Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

Donald Trump's open threats to commit war crimes in Iran have raised concerns about his impunity. The US Supreme Court's recent ruling in Trump v United States has given him reason to believe he can act with impunity within the US. However, there are international options for prosecution that lie beyond the court's lawless license.Trump's plan to bomb Iran and destroy civilian infrastructure, such as desalination plants, electrical-generating facilities, and bridges, would violate international humanitarian law's rule of proportionality. The destruction of civilian infrastructure would have a disproportionate impact on civilians, and therefore, it is not justified.The International Criminal Court (ICC) has charged Russian military commanders with war crimes for attacking electrical infrastructure in Ukraine. Similarly, Trump's actions could be prosecuted as war crimes. However, the ICC has no jurisdiction over crimes committed on Iranian territory since Iran is not a member of the ICC.There are alternative routes for prosecution. The Iranian government could join the ICC and grant it retroactive jurisdiction, similar to what Ukraine did to allow prosecution of Russian war crimes. Additionally, under the concept of universal jurisdiction, governments can use their national courts to prosecute certain crimes even if committed by non-nationals abroad.A group of countries, such as the European Union, NATO, or the G7, could establish an international tribunal to address crimes committed in Iran, including war crimes and aggression. This would allow Trump to be prosecuted as soon as the tribunal is established, without waiting for him to leave office.

Researchers at Rothamsted Research in Harpenden, Hertfordshire, have made a groundbreaking discovery in the field of food safety. By utilizing Crispr genome editing, they have successfully developed wheat that can be used to make bread with reduced levels of acrylamide, a toxic compound classified as a probable carcinogen.The innovation lies in the reduction of free asparagine, an amino acid in wheat that converts into acrylamide when bread is toasted, fried, or baked. Field trials over two years demonstrated that gene-edited wheat can have significantly lower concentrations of free asparagine without impacting crop yields. This translates into lower acrylamide formation in food products, making toasted bread safer for consumption.In tests, bread and biscuits made from the edited wheat showed substantially reduced acrylamide levels, with some bread samples having concentrations below detectable limits even after toasting. The Crispr editing targeted the gene responsible for asparagine production, achieving a reduction of up to 93% in free asparagine in dual-edited lines.Compared to conventional methods that achieved a 50% reduction in free asparagine but resulted in a 25% yield penalty, the Crispr-edited wheat offers a more efficient and effective solution. Dr. Navneet Kaur, a lead researcher, highlighted the potential of Crispr technology to deliver precise, beneficial changes in crop genetics, emphasizing the importance of supportive regulatory frameworks to unlock benefits for agriculture and food systems.The UK has become a global hub for gene editing research since Brexit, with the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act of 2023 facilitating the development and marketing of genetically modified crops. However, the future of these advancements may be influenced by negotiations with the EU over sanitary and phytosanitary agreements.Prof. Nigel Halford, who led the study, noted that low-acrylamide wheat could help food businesses meet safety standards without compromising product quality or incurring major costs, ultimately reducing consumers' dietary exposure to acrylamide.

When Elle Middlemas turned 18, she began wondering whether she owned a Child Trust Fund (CTF) – a government‑backed savings account created for children born between 1 September 2002 and 2 January 2011. Her search hit a dead end; she could not confirm if she was entitled to any money and an email to HMRC yielded no response.Middlemas, a Whitby college student, explained that the loss of her mother at age 11 left her with little guidance. “My sister is 21 and spent three years looking for a fund and found nothing, so we assumed we didn’t have one,” she said, expressing the frustration felt by many of her peers.She and her sister are part of an estimated 758,000 people aged 18‑23 who have unclaimed CTFs. Collectively, these dormant accounts hold roughly £1.5 bn, a substantial sum that disproportionately belongs to low‑income families who are often unaware of its existence.Advocates are now pressing the government to automatically release CTFs when holders reach 21 years of age. Experts estimate that such a policy could inject up to £286 m directly into the pockets of young people who need it most.Middlemas finally learned of her entitlement after a conversation with a friend’s parent six months after her birthday. She discovered the Share Foundation, a charity that helps reconnect youths with their funds, and located a NatWest account bearing her name.“I had £700 sitting in my bank and thought, ‘What is going on?’ My sister also had one but never knew how to access it,” she recalled. The sisters plan to use the money to support university expenses and repay debts, underscoring the tangible impact of the scheme.The CTF programme was launched by the Labour government in 2005 to encourage parental savings. Every child received a £250 government contribution, with an additional £250 for those from low‑income families or in local authority care. Parents could add up to £9,000 per year, and any investment gains accrued until the child turned 18.If a parent failed to open an account within 12 months of birth, HMRC would create one on the child’s behalf. Today, the average value of a CTF stands at about £2,200.More than two‑thirds of the six million original recipients are now over 18 and eligible to claim their funds, with HMRC‑allocated accounts representing 28 % of all CTFs.Geographically, the North‑East of England has the highest concentration of HMRC‑allocated accounts, totalling £48 m. Across the UK, youths from the most disadvantaged 15 % of families hold accounts averaging £2,900 in value.Gavin Oldham, chief executive of the Share Foundation, warned that the scheme is hampered by poor communication, limited financial education, and “policy neglect”. He indicated the charity is considering a judicial review to compel the government to release the unclaimed assets.Oldham noted that the charity has already linked “well over 100,000 accounts to young adults”, yet the “sheer quantum of these unclaimed accounts remains a major problem”.“It is strange to find a government which expresses concern over youth poverty while doing so little to deliver on a groundbreaking scheme,” Oldham added.The charity’s proposal to release HMRC‑allocated funds automatically at 21 would free roughly £500 m, including £350 mOldham cautioned that a legal challenge, while potentially successful, could delay payouts for years, leaving vulnerable youths “denied their birthright for far too long”.Beyond immediate release, the Share Foundation is urging the creation of a new, targeted scheme for low‑income youths that embeds a financial‑awareness component, allowing participants to top up their funds through education‑linked incentives.Labour MP Laura Kyrke‑Smith echoed these concerns, describing the CTF system as “confusing and opaque” and calling for proactive tracing of account holders and clearer public information.HMRC responded that it is “directly sending every eligible young person information to help them find their child trust fund”, while also raising awareness via social media, broadcast interviews, and an online tracing tool. The agency added that banks, building societies, and investment firms managing the funds share responsibility for communicating with account holders.

UK manufacturers are facing a significant increase in business rates, with a projected annual hike of £940m due to changes introduced by Chancellor Rachel Reeves. These changes, effective this month, have sparked concerns among industry leaders.The increase is attributed to the government's decision to raise business rates at the budget in November, which included an additional surcharge on buildings with a rateable value of more than £500,000. This move has been criticized by MakeUK, an industry lobby group, as it disproportionately affects manufacturers with large factory floors.According to MakeUK, factories account for a fifth of England and Wales's property by rateable value, despite manufacturers only contributing a 10th of economic output. The lobby group argues that the current system of business rates is outdated and unfair, leaving manufacturers paying disproportionately more than other sectors relative to their size.Verity Davidge, policy director at MakeUK, stated: "The current system of business rates is outdated and is a blunt instrument that leaves manufacturers paying disproportionately more than other sectors relative to their size. This increase couldn’t come at a worse possible time and is set to hammer one of the government’s key strategic sectors which is already facing existential threats from increased energy and employment costs which are completely out of their control."The government has faced backlash from various sectors, including pubs and live music venues, and has made some concessions, such as announcing £80m in discounts in January. However, MakeUK is calling for further support, including a year's notice before raising rates and a more nuanced system that takes into account business turnover, size, and type.A government spokesperson responded to MakeUK's analysis, stating: "We have the right economic plan - we’re reforming business rates to back manufacturing, with a £4.3bn support package to limit bills rises, alongside capping Corporation Tax at 25%, cutting red tape and taking action on energy by reducing electricity bills by up to 25% for over 7,000 businesses."

The conflict between the US and Iran has taken a critical turn with mediators from Pakistan, Egypt, and Turkey circulating proposals for an immediate ceasefire to both Washington and Tehran. The goal is to halt the five-week-old war and prevent further escalation, particularly in light of Donald Trump's threat to bomb Iran's power plants if the Strait of Hormuz is not opened.The mediators are pushing for both sides to agree to suspend hostilities and reopen the strategic Strait of Hormuz, a critical waterway for global oil shipments. This temporary ceasefire would be followed by a period of detailed negotiations aimed at reaching a more comprehensive peace agreement.Iranian officials have indicated that they would not agree to open the Strait of Hormuz as part of a temporary ceasefire. Additionally, reports suggest that Iran is wary of entering into an agreement that could be violated by periodic attacks from the US and Israel.Trump's ultimatum has been met with strong resistance from Iran. The country's foreign ministry spokesperson, Esmaeil Baghaei, stated that peace negotiations are incompatible with ultimatums and threats of war crimes. Iran's central military command has warned of a 'much more devastating' retaliation should the US and Israel escalate their actions.Lawyers and experts have condemned the potential bombing of power plants and bridges as a likely war crime due to the disproportionate impact on civilians. The international community remains on high alert as the situation continues to deteriorate.Oil prices have fluctuated in response to the developments, with Brent crude futures initially falling by $1.92 to $107.11 a barrel on hopes of de-escalation before rising again. The conflict has already led to significant increases in oil prices, which were at $70 a barrel before the US and Israel attacked Iran at the end of February.The situation on the ground remains volatile, with Israel claiming responsibility for strikes on Iranian petrochemical facilities and Iran's Revolutionary Guards. There have been reports of casualties on both sides, including a missile strike in Haifa, northern Israel, and bombings in Beirut's southern suburbs.

British law enforcement detained seven individuals on suspicion of backing the outlawed Palestine Action movement during a peace encampment situated just outside the RAF Lakenheath airbase in eastern England, a facility regularly used by United States forces. The group, comprising five men and two women, joined other activists on Sunday to denounce the base’s alleged role as a launch point for U.S. aircraft participating in the ongoing US‑Israeli war against Iran. The protest was organized by the Lakenheath Alliance for Peace, which reported that those arrested were wearing apparel emblazoned with the slogan: “We oppose genocide, we support Palestine Action.” Police statements indicated the arrests were made “on suspicion of supporting a proscribed organisation,” referencing the Labour government’s decision last year to label Palestine Action a “terrorist” organisation, thereby criminalising any affiliation. Although a February court ruling deemed the ban “disproportionate” and an infringement on free‑speech rights, the government has appealed the decision, leaving the prohibition in force for the time being. According to the protest network Defend Our Juries, the crackdown on Palestine Action supporters has already resulted in **more than 2,700 arrests** and hundreds of charges, underscoring the scale of the UK’s enforcement campaign. Police emphasized their duty to apply the law “as it currently stands, not as it might be in the future,” while noting that two additional demonstrators were taken into custody on Saturday for allegedly obstructing public thoroughfares. In a related diplomatic flashpoint, former US President Donald Trump has publicly rebuked Prime Minister Keir Starmer for what he describes as insufficient backing of the US‑Israel war on Iran, straining the historically close UK‑US alliance. Meanwhile, the United Kingdom has granted the United States permission to employ British bases for “defensive” operations aimed at Iran and to safeguard the strategic Strait of Hormuz, a chokepoint through which roughly 20 % of global oil supplies transit during peacetime.

The ongoing conflict between the US and Israel against Iran has significantly impacted global oil supplies, causing prices to surge. Despite this, US President Donald Trump claims that the US is 'totally independent' of the Middle East and doesn't need their oil. However, experts argue that the oil market is highly interconnected, making it unlikely that the US can escape the effects of the crisis.The US is a major oil producer, having surpassed other countries due to the fracking boom. Yet, it still imports millions of barrels per day, with a significant portion coming from Gulf nations. This reliance on imports means that the US is not as insulated from global price trends as Trump suggests.Oil prices have risen by nearly half since the start of the war, with Brent crude trading above $100 per barrel. This increase has had a ripple effect on the global economy, with US fuel prices breaching $4 per gallon for the first time since 2022. The surge in fuel costs is likely to impact the US economy and may influence the midterm elections.Experts warn that the concept of 'energy independence' may be a 'smokescreen' and that low-income households will be disproportionately affected by higher fuel prices. While some sectors of the US economy, such as energy production, may benefit from the current situation, the overall impact on consumers is expected to be negative.The article also highlights the broader implications of the conflict, including disruptions to global fertilizer supplies and helium production. With the Strait of Hormuz remaining paralyzed, the effects of the crisis are likely to be prolonged, and experts are skeptical that fuel prices will quickly return to normal even if the conflict ends soon.

The recent statements and actions by the US, particularly by President Donald Trump, have raised serious concerns about potential war crimes under international law. During a national address, Trump warned that if Iran did not reach a deal with him, the US would target Iranian electric-generating plants and reduce the country to the 'stone ages.'Legal experts and human rights organizations have strongly criticized these threats. Erika Guevara Rosas, Amnesty International's senior director of research, advocacy, policy and campaigns, emphasized that intentionally attacking civilian infrastructure, such as power plants, is generally prohibited under international law. Such actions could cause disproportionate harm to civilians and are considered unlawful and potentially war crimes.More than 100 US experts in international law from prestigious universities, including Harvard, Yale, and Stanford, have expressed similar concerns. They highlighted Trump's comments, including the statement that the US may conduct strikes on Iran 'just for fun,' and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's remarks about not fighting with 'stupid rules of engagement.'The experts and legal experts point to the principle of distinction in international humanitarian law, which requires parties to avoid targeting civilian objects. Article 52 of the Geneva Conventions defines civilian objects as those that are not military objectives, and it is a war crime to intentionally direct attacks against them if they are not military objectives.Human rights organizations and experts warn that targeting Iran's power plants would have a devastating impact on the civilian population, affecting hospitals, water supplies, and other vital needs. Sarah Yager, Washington director of Human Rights Watch, noted that such actions would be catastrophic for the Iranian people.

One year ago, US President Donald Trump introduced a 10% global tariff, sparking a trade war with far-reaching consequences. The immediate impact was severe, with the stock market experiencing its worst drop since the pandemic. In response, countries scrambled to negotiate deals with Washington or retaliate with their own tariffs. Recently, the Supreme Court ruled that most of Trump's tariffs are illegal, citing the president's lack of authority to impose broad, open-ended tariffs under a national emergency. However, this ruling did not end the trade war. Within hours, Trump invoked a different statute to launch a temporary tariff, set to expire in July. The effects of the tariffs have already reshaped the US economy. The average effective US tariff rate surged from 2.6% to over 13%, the highest level since World War II. This significant increase has led to higher costs for American consumers. According to the Tax Foundation, US households paid $1,000 more in 2025 for the same goods. Tarrifs work by imposing a tax on foreign goods and services, making them more expensive and encouraging local purchases. Despite Trump's promise that tariffs would reduce the trade deficit and make the US richer, the reality is that the average US consumer is worse off. The Penn Wharton Budget Model reports that the US collected over $287.1 billion in customs duties in 2025 and $64.4 billion in 2026. Economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York found that nearly 90% of the economic burden from tariffs has fallen on US businesses and consumers, with foreign exporters absorbing only a small percentage of the cost. Lower-income households have been disproportionately affected, as they spend a higher proportion of their earnings on essential goods like food, clothing, and transportation. Following the Supreme Court's ruling, the government may be required to refund up to $175 billion to businesses that paid the tariffs. With Trump's tariffs being replaced by a flat 10% tariff, the Tax Foundation projects that the average cost to US households will fall to about $600. While an improvement, it remains a significant cost for consumers.