Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

Utah has enacted a law that effectively shields fossil fuel companies from legal accountability for climate damages. The legislation, signed by Republican Governor Spencer Cox, limits the ability of residents to sue these companies for their role in contributing to climate change. The new law is part of a broader effort by the fossil fuel industry and its allies to secure legal immunity in statehouses and Congress. This push is aimed at countering a wave of litigation filed by states, subnational governments, and individuals who claim that fossil fuel companies knew their products would cause climate damages but sold them anyway. Critics argue that the law prioritizes profits for the biggest polluters over communities already suffering from climate impacts. The law requires challengers to provide 'clear and convincing evidence' that damage or injury has resulted directly from a violation, making it virtually impossible to successfully sue polluters for climate damages. The legislation was sponsored by Republican Representative Carl Albrecht, who has received funding from oil and gas interests. Albrecht's ties to the industry have raised concerns about the bill's motivations. The law closely mirrors a model policy called the Energy Freedom Act, circulated by the conservative group Consumers Defense, which has financial ties to a group linked to Leonard Leo, a key figure in the far-right takeover of the Supreme Court. The passage of Utah's law comes as climate lawsuits against big oil companies are inching closer to trial. Seventy cities, states, and individuals have sued energy majors for allegedly deceiving the public about the climate crisis. New York and Vermont have also passed climate 'superfund' laws requiring major polluters to pay for damages caused by their past planet-heating pollution. Lawmakers and advocates have amassed evidence that oil companies intentionally covered up the climate harms of their products. Climate science continues to warn that fossil fuels are the primary cause of dangerous global warming. Critics argue that the fossil fuel industry is pushing for immunity because it knows it cannot win on the merits of its case.

Two weeks after the United States and Israel entered a direct conflict with Iran, the White House faced mounting criticism that the war would drive up fuel costs and anger voters. Former President Donald Trump attempted to calm concerns on Truth Social, noting that the United States is the world’s largest oil producer and that higher prices translate into higher revenues for American companies. Now, five weeks into the hostilities, the reality is becoming clear: defense contractors and oil companies are the primary beneficiaries of the escalating energy market. The Department of Defense announced that Boeing will partner with Lockheed Martin to triple U.S. production of missile seekers, a move that sent Lockheed Martin’s stock up 25% since the start of the year. The announcement also lifted Boeing’s share price, underscoring how wartime procurement is boosting aerospace valuations. At the same time, Iran’s continued blockade of the Strait of Hormuz—through which roughly one‑fifth of global oil and gas flows—has pushed U.S. crude from $65 to over $110 per barrel in just a month. Pump prices have mirrored this surge, breaking the $4‑a‑gallon barrier for the first time since 2022. Oil majors have responded with sharp stock gains; ExxonMobil, Shell and Chevron have each risen more than 20% year‑to‑date. According to market‑research firm Rystad Energy, U.S. oil producers stand to earn an additional $63 billion as barrels trade above $100. “Oil prices in March have been materially higher than anyone expected, delivering a windfall for the vast majority of U.S. energy companies,” said Leo Mariani, senior analyst at Roth Capital Partners. The last comparable price shock occurred in 2022 after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, when U.S. gasoline peaked at $5 per gallon and inflation surged to 9%. That episode generated $916 billion in global oil‑and‑gas profits, with U.S. firms accounting for $281 billion. Chevron’s subsequent $75 billion stock‑buyback program—seven times its prior year’s amount—illustrates how quickly companies can translate price spikes into shareholder returns. Research by economists Gregor Semieniuk and Isabella Weber revealed that in 2022, 50% of oil‑company profits went to the top 1% of Americans, while the bottom half of the wealth distribution captured just 1% of those gains. Analysts warn that the current conflict could generate even larger windfalls because it has damaged actual production capacity in the Middle East, not merely reshuffled supply. “You’re benefiting a lot more from higher prices than you are from lost production,” Mariani noted, emphasizing the outsized profit potential. Even if hostilities cease, restoring pre‑conflict output in the region may take months, prolonging the supply crunch. As senior fellow Clay Seagle of the Center for Strategic and International Studies explains, the current situation differs from 2022: “Now we’re dealing with a much more severe supply event because the oil has been actually removed from the market.” Prolonged high prices could eventually curb demand, as consumers and businesses seek alternatives—a shift seen after the 1970s oil shocks when the U.S. moved away from oil‑generated electricity. Nonetheless, many sectors remain vulnerable: diesel, a key fuel for trucks and aircraft, has risen 40%, and airline stocks such as United and American have fallen more than 15% since the year began. Moreover, disruptions to liquefied natural gas (LNG) production threaten fertilizer supplies essential for agriculture. Semieniuk cautions that “we’re approaching the kinds of disruption levels we saw in 2022, and with that, the kinds of profits that we saw there. If this takes longer, it’s going to surpass that.”

The notion that war is more profitable than peace may seem counterintuitive, but it is a concept that has been explored by economists and political scientists. David Keen, a renowned expert in the field, sheds light on the complex relationship between conflict and economics. In a world where wars are often funded by governments and fueled by industries such as arms manufacturing, the financial stakes are high.Keen's work challenges the conventional wisdom that war is solely a destructive force. Instead, he argues that war can be a lucrative business for certain individuals and groups. The production and sale of weapons, for instance, can generate significant profits. Moreover, the reconstruction efforts that follow a conflict can also be a lucrative venture.However, the human cost of war cannot be overstated. The devastating impact on civilians, infrastructure, and the environment is well-documented. As such, the question remains as to whether the economic benefits of war outweigh the humanitarian costs.

Jeffrey Stephen Wigand, a biochemist who helped reveal how tobacco companies targeted children and hid the addictive nature of cigarettes, has been drawing parallels between the tobacco industry and social media companies. Wigand, who played a crucial role in the landmark tobacco trials of the 1990s, believes that social media companies have similarly designed their products to be addictive, particularly targeting children.The recent verdict in a major social media trial, which found Meta and YouTube liable for their role in creating addictive products, has strengthened comparisons to the legal crackdown on big tobacco. Wigand sees it as a similar situation, where companies prioritize profits over people's well-being. He notes that both industries use advertisements to target children, with social media companies using data to create addictive algorithms.Wigand's experience in the tobacco industry informs his perspective on social media. He was hired by Brown & Williamson (B&W;) in 1989 to develop a safer cigarette but was fired after raising concerns about carcinogenic substances in cigarettes. He then publicly declared that the tobacco industry was a 'nicotine delivery business' and helped the federal government in its investigations.Wigand believes that social media companies, like tobacco companies, intentionally addict people, especially children, to generate revenue. He emphasizes that brain development in children makes them vulnerable to addiction, and that social media companies exploit this vulnerability.The tobacco industry faced significant reforms and financial penalties following Wigand's whistleblowing. He hopes that similar actions will be taken against social media companies, including putting guardrails on access for children and holding companies accountable for their role in creating harm. Wigand's message to tech workers considering becoming whistleblowers is to carefully weigh the personal costs and prepare for the challenges that come with speaking out.

For the first time, the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust (JRCT) is creating a dedicated reparations role, appointing Prof. Keon West—a Rhodes Scholar and author of The Science of Racism—to lead the effort. West, who also serves as a visiting professor at the London School of Economics and heads research at the Runnymede Trust, will begin his tenure later this month. The appointment arrives amid intensifying global calls for former colonial powers to confront historic injustices. West’s mandate is to map how enslavement, indentured labour and European imperialism fed the supply chains of Rowntree’s iconic brands such as KitKat, Fruit Pastilles and Smarties. Founded in 1904 when philanthropist Joseph Rowntree endowed the trust with profits from his chocolate and cocoa ventures, JRCT operates on Quaker principles aimed at tackling the roots of inequality. Recent research, spurred by the Black Lives Matter movement, uncovered that African and Asian workers were exploited in Rowntree’s production lines throughout the 19th and 20th centuries. Historical investigations by the Rowntree Society revealed that, while the family never directly owned enslaved people, their businesses sold commodities produced by enslaved or unfree labour as far back as 1822. The company also benefitted from the indenture system, acquiring plantations in Dominica, Jamaica and Trinidad in the 1890s to grow cocoa, bananas and other crops. Further links to colonial exploitation include purchases of cocoa from Portuguese‑controlled São Tomé and Príncipe, as well as commercial interests in Nigeria, Ghana and apartheid‑era South Africa. In the early 1980s, Black workers at the South African subsidiary Wilson Rowntree faced harsh labour suppression. In 2021, JRCT issued a public apology, stating it was “deeply sorry” for its historical connections to “abhorrent practices” and acknowledging the lasting impact of these actions on systemic racism today. West will design a comprehensive reparations programme that engages directly with affected communities—“Black people, brown people and people of colour”—to develop long‑term restorative justice strategies. He said, "I am honoured to accept this role. It offers the power and the responsibility to make real, meaningful changes in the lives of those who have been exploited." JRCT chief executive Nicola Purdy expressed enthusiasm, noting that the reparations initiative aligns with the trust’s charitable purpose of promoting peace, equality, human rights and climate action. Financially, JRCT allocated £13.5 million in grants in 2025, supporting organisations that advance its core missions. In 2023, it contributed £10,000 to an all‑party parliamentary group advocating for a formal UK apology for slavery and colonisation. The Rowntree family, alongside fellow Quaker dynasties Fry and Cadbury, were central to the British confectionery trade during the colonial era. Their brand was later acquired by Nestlé in 1988, but the trust’s new reparations focus underscores a broader reckoning with the historical foundations of the industry.

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.

When billionaire hedge‑fund manager Chris Rokos announced a £190 million contribution to the University of Cambridge, the move instantly became the largest single donation to any UK university in modern history. The funds will establish a new “school of government” aimed at bridging policy, science and emerging technologies. Rokos, a 55‑year‑old Oxford graduate, has amassed an estimated £2.6 billion fortune, primarily through his firm Rokos Capital Management (RCM), which he founded in 2015 after a high‑profile stint at Brevan Howard. RCM now oversees **over £22 billion** in assets, employs roughly 350 staff, and operates from offices in London, New York, Singapore and Abu Dhabi. In the most recent fiscal year ending March, Rokos paid himself nearly £500 million, according to Companies House filings, reflecting the firm’s strong performance amid volatile markets. Beyond finance, Rokos has kept a remarkably low public profile. He famously declined to provide a photograph when launching a £500 million fund in 2007, and he has avoided media attention despite owning one of England’s most expensive private residences. The £175 million refurbishment of the Grade I‑listed Tottenham House in Wiltshire – featuring a tennis pavilion, private cinema, basement squash court and a proposed “subterranean family link” to a pool house – has drawn local council scrutiny but stands as a tangible testament to his wealth. Rokos’s career trajectory began in banking at UBS and Goldman Sachs, moving to Credit Suisse where he was recruited by Alan Howard. He later joined the founding team of Brevan Howard in 2002, generating roughly $4 billion (≈£3 billion) in investor profits and about £600 million for himself before departing in 2012. His philanthropic philosophy emphasizes diversity of thought. In a video released by Cambridge, Rokos warned that a school populated only by “centrist, socially liberal” voices would be a failure, insisting on a broad spectrum of intellectual viewpoints. Earlier this year, RCM’s exploratory talks to bring former UK business secretary Peter Mandelson onto its advisory board collapsed after revelations about Mandelson’s connections to the late Jeffrey Epstein. Rokos also ranks among the UK’s biggest taxpayers and maintains a family office in Mayfair. A lingering legal dispute over a five‑year non‑compete clause with a former employer was settled out of court, clearing the way for his current venture. Overall, the record‑breaking Cambridge donation not only reshapes the university’s academic landscape but also underscores how hedge‑fund wealth is increasingly channeled into high‑impact philanthropy, blurring the lines between finance, education and public policy.

Donald Trump announced over the weekend that he wants to "take the oil in Iran" by seizing control of Kharg Island, the strategic outpost through which roughly 90% of Iran’s oil exports flow. Experts say the remark underscores a blatant disregard for international law and exemplifies what they term “fossil‑fuel imperialism.” Patrick Bigger, co‑director of the Transition Security Project, described the approach as a "might‑makes‑right" logic that is both "abhorrent and spectacularly miscalculated." Trump is slated to give an update on the Iran‑U.S. conflict on Wednesday. He previously claimed the war could end within weeks, a statement that sent the stock market soaring on expectations of de‑escalation. Iran, however, has insisted it needs guarantees against future attacks before halting its counter‑offensive. The fighting continues, highlighted by an Iranian strike on a fully loaded crude tanker in Dubai and threats to "blow up and completely obliterate" Iran’s energy infrastructure if the Strait of Hormuz is not reopened promptly. Kharg Island, a five‑mile strip that handles the bulk of Iran’s oil shipments, along with its power plants and oil wells, has been singled out by Trump. He told the Financial Times that U.S. forces should take over the island and the oil stored there. "My favorite thing is to take the oil in Iran," Trump said, adding that critics in the United States are "stupid people." Amir Handjani, an energy lawyer at the Quincy Institute, warned that the statement "completely discredited" the war’s stated objectives and revealed a classic play for natural resources. Handjani noted that Trump’s desire to seize Iranian oil is not new; he voiced similar ambitions in a 1988 interview while promoting The Art of the Deal, saying he would "do a number on Kharg Island" if elected. The former president has also floated comparable ideas for Iraq, Syria and Venezuela, suggesting the United States could appropriate their oil to offset war costs or bolster strategic reserves. Handjani emphasized that international law provides no framework for waging war to capture sovereign nations' natural resources. From a military perspective, taking Kharg Island would be extremely challenging. Iranian missile defenses have rendered regional U.S. bases inoperable, meaning any assault would likely require a parachute insertion of Marines into heavy fire, with the risk of massive Iranian retaliation. Handjani warned that such retaliation could target oil export terminals across the Persian Gulf, potentially driving crude prices to $200‑$300 per barrel and destabilising the global economy. The conflict has already caused the largest-ever disruption to global energy supplies, killing thousands and sparking sharp fuel‑price shocks. While consumers bear the brunt, major fossil‑fuel companies are enjoying windfall profits. Bigger noted that higher oil prices benefit oil majors and are being used as a pretext to expand U.S. drilling, further entrenching reliance on carbon‑intensive fuels. According to Bigger, Trump’s rhetoric reveals a belief that "fossil fuels are a linchpin of his domestic industrial strategy," and that controlling oil equates to controlling global power. He argues that this mindset threatens the international order and hampers the transition to cleaner energy.

The rising cost of gaming consoles and components, such as the recent £90 price hike of the PlayStation 5, can be attributed to the growing demand for computing power driven by artificial intelligence (AI) data centers. This surge in demand has led to increased prices for RAM and storage, affecting not only console manufacturers like Sony but also PC gamers.AI data centers require massive amounts of computing power to present information, which has driven up the demand and pricing for critical components. The 30% rise in the cost of living over the past half-decade, coupled with Nvidia's market cap hitting £5 trillion, highlights the significant economic impact of AI investment.The situation is further complicated by global economic disruptions, including the wars in Ukraine and Iran, which have contributed to rampant inflation. The video game industry, including major players like Valve, Nintendo, and Sony, is feeling the strain. Valve has run out of Steam Decks, and Nintendo has raised the price of physical games by $10 in the US.Critics argue that the focus on AI is misguided and that it doesn't need to be this way. As Chris Person notes, "I'm tired of these useless jackasses making the computer expensive." The emphasis on AI over consumer needs has led to frustration among gamers, who feel that technology is being forced into everything, making desirable products prohibitively expensive.The article concludes that the issue isn't just about Sony's greed but an indication of a closed economic system in big tech, which prioritizes profits over consumer needs. This shift has resulted in consumers paying more for products like the PlayStation 5 so that a select few can benefit financially from AI advancements.