Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

The biggest public backer of World Liberty Financial, the crypto venture co‑founded by the Trump family, has publicly accused the firm of embedding a covert "backdoor blacklisting" feature that allows it to freeze token holdings at will. On Sunday, blockchain entrepreneur Justin Sun posted on X, alleging that World Liberty’s smart contracts for the WLFI token contain a tool that can unilaterally freeze, restrict, or confiscate any user’s assets without cause or recourse. Sun did not provide evidence, but said his own wallet was locked in September, making him the "first and single largest victim" of the alleged mechanism. World Liberty responded on X, stating, "We have the contracts. We have the evidence. We have the truth. See you in court, pal," and directed observers to its own posts for clarification. The company’s official risk disclosures do note that it may block or freeze addresses deemed linked to illegal activity or terms violations – a practice also employed by other crypto issuers such as Tether. Sun, who invested tens of millions of dollars in WLFI and later increased his stake to at least $75 million according to his 2025 posts, has not shared the purported blockchain records that supposedly show his wallet being blacklisted by a single administrative account. World Liberty, launched in 2024, claimed it would empower small investors through a decentralized‑finance app that has yet to launch. Reuters analysis indicated the venture generated **more than $460 million** for the Trump family in the first half of 2025. In March, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission settled a 2023 lawsuit against Sun for $10 million, alleging fraud and the sale of unregistered crypto securities. Sun made no admission of wrongdoing. The dispute highlights the murky regulatory environment for crypto in the United States, where the SEC has limited jurisdiction and has declined to comment on the legality of token‑freezing practices.

Senator Bernie Sanders, a proud Jewish American, has spoken out against the inhumane actions of Israel and its leader, Benjamin Netanyahu. He emphasizes that criticizing Israel's actions is not antisemitic, but rather a necessary stance against violations of international law.Sanders highlights the devastating impact of Israel's actions in Gaza, where over 72,000 Palestinians have been killed and over 170,000 wounded, mostly women, children, and the elderly. He also notes the destruction of almost all of Gaza's infrastructure, including water and sewer systems, and the demolition of every university and hundreds of schools.In the West Bank, Israeli soldiers and settlers have killed 1,071 Palestinians, including 233 children, and demolished over 6,000 Palestinian homes. Sanders argues that these actions are not just extremist settler behavior, but government policy, with Netanyahu's security cabinet approving sweeping changes to the West Bank's legal status.Sanders announces that he will force a Senate vote on two Joint Resolutions of Disapproval to block arms sales to Israel, including $151.8m in 1,000-pound bombs and $295m in bulldozers used for demolishing homes. He hopes his colleagues will join him in supporting these resolutions, citing plummeting support for Israel among Americans, especially young people.

President Donald Trump announced on Fox Business that he will dismiss Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell if the central‑bank chief does not vacate the post by the statutory end of his term on May 15. “I’ll have to fire him, OK, if he’s not leaving on time,” Trump said, adding that he had previously held back the decision to avoid controversy. Powell, who has just over a month left in his tenure, has repeatedly been criticized by Trump for what the president calls a “bad job” and for refusing to lower interest rates despite Trump’s repeated demands since his return to the White House in January 2025. In January, Trump nominated former Fed governor Kevin Warsh to replace Powell. Warsh, known for his criticism of the Fed’s relatively high rates, is expected to align more closely with Trump’s push for rate cuts. His confirmation hearing before the Senate Banking Committee is slated for April 21, but the outcome remains uncertain. Republican Senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina, a member of the banking committee, has signaled he will block Warsh’s nomination until the Department of Justice concludes its criminal investigation into alleged misconduct surrounding the Fed’s headquarters renovation in Washington, D.C. Tillis described the probe as “reaching the point of absurd,” yet insists the investigation must be resolved before moving forward. The probe appears active: prosecutors made an unannounced visit to the construction site this week, as reported by the Wall Street Journal, underscoring the seriousness of the inquiry. During the same interview, Trump dismissed the investigation’s relevance, claiming the project was “probably corrupt, but what it really is is incompetence,” and questioned whether a $25 million renovation could balloon to a $4 billion expense. Powell responded in January with a rare public rebuke, labeling the investigation a “pretext” aimed at pressuring the Fed to lower rates. He warned that political intimidation could jeopardize the Fed’s ability to set monetary policy based on economic evidence. The legal backdrop adds another layer of uncertainty. The Supreme Court has yet to rule on Trump’s authority to fire a Fed board member without cause—a question that resurfaced after the president’s attempted removal of Fed governor Lisa Cook last summer. Justices appeared skeptical of such unilateral action during oral arguments in January. With the Fed’s independence at stake, the coming weeks will determine whether Trump’s threat translates into action, whether Warsh can secure Senate confirmation, and how the renovation investigation will influence the broader debate over political interference in U.S. monetary policy.

After a 90‑year blackout, MGM’s 1932 melodrama Letty Lynton is set for its first legal public screening. The film, starring Hollywood icon Joan Crawford, was withdrawn in 1937 following a plagiarism lawsuit and pressure from the Hays Office, which deemed its risqué themes “unfit for adaptation”.The controversy began when MGM attempted to acquire the rights to the Broadway hit Dishonored Lady, a play notorious for its depictions of booze, drugs and sexual intrigue. After the playwrights demanded $30,000—a sum the studio balked at—MGM settled for the cheaper novel by Marie Belloc Lowndes for $3,500. The resulting film, inspired by the 1857 murder trial of Scottish socialite Madeleine Smith, shocked contemporary censors with scenes such as Crawford’s character watching her ex‑lover sip poisoned champagne.Legal battles intensified when playwrights Edward Sheldon and Margaret Ayer Barnes sued MGM for plagiarism, alleging the movie copied their work rather than the novel. The protracted case forced MGM to pull the film from circulation in 1937, and a year later Crawford herself was labeled “box‑office poison”. Yet both the actress and the film survived, resurfacing in cultural memory through fashion and later adaptations.Beyond cinema, Letty Lynton left an indelible mark on 1930s style. Costume designer Adrian created a white organdy dress with exaggerated sleeves for Crawford; the design was mass‑produced for Macy’s and sparked a nationwide craze. Edith Head later called the dress “cinema’s single biggest influence on fashion”.The film’s revival is largely credited to Crawford’s grandson, Casey LaLonde. In an Instagram post, he announced that the play’s copyright would expire on 31 December 2025, clearing the legal path for a public showing. Warner Bros., which now holds the rights to many pre‑1986 MGM titles, restored the picture in 4K and arranged for its debut at the TCM Film Festival in Los Angeles on 1 May 2026. The movie will also be issued on Blu‑ray and DVD through the Warner Archive.LaLonde thanked Warner Bros. and library historian George Feltenstein for making the restoration possible, noting that without their effort “we wouldn’t have this fabulous film to see again on big and small screens.”Fans of classic Hollywood can finally experience a piece of cinema history that was once deemed too daring for the silver screen, offering a fresh look at Joan Crawford’s daring performance and the era’s bold storytelling.

In a move that has sparked widespread criticism, the Canadian government is pressing ahead with planned cuts to the Interim Federal Health Program (IFHP), which provides basic health coverage to refugees, asylum claimants, and others not covered by other healthcare programmes in Canada. The changes, announced in late January and set to come into effect on May 1, will require people receiving IFHP coverage to pay $4 per eligible prescription medication and 30 percent of the cost of supplemental services such as dental and vision care, and counselling.Critics argue that these co-payments can be prohibitively expensive for newcomers struggling to rebuild their lives in Canada amid soaring costs. Doctors and refugee rights advocates warn that the cuts could lead to increased suffering and expenditures in the long run, as vulnerable individuals may be deterred from seeking necessary care.“We want to make sure that we have a universal healthcare system, and we also don’t want a system that punches down against vulnerable people and migrants,” Dr. Ritika Goel, a Toronto-based family doctor, told Al Jazeera at a rally in downtown Toronto. “We want to support a system that provides care to everyone.”The Canadian government claims that the changes will help manage growing demand and keep the IFHP sustainable over the long term. However, the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer projects that the cost of the IFHP will continue to grow at an average of 11.2 percent annually through 2030.The cuts have drawn comparisons to a similar move in 2012, when then-Prime Minister Stephen Harper made cuts to the IFHP, prompting widespread protests and a legal challenge. In 2014, the Federal Court of Canada ruled that the curbs amounted to “cruel and unusual” treatment and violated the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Approximately 250 Rohingya refugees and Bangladeshi nationals are now unaccounted for following the capsizing of an overcrowded vessel in the Andaman Sea, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) announced on Tuesday. The boat, packed with men, women and children, succumbed to heavy winds, rough seas and severe overcrowding, according to the UNHCR statement. The disaster underscores the perilous journeys many Rohingya undertake to escape persecution in Myanmar. Bangladesh Coast Guard (BCG) officials reported that a patrol ship en route to Indonesia rescued nine individuals on April 9, including one woman. Lieutenant Commander Sabbir Alam Sujan described how the crew spotted survivors clinging to drums and logs and pulled them from deep water. Among the rescued, six have been identified as alleged traffickers and are now in police custody, as reported by the Andalou news agency. Survivor testimony paints a grim picture. Rafiqul Islam, who was lured onto the boat with promises of employment in Malaysia, recounted that passengers were confined in a holding area where some died. He said the vessel leaked oil, causing burns, and that it drifted for four days before capsizing. "We floated for nearly 36 hours before a ship rescued us," he said, estimating that 25 to 30 people died from suffocation and the crush of overcrowding. The UNHCR warned that the tragedy reflects the "dire consequences of protracted displacement and the absence of durable solutions for the Rohingya." With the Andaman Sea bordering Myanmar, Thailand and the Malay Peninsula, the region remains a hazardous corridor for smuggling networks. Malaysia continues to be a favored destination for Rohingya migrants, drawn by its Muslim-majority population and existing diaspora. However, the journey often involves dangerous sea voyages facilitated by traffickers. Since the 2017 military offensive in Myanmar that forced over 730,000 Rohingya into Bangladesh, thousands have risked their lives each year to flee ongoing violence, repression and the lack of safe, legal pathways. International observers stress that without coordinated regional action and stronger protection mechanisms, such maritime disasters are likely to recur, compounding the humanitarian crisis and destabilizing coastal security.

Spain's government has approved an ambitious amnesty program aimed at granting legal status to an estimated 500,000 undocumented immigrants. This move, passed by Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez's administration, is set to open the application process on April 16. By taking this step, Spain diverges from the trend in Europe and other parts of the world where anti-immigration sentiments are on the rise.The decree, which amends immigration laws, was fast-tracked to bypass parliament, where Sanchez's left-wing government lacks a majority. This measure had previously failed to gain approval from lawmakers. Under the plan, eligible migrants can seek a one-year residency and work permit if they meet certain conditions, such as arriving in Spain before January 1, living in the country for at least five months, and having no criminal record.Migration Minister Elma Saiz announced that applications can be submitted online starting Thursday and in person from April 20, with the window closing on June 30. After a year, those granted the temporary measure will be eligible to apply for other work or residency permits. Sanchez described the move as “an act of justice and a necessity”, emphasizing the demographic challenges Spain faces with an ageing society.The opposition, led by Alberto Nez Feijo of the People's Party, criticized the move as “inhumane, unfair, unsafe, and unsustainable”. However, it's worth noting that the centre-right party itself carried out mass legalizations of migrants in the early 2000s when it was in power. The government estimates that around half a million people could be eligible, though analysts suggest the figure might be higher.A union representing immigration officers has demanded more resources, warning that the government is unprepared for the challenge. Sanchez argued that “without new people working and contributing … prosperity slows”, highlighting that migrants have been crucial to Spain's economic growth, which is currently the fastest in Europe.

FIFA, the global governing body of football, is under growing pressure to ask U.S. President Donald Trump for a blanket halt to ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) raids during the 2026 World Cup. The request, sourced from anonymous contacts cited by The Athletic, would be presented to FIFA president Gianni Infantino for direct delivery to the White House. According to the report, Infantino is weighing a formal appeal that would seek a "full moratorium on ICE raids across the United States during the World Cup" – a tournament set to kick off on June 11 in eleven host cities spanning the United States, Canada and Mexico. The move comes as the Trump administration intensifies its immigration crackdown, tightening legal pathways and expanding deportation efforts. Critics warn that such policies could target the tournament’s massive international audience, undermining the event’s reputation as a celebration of global unity. When asked by Al Jazeera about any negotiations with FIFA, the White House declined to comment but praised the upcoming competition, with spokesperson Davis Ingle stating, "Thanks to President Trump’s leadership, the FIFA World Cup 2026 will be one of the greatest and most spectacular events in the history of mankind, right here in the United States of America." He added that the event is expected to generate billions of dollars in economic impact and create hundreds of thousands of jobs. Despite the administration’s enthusiastic rhetoric, officials have hinted that immigration agencies could be present at match venues. In February, ICE acting director Todd Lyons told a House committee that the agency would be on the ground for the World Cup, emphasizing that ICE is "a key part of the overall security apparatus for the World Cup" and would not pause operations. Previous incidents have fueled the concern. During last year’s FIFA Club World Cup in the United States, reports surfaced of ICE and Customs and Border Protection officers at stadiums, although the administration denied any enforcement actions took place. Vice President JD Vance recently warned that visitors must adhere to visa terms, suggesting that those who overstay could be subject to the authority of then‑Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem. Noem, who was dismissed in March, had overseen a controversial crackdown in Minnesota that resulted in two civilian deaths and drew accusations of human‑rights violations. FIFA executives see a potential immigration moratorium as a public‑relations win for both the sport’s governing body and the Trump administration. The proposal is also viewed as an opportunity for Infantino to leverage his personal rapport with Trump – a relationship that has attracted scrutiny after Infantino awarded the inaugural FIFA Peace Prize to the president in December, prompting a rights‑group complaint to FIFA’s ethics committee. With the World Cup fast approaching, fans and human‑rights advocates remain uneasy about whether the United States will provide a "safe and welcome" environment for the influx of international visitors.

A three‑judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued a two‑to‑one decision on Tuesday that blocks District Judge James Boasberg from moving forward with contempt hearings against the Trump administration.The case stemmed from Boasberg’s attempt to determine whether officials violated his March 15, 2025 order to turn around two deportation flights while they were airborne. The flights had carried 137 Venezuelan nationals to El Salvador under the rarely used Alien Enemies Act, a 1798 statute granting presidents broad wartime powers.In the majority opinion, Judge Neomi Rao (a Trump appointee) wrote that Boasberg’s contempt inquiry was a “clear abuse of discretion,” noting that the district court’s order did not expressly forbid the transfer of the migrants into Salvadoran custody. She emphasized that criminal contempt applies only to violations of a “clear and specific” order.Judge Justin Walker, also appointed by Trump, joined Rao, while Judge J. Michelle Childs—a Biden appointee—dissented. The split reflects the broader partisan tension surrounding the case.Critics of the deportations argued that invoking the Alien Enemies Act represented presidential overreach and that the rapid operation denied the immigrants due process, including the ability to appeal. Some detainees were later released to Venezuela in a July 2025 prisoner exchange after spending months in El Salvador’s maximum‑security Centre for Terrorism Confinement (CECOT).Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche praised the ruling on X, stating it should “finally end Judge Boasberg’s year‑long campaign against the hardworking Department attorneys doing their jobs fighting illegal immigration.”The decision underscores the judiciary’s role in checking executive immigration actions, especially when emergency court orders intersect with national‑security‑related statutes. It also signals that future attempts to pursue contempt for alleged violations of ambiguous orders may face heightened scrutiny.