Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

The European Union is set to implement a sweeping reform of steel import duties from July, doubling tariffs and halving duty‑free quotas in an effort to stem a surge of low‑priced Chinese steel. EU lawmakers approved the measures after late‑night negotiations, targeting a 47% reduction in quota allowances. While exact country allocations remain pending, the policy will apply to all non‑EEA members, leaving Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein exempt. EU Industry Commissioner Stéphane Séjourné hailed the deal as the "strongest ever" safeguard for European steel, framing it as a victory for domestic mills, workers and industrial sovereignty. European steel lobbyist Axel Eggert of Eurofer argued the steps will create space for EU producers to add 15 million extra tonnes of steel to meet local demand, thereby pulling the sector "back from the brink". Recent import data underscore the urgency: steel inflows rose to a record 9.9 million tonnes in the final quarter of 2025, up from 7.4 million tonnes a year earlier. The new regime will cap total EU steel imports at 18.7 million tonnes annually, with quotas to be negotiated across 28 product categories. For the United Kingdom, the timing is critical. The EU remains the UK's largest steel market, absorbing roughly 1.8 million tonnes of British steel each year—about 10% of the new quota. UK Steel, the industry body, warned that a failure to secure reciprocal quota access could cripple export flows. Britain is preparing its own counter‑measures, announcing a 50% tariff on third‑country steel imports from 1 July and a 60% cut to its own quotas, a stricter stance than the EU’s 47% reduction. Union representatives echo the alarm. The Community union described the EU quotas as an "existential threat" to British steel and urged the Labour government to guard against a potential "tide of diverted steel" entering the UK market. Both sides acknowledge the deep integration of their steel sectors. Eurofer’s deputy director Karl Tachelet called for preferential treatment for the UK, emphasizing that the two industries share a common interest in avoiding punitive measures. As negotiations unfold, the outcome will shape not only the future of European steel production but also the broader post‑Brexit trade relationship between the EU and the United Kingdom.

Gina Rinehart, Australia's wealthiest person, faces a potentially significant loss of wealth and control over her Pilbara iron ore empire as a court verdict looms in Perth. The Western Australian supreme court judgment will determine whether Rinehart must share the spoils of some of Hancock Prospecting's most lucrative iron ore projects with the family of her late father's business partner, Peter Wright.The dispute centers on the lucrative Hope Downs mining complex near Newman in north-west Western Australia, a joint venture between Hancock Prospecting and Rio Tinto, which delivered a $832m profit to Hancock Prospecting in 2025. The Wright family heirs claim they are entitled to an equal share of the 2.5% royalties coming from Hope Downs to Hancock Prospecting.Hancock Prospecting rejects the claim, arguing it undertook all the work and bore the financial risk of development, making it the legitimate owner of the Hope Downs assets. The judgment, expected to be appealed regardless of the outcome, may also impact Rinehart's children, who have accused their mother of an 'egregious fraud' against them.Rinehart's company and Hancock Prospecting have rejected all claims, with Rinehart's lawyers arguing that her actions were done to right an historic wrong by her father. The court's decision will also inform a separate federal arbitration process that will decide how Hancock Prospecting's shares are divided between the family.In a related development, Hancock Prospecting's latest annual report shows that more than $6.4bn in dividends have been placed in reserve pending the outcome of arbitration.

A shocking case of mistaken identity has come to light involving British Gas, a leading UK energy supplier. A homeowner, IW from Northampton, received a £571 bill for a flat they had never occupied or owned. The error occurred because British Gas's tracing agents mistakenly linked IW's address to that of a debtor.IW reported that British Gas opened an account in their name for the incorrect address and sent the hefty bill. When IW disputed the charge, British Gas declined to investigate further, citing a lack of proof that they did not live at the address in question. The company requested a tenancy agreement or mortgage statement, which IW could not provide as they had long since paid off their mortgage.The situation escalated when British Gas threatened IW with a debt collection agency. Despite IW providing bank statements as evidence of their innocence, British Gas ignored this documentation and did not question the competence of the tracing agent used to locate debtors.It was only after IW got involved and contacted The Guardian that British Gas belatedly apologized and removed IW from its records. This incident highlights significant flaws in British Gas's processes for handling customer complaints and verifying identities.The case serves as a cautionary tale for consumers to vigorously dispute incorrect charges and to be aware of their rights when dealing with energy suppliers and debt collectors.

The Philippines has made a grave accusation against China, claiming that Chinese boats were found with cyanide near the disputed Second Thomas Shoal in the South China Sea. Laboratory tests confirmed the presence of the toxic substance in bottles seized by the Philippine navy last year. Security officials warned that the cyanide could have severe consequences for marine life and potentially weaken the reef that supports a warship Manila grounded on the atoll to reinforce its maritime claim. The use of cyanide is seen as a form of sabotage aimed at killing local fish populations and depriving navy personnel of a vital food source. Cornelio Valencia, spokesperson for the National Security Council, emphasized that the cyanide could damage the reef and compromise the stability of the warship. In response, China's Foreign Ministry dismissed the Philippines' assertions as a 'stunt,' accusing Manila of illegally harassing Chinese fishing boats and staging the incident. The incident is part of a broader maritime dispute between China and the Philippines, with China claiming nearly all of the South China Sea, including areas claimed by other nations. The dispute has led to several confrontations, including a violent incident on June 17, 2024, where a Filipino sailor lost a finger. The Philippines also accused Chinese coastguard ships of firing water cannons at Filipino fishermen in December 2025, injuring three people and damaging two fishing vessels. Despite these tensions, China and the Philippines held high-level talks last month to explore preliminary steps towards oil and gas cooperation and confidence-building measures at sea. However, the Philippine Foreign Ministry noted that the scope of coastguard cooperation would be limited and did not include joint patrols. The South China Sea is a critical waterway, with over $3 trillion in annual ship-borne commerce traveling through it. A 2016 ruling by an international arbitral tribunal found China's sweeping claims had no basis under international law, a decision China rejects.

Energy prices in the United States have continued to surge, even after President Donald Trump's administration issued a 60-day waiver of the Jones Act, a maritime law that restricts foreign-flagged vessels from transporting goods between US ports.The waiver, which came into effect on March 18, was intended to alleviate pressure on energy supplies by allowing more foreign vessels to transport goods domestically. However, experts say the impact on oil prices has been negligible, with oil prices rising 4 percent on the day amid a US blockade of Iranian ports.“It is estimated that it’s going to be about 3 cents on the East Coast and it might go up on the Gulf Coast, but these changes are so small that they’re overshadowed by the spikes in oil prices, and the oil prices keep going up,” said Usha Haley, a professor of management at Wichita State University.The Containerized Freight Index, a benchmark for shipping container costs, has jumped more than 10 percent over the last month and is up more than 35 percent from this time last year. The average price of gas in the US has also increased to $4.125 per gallon, up from $3.63 at this time last month.Despite the waiver, shippers have adapted their routes, with more than 34,000 ships diverting from the Strait of Hormuz over the past month. Major vessel insurers have also cancelled war risk coverage for ships travelling through the waterway, dissuading ship owners from going through the Gulf.Experts predict that fuel prices will only normalise once traffic through the strait returns to pre-war levels. The ongoing conflict and disruptions to transit through the Strait of Hormuz have contributed to the sustained high energy prices.

In a forceful statement released on Monday, a panel of 13 United Nations experts demanded that Israel halt all attacks on displaced Palestinians sheltering in Gaza and cease the accelerating forced‑displacement campaign in the occupied West Bank. Israeli air strikes in March set fire to tents housing Gaza’s internally displaced people, causing numerous fatalities, the experts noted, describing the tactic as part of a broader strategy to make life untenable for Palestinians. “This cycle of displacement, terror, and targeted attacks serves an ultimate purpose: to make life unbearable for Palestinians and permanently force them from their land,” the panel declared, underscoring the systematic nature of the violence. The experts warned that the targeting of makeshift shelters violates international humanitarian law and amounts to a grave breach, given that the majority of Gaza’s population has already endured multiple forced transfers. Beyond the immediate danger of bombardment, civilians living in tents face severe health threats—including hunger, exposure to freezing temperatures, flooding, and a lack of basic services. Women and children, the panel stressed, bear a disproportionate share of deprivation. Turning to the West Bank, the panel condemned what it described as a “sharp escalation in forced displacement” driven by the Israeli army and “state‑backed settler terrorism.” Daily attacks have resulted in killings, injuries, and the widespread destruction of homes, farmland, and livelihoods. According to a 2025 report from the UN Human Rights Office, more than 36,000 Palestinians have been forcibly displaced amid the expansion of illegal settlements, a figure the experts say illustrates a broader policy of ethnic cleansing across the occupied Palestinian territory. The panel urged Israel to end all forced‑displacement activities in the West Bank and to facilitate the safe return of those uprooted. It also called on the international community to uphold its legal obligations, launch independent investigations, and refrain from providing assistance that could enable the continuation of the occupation. The 13‑member panel includes UN special rapporteurs such as Francesca Albanese (occupied Palestinian territory), Paula Gaviria Betancur (rights of internally displaced persons), Michael Fakhri (right to food), and Reem Alsalem (violence against women and girls).

Senator Bernie Sanders declared on Monday that he will force a vote later this week on a resolution designed to stop the sale of nearly $500 million in bombs and bulldozers to the Israeli military. The procedural maneuver bypasses the Senate majority leader, signaling a direct challenge to the administration’s policy of unconditional support for Israel.Sanders framed the measure as a response to what he described as the "extremist Netanyahu government" responsible for alleged genocide in Gaza, arguing that American taxpayers should not fund further military operations that exacerbate civilian suffering.While the Republican‑controlled Senate is unlikely to approve the resolution, the vote will serve as a barometer of Democratic sentiment toward Israel, especially as anger over the U.S.–Israel war on Iran and ongoing atrocities in Gaza and the West Bank intensifies.Last year, Sanders introduced a comparable bill that was defeated 27‑70. At that time, a majority of Senate Democrats had supported the effort, reflecting an erosion of the once‑solid bipartisan consensus backing Israel.Public opinion data underscores this shift: a February Gallup poll found that only 46 % of Americans hold favourable views of Israel, and a mere 17 % of Democratic respondents say they sympathise more with Israelis than Palestinians.Since the conflict began, the United States has provided Israel with over $21 billion in military assistance during the first two years of the Gaza war, a figure that critics argue fuels continued violence.Adding pressure from the advocacy side, liberal Zionist organization J Street issued its first call to phase out U.S. aid to the Israeli military, citing the combined impact of the Gaza war, rising extremist activity in the West Bank, and the U.S.–Israel confrontation with Iran.J Street urged Washington to consistently apply existing legal restrictions—such as the Leahy Law—that prohibit security assistance to countries implicated in human‑rights abuses, a standard it says has been routinely overlooked in Israel’s case.The upcoming Senate vote, therefore, not only tests the durability of the U.S.–Israel security partnership but also reflects a broader reevaluation of American foreign‑policy priorities amid a volatile Middle‑East landscape.

The White House Council of Economic Advisers released an analysis estimating that the United States faces a shortage of roughly 10 million homes. The report argues that easing regulatory burdens could unlock a construction surge, stabilise home prices, expand home‑ownership and accelerate overall economic growth. President Donald Trump signed two executive orders in March directing federal agencies to reduce housing‑regulation costs and to facilitate mortgage lending by smaller banks. Yet, critics note that the administration has been slow to prioritize high housing costs amid falling approval ratings tied to tariffs, the US‑Israel conflict with Iran, and unmet inflation‑reduction promises. Mortgage rates have risen from just under 6 % to 6.37 % for a 30‑year loan, further inflating the cost of home purchase. Trump has publicly defended higher home prices to protect existing owners, stating, “I don’t want to drive housing prices down… I want to drive housing prices up for people that own their homes.” The housing chapter of the annual Economic Report of the President, obtained by the Associated Press, outlines a blueprint showing how increased homebuilding could benefit the middle class and the broader economy, providing a potential political narrative for the president. According to the report, if homebuilding had continued at its pre‑2008 pace, the nation would have **10 million more houses** today. The 2008 crisis, driven by risky lending and a housing bubble, still casts a long shadow. Home prices have surged **82 % since 2000**, while median incomes have risen only **12 %**, a disparity previously softened by historically low mortgage rates. The post‑COVID inflation spike and higher rates have made affordability a top concern for voters under 40. Regulatory costs—dubbed the “bureaucrat tax”—are estimated to add **over $100,000 per new home** through updated building codes, compliance fees and zoning approvals. The report projects that trimming these costs could enable the construction of **up to 13.2 million homes**, potentially delivering an **average 1.3 percentage‑point boost to annual GDP** over the next decade and supporting **two million manufacturing and construction jobs**. One administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity, suggested that federal funding to states could be tied to regulatory reductions, creating a financial incentive for local governments. The analysis also criticises the green‑energy housing standards introduced under former President Joe Biden, which mandate more efficient HVAC systems and water‑heater requirements. Citing a 2021 National Association of Home Builders study, the report claims these standards could add **up to $31,000** to a new home’s price, with a **payback period of up to 90 years** for homeowners via lower utility bills. While rolling back such standards might lower upfront costs, the report acknowledges potential long‑term utility‑bill increases for owners. Legal challenges further complicate the picture: a Texas federal judge recently sided with 15 Republican‑led states, deeming the Biden‑era standards for federally backed housing **unlawful**. Overall, the White House’s proposal positions regulatory reform as a lever to address the housing deficit, stimulate economic growth, and generate jobs, while navigating the political and environmental trade‑offs inherent in the debate.

A Miami‑based U.S. District Judge, Darrin Gayles, dismissed former President Donald Trump’s $10 billion defamation lawsuit against the Wall Street Journal and its proprietor Rupert Murdoch. The case centered on a July 2025 article that linked Trump to a birthday greeting allegedly sent to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.Judge Gayles concluded that Trump, as a public figure, did not satisfy the stringent “actual malice” threshold required in defamation actions. To prevail, a plaintiff must prove that the media outlet knowingly published false information or acted with reckless disregard for the truth.In his written opinion, Gayles noted that WSJ reporters had reached out to Trump for comment before publishing the story and included his denial, thereby giving readers a balanced view. He wrote, "This complaint comes nowhere close to the actual‑malice standard—quite the opposite."The judge granted Trump permission to file an amended complaint, setting a deadline of April 27 for any revisions.Trump’s original filing labeled the alleged birthday note to Epstein as a “fake” and sought damages for perceived harm to his reputation. The newspaper’s parent company, News Corp’s Dow Jones & Company, defended the article’s accuracy, emphasizing its adherence to journalistic standards.The dismissal adds to a series of legal setbacks for the former president as he attempts to curb reporting on his connections to Epstein. Trump announced on his Truth Social platform that he intends to re‑file the suit within the court‑ordered timeframe.A Dow Jones spokesperson welcomed the decision, stating, "We are pleased with the judge’s decision to dismiss this complaint and stand behind the reliability, rigor, and accuracy of The Wall Street Journal’s reporting."