Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

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 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.

Meta, the world's most powerful social media company, has faced a severe public reckoning in recent days, with juries in California and New Mexico delivering back-to-back verdicts that hold the company liable for harming young people. This marks a significant shift in accountability for social media companies, which have long operated with minimal regulation and few consequences in the US.In the California case, a jury ordered Meta and YouTube to pay $6 million in damages over claims that they deliberately designed addictive products to hook young users. The following day, a jury in New Mexico ordered Meta to pay $375 million in damages over claims that its products led to child sexual exploitation, among other harms.These verdicts are the first to go to court, and they set a precedent for over 2,000 plaintiffs, including families, school districts, and state attorneys general, who have brought lawsuits against Meta, YouTube, TikTok, and Snap. The cases borrow from a familiar playbook, echoing those brought against big tobacco companies in the 1990s, which focused on cigarettes' addictive qualities and their makers' public denials despite knowledge of their products' harms.Lawyers for the plaintiffs argue that social media companies have profited from targeting children while concealing their addictive and dangerous design features. The verdicts signal that public perception of social media and its makers is shifting, with jurors now laying blame on the business practices of a multi-trillion-dollar industry.Meta and YouTube have both said they disagree with the verdicts and will appeal. However, the rulings mark a significant turning point in the growing scrutiny of social media companies and their impact on young people.The cases are part of a broader effort to challenge tech companies' practices, with online safety advocates urging Congress to pass regulation, forming coalitions of parents, teens, and advocates, and bringing thousands of lawsuits front and center. The goal is to force social media companies to redesign their products and do more to protect children online.

The recent landmark decisions against Meta and YouTube by two US juries have sent a strong message to tech companies. The cases, which focused on the deliberate design of addictive products that harmed a child, have been hailed as a major victory for campaigners pushing for change.In one case, Meta was found liable for $375m in civil liabilities over the use of Facebook and Instagram for child sex trafficking in New Mexico. The state's attorney general is seeking platform changes and financial penalties.The verdicts, which are expected to be appealed, demonstrate a shifting attitude towards tech companies and their responsibility to protect users, particularly children. Internal documents revealing executives' cavalier approach to young people's safety have been made public, providing critics with valuable evidence.While it is too early to declare a reckoning similar to that faced by big tobacco in the 1990s, the current push towards stronger regulation is gaining momentum. Governments and civil society are increasingly holding tech companies accountable for their impact on public health.The precautionary approach to children's safety has been highlighted as crucial, with young minds being particularly vulnerable to the attention economy's assault. Fortunately, governments and courts are taking steps to regulate social media companies and force them to take responsibility for their impact.In Australia, social media companies have been told to leave children alone, while in the UK, the government has issued guidance on screen time and is considering restricting children's use. Design features such as infinite scroll and gaming-type rewards have been identified as key factors in the addictive nature of social media.Ultimately, a whole society approach is needed to reduce our dependence on social media and work out what safeguards are needed for adults and children alike. The events of the past week have made this goal a bit more achievable.