Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

The US government shutdown affecting the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) will persist, despite the Senate passing a funding bill. The partial shutdown, which began on February 14, will continue until at least Monday, when the House of Representatives reconvenes.The stalemate centers on whether DHS should reform its immigration procedures, following criticism of President Donald Trump’s mass deportation push. Democrats have refused to pass funding to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) without reforms to their practices.The shutdown has had several knock-on effects, including airport delays and unpaid workers. DHS, which oversees the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), has seen its airport security agents go without pay for six weeks. With agents calling out sick or leaving their jobs, US airports have reported long lines and widespread travel delays.President Trump has endorsed a plan to fully fund DHS, which involves a two-track approach: passing a bill to fund the department, except for ICE and CBP, and then funding ICE and CBP through separate spending legislation. Trump has also vowed to pay 'all' DHS employees, although details on how this will be achieved are unclear.The shutdown has been politically unpopular, with unions and transportation safety groups criticizing the strain it has placed on workers and airport security. Democrats have sought to leverage the funding bill to press for changes to Trump’s immigration policy, while Republicans have accused them of putting Americans' livelihoods in jeopardy for political gains.

It's been 12 months since Donald Trump's 'liberation day' on April 2, 2025, when the US president introduced tariffs on nearly every country the US did business with. The move sent shockwaves through the global economy, causing chaos in Washington and beyond. Experts say that if Trump had spent the last 14 months on the golf course instead of in the White House, the US economy would be in a better place. The wholesale slashing of government jobs and defunding of US aid agencies had already signaled that Trump was in a hurry to upset institutions he considered profligate or useless. Investors quickly understood that chaos was an essential tool in Trump's armoury. Almost as soon as he was inaugurated, there was a steady decline in the value of the dollar against other currencies. Investors sold assets denominated in dollars and bought assets elsewhere: Europe, Asia, South America. Dario Perkins, the head of global research at the consultancy TS Lombard, said: 'If you think that discouraging investors from buying assets in the US is a victory, then you don’t believe in a growing economy.' He added that Trump's policies had led to a decline in US manufacturing jobs and a growing trade deficit. The data supports Perkins' claims. US companies stopped hiring almost as soon as liberation day was announced. Significant revisions in February to data covering 2025 pushed payroll employment down by 403,000 jobs, resulting in the addition of just 181,000 jobs last year. This small boost is set against the 163 million people who are employed in the US. Russ Mould, the investment director of the British stockbroker AJ Bell, said: 'America is still home to the world’s largest economy and its reserve currency, as well as the globe’s largest equity and bond markets, but investors continue to reassess their exposure one year on from liberation day.' The next few months of steadily increasing confidence levels followed probably the calmest period in the second Trump presidency. But sentiment began to fall again in the autumn as the White House battled with Congress over the federal budget deficit and much of the public sector was shut down. A poll by the University of Michigan showed consumer confidence at a near record low at the end of 2025. A six-month moving average produced by the Conference Board showed every generation, from baby boomers to gen Xers, had lost confidence in the economy over the past year. Trump’s liberation day executive order stated: 'The decline of US manufacturing capacity threatens the US economy in other ways, including through the loss of manufacturing jobs.' However, the US manufacturing sector shed 100,000 jobs between January 2025 and March 2026. The ratio of manufacturing workers to total nonfarm employment fell to the lowest point since 1939. Bryan Riley, the director of the National Taxpayers Union Foundation’s free trade initiative, said: 'One year after liberation day, the evidence is in. Tariffs failed even by the Trump administration’s own terms. They did not shrink the trade deficit, did not revitalise manufacturing and did not help farmers. It would be a mistake to replace one set of failed tariffs with another.' Some major US companies have redirected their investments to Europe, but China has proved to be one of the main beneficiaries. In the year to February 2026, China’s industrial profits increased by 15.2%. It's a boom that Beijing will struggle to repeat should Chinese companies face fuel and energy shortages and price hikes. But the decline of two major powers can only be to China’s gain.

Donald Trump's self-congratulatory speech on Iran has been widely criticized for being puzzling and divorced from reality. The speech, which was intended to update the nation on the progress of the war in Iran, instead left many wondering about the ultimate goals of the conflict.The speech was seen as a disappointing address by many, as it failed to provide a clear explanation of what the US hopes to achieve in Iran. Trump harped on the goal of preventing Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, but failed to mention that Iran has long agreed to eschew a nuclear weapon as part of a deal brokered by the Obama administration.The article argues that if the goal of the war was to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, then the war has been pointless. Trump's speech was also criticized for disparaging the deal made by the Obama administration, which was designed to prevent Iran from securing a nuclear weapon by imposing strict limits on the enrichment of uranium and requiring intrusive international inspections.The article concludes that Trump's speech was a shameful moment for America, as it was led by a president who seems to be infatuated by military power but befuddled when it comes to explaining why he is using it.

President Donald Trump has been privately discussing the possibility of replacing Tulsi Gabbard as Director of National Intelligence, according to two people briefed on the conversations. This development comes after Gabbard's testimony at a Congressional hearing where she declined to condemn Joe Kent, a former deputy who argued that Iran did not pose an imminent threat to the United States.Trump's frustration with Gabbard reportedly stems from her perceived defense of Kent and her reluctance to support the administration's position on attacking Iran. The President tends to poll his advisers when considering personnel changes, which suggests that Gabbard's position may be precarious.Despite this, Trump offered a mixed endorsement of Gabbard on Sunday, stating, "Yeah, sure... I mean, she's a little bit different in her thought process than me, but that doesn't make somebody not available to serve."The White House has defended Gabbard, with spokesperson Steven Cheung stating, "As President Trump just said in his remarks, he has confidence in Director Gabbard and the tireless work she is doing."Gabbard has faced challenges in her role, including criticism for revoking the security clearances of 37 people, including congressional aides, without consulting the White House. Her tenure has been marked by both support and controversy, particularly regarding her stance on Iran and her criticism of US involvement in foreign wars.

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

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.

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

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi told Al Jazeera that he has exchanged messages with Steve Witkoff, the senior envoy appointed by President Donald Trump, but stressed that these contacts do not constitute formal negotiations. "I receive messages from Witkoff directly, as before, and this does not mean that we are in negotiations," Araghchi said, adding that all communications are routed through the Foreign Ministry and security agencies. The minister highlighted Iran’s historic mistrust of US diplomatic overtures, recalling Washington’s withdrawal from the 2015 nuclear agreement and two recent attacks on Iranian territory during ongoing talks. Araghchi noted that Pakistan has been facilitating the recent exchanges and has also hosted regional discussions involving Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey to build momentum for direct Iran‑US dialogue. Additionally, Pakistan’s Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar visited Beijing to seek Chinese backing for these efforts. Regarding the strategic Strait of Hormuz, Araghchi asserted that the waterway falls under the joint jurisdiction of Iran and Oman. He said that once hostilities cease, the two nations will decide its future, emphasizing that the strait should remain a "peaceful waterway." While acknowledging that Gulf states such as Qatar want a seat at the table, Araghchi maintained that the strait is open to commercial vessels from all nations except those actively at war with Iran, which is a standard wartime measure. He also mentioned that ships from India, Pakistan, Turkey and China have already negotiated transit through the strait, underscoring its continued commercial relevance. On the prospect of a US ground invasion, Araghchi warned that Iran is fully prepared to confront any such move. "We are waiting for them," he said, adding that Iranian forces possess the strength to repel a land assault and that the United States would be making a grave mistake by attempting one. These statements come as the Trump administration reportedly increases troop deployments in the Gulf and explores contingency plans for a possible invasion of Iran.

The United States Supreme Court issued an 8‑1 decision on Tuesday that invalidated Colorado’s law prohibiting “conversion therapy” for LGBTQ minors. The majority held that the ban infringed on the First Amendment’s free‑speech guarantees, arguing that even therapeutic dialogue falls under protected expression. Justice Elena Kagan wrote that when a state suppresses one side of a debate while supporting the other, the constitutional issue is “straightforward.” In contrast, Justice Neil Gorsuch emphasized that the First Amendment “stands as a shield against any effort to enforce orthodoxy in thought or speech.” Only Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, warning that the ruling “threatens to impair states’ ability to regulate the provision of medical care” and underscored the documented harms of conversion therapy to LGBTQ youth. Colorado’s 2019 statute barred any “practice or treatment” aimed at changing a child’s gender identity or sexual orientation, though it allowed discussion of religion, gender, and sexuality. No individual has yet been sanctioned under the law. The case was brought by Christian counselor Kaley Chiles, who argued that the ban prevented her from offering voluntary, faith‑based talk therapy, a position backed by the administration of former President Donald Trump. Approximately two dozen states have enacted similar bans, reflecting a growing consensus that conversion therapy is both ineffective and harmful. Scientific studies link the practice to higher rates of depression and suicidal ideation among LGBTQ individuals. Major medical associations have condemned it as a dangerous, discredited intervention. Advocates for LGBTQ rights criticized the Court’s ruling as a setback. Polly Crozier, director of family policy at GLAD Law, said, “This is a dangerous practice that has been condemned by every major medical association in the country. Today’s decision does not change the science, and it does not change the fact that conversion therapists who harm patients will still face legal consequences.” The decision is expected to make enforcement of existing bans more difficult, potentially prompting a wave of legal challenges in other jurisdictions that have sought to protect LGBTQ youth from conversion therapy.