Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

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.

A Lahore court has ruled in favor of Pakistani singer Ali Zafar in his defamation case against fellow singer Meesha Shafi. On Tuesday, the court ordered Shafi to pay Zafar 5 million rupees ($17,900) in damages.Zafar sued Shafi for defamation in 2018 after she accused him of sexual harassment in Pakistan’s highest-profile #MeToo case.The court’s ruling states that a 2018 social media post by Shafi and an interview she gave to a lifestyle magazine contained “false, defamatory and injurious imputations” against Zafar. The court found that her allegations of sexual harassment of a physical nature had not been proved to be true or shown to be made for the public good, and therefore constituted actionable defamation.The court's decision has sparked concerns that it may set a “deeply troubling precedent” that could discourage victims of sexual harassment from speaking out. Nighat Dad, Shafi's lawyer, stated that the appeal is likely to challenge the judgement on several grounds, including the trial court's selective interpretation of evidence and failure to consider material evidence presented by Shafi.The dispute between Shafi and Zafar has unfolded over several years, with both parties filing complaints against each other. Shafi’s original complaint of sexual harassment against Zafar has been pending before the Supreme Court for several years, and her civil defamation suit against Zafar is also still pending.

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.

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.

The Labor Department’s latest Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey (JOLTS) shows that job openings dropped by 358,000 to 6.882 million in February, the smallest tally since 2020 and well below the forecast of 6.918 million. February’s hiring figures also slipped, with 4.8 million workers hired—the lowest monthly total since March 2020. The quit rate fell to 1.9%, equating to roughly three million workers leaving their jobs, indicating growing reluctance to switch employers. Consumer confidence is eroding in tandem. A University of Michigan survey released in March recorded a 6% year‑over‑year decline and a 5.8% drop from the previous month, pushing sentiment to its weakest point since December. Economist Heather Boushey of the University of Pennsylvania linked the sentiment dip to President Donald Trump’s second‑term policies, noting that “people are getting super frustrated with Trump’s economy.” Senior fellow Michele Evermore of the National Academy of Social Insurance warned that the modest decline in quits “indicates that workers continue to have a pessimistic view of their chances on the open market,” and urged state governments to bolster unemployment systems as a counter‑cyclical buffer. Policy uncertainty is a key driver. Since his re‑election, Trump has pursued aggressive tariffs, some of which were recently blocked by the Supreme Court’s decision that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act cannot be used for that purpose, leaving the tariff regime in flux. Compounding the trade dispute, the U.S. involvement in the February 28 attack on Iran sparked a regional war. Iran’s retaliation—shutting the Strait of Hormuz—has tightened global oil supplies, pushing U.S. gasoline prices to $4.018 per gallon, up more than a dollar from the previous month. Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell cautioned that the economy faces a “zero‑employment‑growth equilibrium” with downside risks, while the central bank has so far kept interest rates steady and will announce its next policy decision in late April. Private, non‑farm payroll growth has also slowed, averaging just 18,000 jobs per month over the three months ending February, underscoring the tepid demand for new labor. Despite the labor market gloom, equity markets rallied during midday trading on Tuesday, with the Dow Jones Industrial Average up 1.9%, the Nasdaq climbing 3.4%, and the S&P; 500 gaining 2.3%.

Israel's parliament, the Knesset, has passed a controversial bill that will instruct military courts to impose the death penalty on Palestinians convicted of killing Israelis in acts of 'terror'. The law, which enters into effect within 30 days, was approved by 62 lawmakers, with 48 voting against it and one abstention.The new law targets only West Bank Palestinians, who are not Israeli citizens, and instructs military courts to impose the draconian sentence for lethal attacks on Israelis. Amichai Cohen, a senior fellow at the Israel Democracy Institute's Center for Democratic Values and Institutions, noted that 'Jews will not be indicted under this law'.The Palestinian Authority called the bill 'a war crime against the Palestinian people', saying that it breached the Fourth Geneva Convention. Rights group B'Tselem pointed out that the conviction rate for Palestinians tried in military courts is about 96 percent, with many convictions based on 'confessions' obtained through pressure and torture during interrogations.The law has been condemned by international critics, including the foreign ministers of France, Germany, Italy, and the United Kingdom, and Amnesty International, which said it would make the death penalty 'another discriminatory tool in Israel's system of apartheid'. The Association of Civil Rights in Israel has filed a petition with Israel's Supreme Court to challenge the law, describing it as 'discriminatory by design' and 'enacted without legal authority'.

The Israeli Knesset approved a bill on Monday that makes the death penalty the standard sentence for Palestinians found guilty of terrorism‑related murders in the occupied West Bank, while excluding Jewish extremists from the same punishment. Volker Türk, the UN high commissioner for human rights, warned that the law is "patently inconsistent" with Israel’s obligations under international law and could constitute a war crime when applied to residents of the occupied territories. Türk stressed that the proposal raises “serious concerns about due‑process violations” and is “deeply discriminatory,” urging the Israeli government to repeal it without delay. He added that its selective application would amount to “an especially egregious breach of international law.” European officials have joined the criticism. An EU spokesperson described the bill as “a clear step backwards” and highlighted its discriminatory nature. Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez called the measure “asymmetric” and likened it to a move toward apartheid, while Germany’s foreign ministry said it could not endorse a law that “rejects the fundamental principle of opposing the death penalty.” The legislation stipulates that anyone sentenced to death will be held in a separate facility, barred from family visits, and allowed legal counsel only via video link. Executions are to be carried out within 90 days of sentencing, with hanging identified as the method of execution. The bill also removes the requirement for a prosecutor’s request and permits a simple majority vote in military courts to impose the death sentence. Israel has applied capital punishment only twice since its establishment, most recently in 1962 when Adolf Eichmann was executed. The bill’s strongest political backer, National Security Minister Itamar Ben‑Gvir, has publicly displayed a noose‑shaped lapel pin, symbolising the proposed executions. Human‑rights organisations have warned that the law entrenches a two‑tiered justice system. Adam Coogle of Human Rights Watch said the measure “entrenches discrimination and a two‑tiered system of justice, both hallmarks of apartheid,” while Oxfam’s Shaista Aziz warned that it “effectively ensures that the death penalty will apply only to Palestinians, even as the occupation sees a surge in violence against them.” Within Israel, the bill faces legal opposition. Several human‑rights groups and three Knesset members have filed petitions with the Supreme Court, arguing that the law creates parallel legal tracks that target Palestinians and should be struck down on constitutional grounds.

European nations have voiced their deep concern over Israel's plans to expand the use of the death penalty, a move that could have a disproportionate impact on Palestinians. The bill, which is set to be voted on next week, has sparked criticism from foreign ministers of France, Germany, Italy, and the UK.In a statement released by the German Federal Foreign Office on Sunday, the ministers expressed their worries about the discriminatory character of the bill, warning that its adoption could undermine Israel's commitment to democratic principles.The legislation, championed by far-right government figures including National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, aims to make the death penalty applicable in more cases. Amnesty International has condemned the proposals, stating that they would make the death penalty "another discriminatory tool in Israel's system of apartheid."The bill's passage would likely face a legal challenge and be taken before the Supreme Court. The development comes as Israel's policies in Gaza and the occupied West Bank have faced international scrutiny.The Council of Europe has also urged Israel to abandon the draft law, with Council chief Alain Berset stating that the organization opposes the death penalty in all circumstances.

Afghanistan's authorities have released US citizen Dennis Coyle, who was detained in the country for over a year. The release was announced by the country's Foreign Ministry on Tuesday, stating that Coyle's detention period was deemed sufficient by the Supreme Court of the Islamic Emirate.The decision to release Coyle was made on humanitarian grounds and as a gesture of 'goodwill'. The UAE facilitated the release, which came after a meeting between Afghan Foreign Minister Amir Khan Muttaqi, former US Special Envoy to Afghanistan Zalmay Khalilzad, the UAE Ambassador to Kabul Saif Mohammed al-Ketbi, and a member of Coyle's family.Coyle, a linguist and researcher, was detained in January 2025 while working to support Afghan language communities. He was held 'in near-solitary conditions' without access to adequate medical care, according to the Foley Foundation. The Taliban authorities stated that Coyle was held 'due to violations of Afghanistan's applicable laws'.The release is seen as a positive step towards ending the practice of hostage diplomacy. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio thanked the UAE and Qatar for their support in securing Coyle's release, stating that it is a positive step towards ending the practice of hostage diplomacy.This is not the first time the Taliban has released US citizens as a goodwill gesture. Last year, five other US citizens were released under similar circumstances.