tear gas to break up a demonstration that erupted after authorities rearrested two siblings. The crowd gathered to protest what they described as an unjust repeat detention, prompting security officials to intervene with crowd‑control measures.Witnesses reported that the deployment of tear gas escalated the situation, forcing demonstrators to flee the area. The incident underscores growing public frustration with the handling of arrests and raises concerns about the use of force in managing civil unrest.

Thousands of Iranians assembled in Tehran for the funeral of senior IRGC naval commander Alireza Tangsiri, who was killed in an Israeli strike, vowing steadfast resistance even as the United States issued stark warnings.The ceremony took place on the 47th anniversary of the Islamic Republic, a milestone that marks the 1979 revolution that ended the centuries‑old monarchy.This year’s commemoration carries added weight as the capital endures relentless U.S.-Israeli bombardments that began on February 28."This war has lasted a month. No matter how long it takes, we will keep fighting," declared Moussa Nowruzi, a 57‑year‑old pensioner, adding, "We will resist until the end."Among the mourners, a young boy brandished a sign reading "Revenge", while massive Iranian flags fluttered as crowds filled Enghelab Square, the heart of the city named after the revolution.Chants of "God is greatest, Khamenei is the supreme leader" echoed through the square, and a man was seen sobbing in the arms of a woman dressed in black.Participants also honored relatives lost in the conflict, their faces displayed on placards, as Tangsiri’s coffin was carried slowly through the gathering.Tangsiri, one of the IRGC’s longest‑serving senior officers, was credited with orchestrating the closure of the Strait of Hormuz to vessels aligned with the United States and Israel during the ongoing war.Later that day, U.S. President Donald Trump addressed the nation on television, reiterating that the war was inevitable and that America intended to "finish the job" in Iran.Trump previously claimed that Iran’s president had sought a truce—a statement Tehran denied—and warned that bombardments would continue until the Hormuz waterway was "open, free, and clear."Funeral attendees dismissed the president’s threats. "We have heard Trump say things that even the American public finds confusing," said Homa Vosoogh, 36, adding, "His statements do not affect us."Government employee Mohammad Saleh Momeni echoed the sentiment, asserting that Trump "cannot translate his words into action" and reaffirming their loyalty to Iran’s leadership.While the United States and Israel initially framed their campaign as a push for regime change, Trump’s stance has since wavered.According to the report, air strikes have claimed the life of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who led Iran for 36 years, yet the governing structure remains functional, retaining its missile and drone capabilities.Portraits of the late leader and his son Mojtaba Khamenei, who has yet to appear publicly, dominate public spaces throughout Tehran."They believe killing our commanders will weaken us, but it will not," Momeni asserted, describing the adversaries’ misconceptions.Despite a wave of anti‑government protests that peaked in January, a segment of the population continues to harbor hopes for political reform.

Iran has been accused of using the ongoing war with Israel and the US to hide a surge in executions, with human rights groups raising concerns about the rapid increase in death sentences being carried out in the country.According to Iran Human Rights, at least 145 people have been confirmed killed in 2026 so far, with an additional 400-plus executions reported but not verified. The surge in executions has been overshadowed by the ongoing conflict, with many fearing that the political cost of these executions is very low due to the focus on oil prices and the war.Human rights groups have documented numerous cases of torture, mock executions, and enforced disappearances in Iranian prisons, with many prisoners facing harsh conditions and denied access to basic necessities like food, water, and medicine.The internet shutdown in Iran has made it impossible to determine the exact number of executions carried out this year, with many death sentences and charges not officially announced. Amnesty International has reported that dozens of protesters are facing the death penalty for their involvement in the January protests.Human rights groups have condemned the use of executions as a means of suppressing dissent in Iran, with Amnesty International's Iran researcher stating that the authorities have deliberately weaponized the death penalty to instill fear among the population.

TikTok announced the removal of a high‑profile Israeli far‑right influencer’s account after The Guardian identified videos in which he assaulted left‑wing activists in the occupied West Bank. The platform said the content breached its community guidelines on hate speech and bullying. The influencer, identified as Roi Star, posted footage in January showing himself entering a house used by activists in Ras Ein al‑Auja and using pepper spray on a protester who tried to stop him. In the same clip, he shouted, “This is Judea, not Palestine,” and later threatened to disclose personal details of the activists and their families. When contacted, Star claimed he was “talking about peace” and argued that the area was an open Israeli public space, insisting that his use of pepper spray was the “most minimal” defensive measure. He later described the incident as “acting” and said his intentions were not “extreme.” TikTok’s statement emphasized that its policies prohibit “violent and hateful individuals, including extremist praise or glorification,” and that the account was taken down for breaching these rules. The company also said it had removed additional videos linked to other Israeli far‑right agitators, though it did not disclose further details. The incident occurs against a backdrop of rising far‑right activity on social platforms since the Gaza war began in October 2023. Israeli forces and settlers have been responsible for the deaths of over 1,000 Palestinians in the West Bank, and recent weeks have seen an escalation of attacks on homes and activists. Human‑rights groups warn that the online amplification of such content fuels real‑world violence. Yuli Novak, executive director of B’Tselem, said dehumanising Palestinians has become “mainstream in Israel,” while digital‑media scholar Prof. Anat Ben‑David highlighted the “troubling convergence between platform dynamics and on‑the‑ground violence.” Activists on the ground report a profound psychological impact, with one resident of Masafer Yatta noting that the videos heighten fear among Palestinians living under daily settler attacks. The phenomenon mirrors the rhetoric of Israel’s far‑right politicians. In August 2025, National Security Minister Itamar Ben‑Gvir faced criticism for posting a video taunting Palestinian leader Marwan Barghouti, while Knesset member Zvi Sukkot was filmed denying settler violence in the West Bank, framing the settlement enterprise as a biblical right. Meta’s Instagram continues to host numerous accounts linked to similar agitators, though the company has not responded to requests for comment. Experts argue that while platform policies technically forbid hate‑speech, their vague language allows harmful content to spread unchecked, underscoring the need for stronger enforcement to curb the digital propagation of extremist narratives.

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.

Ben Jamal, director of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, and Chris Nineham, vice‑chair of the Stop the War Coalition, were each convicted on Wednesday for breaching conditions set by the Metropolitan Police during a large‑scale pro‑Palestine rally on 18 January 2025. The court found they failed to keep the march within a police‑designated zone in central London and, in Jamal’s case, actively encouraged other demonstrators to do the same. The trial, held at Westminster Magistrates’ Court, concluded that both men were fully aware of the restrictions, given their leadership roles in planning the event. The judges noted that Jamal’s remarks amounted to “incitement” because they urged participants to disregard the stipulated boundaries, including the area surrounding the BBC headquarters on Portland Place. Supporters packed the public gallery, with former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn among those present as the verdict was read, according to the PA news agency. In response, the Palestine Solidarity Campaign described the ruling as a “disgraceful decision” and asserted that “the fight is not over.” The statement, posted on X, warned that the judgment undermines the fundamental right to protest. Human Rights Watch UK director Yasmine Ahmed condemned the outcome, calling it a “black mark on British democracy” and suggesting the verdict is part of a broader governmental effort to silence dissent against Israel’s actions in Gaza. The conviction arrives amid mounting tension between law‑enforcement agencies and the UK’s sizable Palestine solidarity movement. Since the conflict in Gaza escalated in October 2023, tens of thousands of Britons have taken to the streets, and thousands of peaceful demonstrators have been arrested for displaying slogans such as “I oppose genocide, I support Palestine Action.” Human Rights Watch’s research highlights a “disproportionate targeting” of pro‑Palestine activists, arguing that the current anti‑protest legislation threatens the ability to protest without fear of harassment. Activists are already gearing up for another large gathering scheduled for 11 April, when supporters of the direct‑action group Palestine Action plan to demonstrate again in London, despite recent arrests and ongoing legal pressure. Overall, the verdict underscores a growing debate over the balance between public order and civil liberties in the United Kingdom, with implications for future demonstrations linked to the Gaza war and broader international human‑rights concerns.