Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

Argentina's congress has approved a bill promoted by President Javier Milei that authorizes mining in ecologically sensitive areas of glaciers and permafrost, sparking widespread environmental protests. The bill, which was already approved by the senate in February, will make it easier to mine for metals such as copper, lithium, and silver in frozen parts of the Andes mountains.The chamber of deputies approved the amendment with 137 votes in favor, 111 against, and three abstentions after nearly 12 hours of debate. Environmentalists argue that the legislative changes will weaken protections for crucial water sources, with thousands protesting outside parliament, holding banners with slogans such as “Water is more precious than gold!” and “A glacier destroyed cannot be restored!”Seven Greenpeace activists were arrested earlier in the day after scaling a statue outside parliament and unfurling a banner urging lawmakers “not to betray the Argentine people”. The passage of the amendment is a new coup for Milei, who pushed through looser labor laws in February despite repeated street protests.Environmental activists, such as Flavia Broffoni, argue that there is no possibility of creating a 'sustainable mine' in a periglacial environment. Argentina has nearly 17,000 glaciers or rock glaciers, with glacial reserves in the north-west shrinking by 17% in the last decade due to climate change.Milei, a free-market radical who does not believe in human-made climate change, says the bill is necessary to attract large-scale mining projects. The Central Bank of Argentina estimates that the country could triple its mining exports by 2030. Supporters argue that the bill will provide legal certainty and clear definitions, while critics, such as Enrique Viale, warn that it threatens the water supply for 70% of Argentinians.

NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte revealed that Donald Trump was 'clearly disappointed' that US allies refused to join the war against Iran during a closed-door meeting in Washington. This comes as the alliance faces scrutiny over its response to the conflict.Rutte described the meeting with Trump as 'very frank, very open' between 'two good friends,' but declined to directly address whether Trump raised his threat to withdraw from NATO over the Iran war.The meeting occurred against the backdrop of a fragile two-week ceasefire deal between the US and Iran, which includes reopening the Strait of Hormuz. This agreement was reached after Trump threatened to target Iran's civilian infrastructure if Tehran didn't allow safe passage through the strait.Trump has been critical of NATO, calling it a 'paper tiger' and suggesting the US may consider leaving after NATO member countries ignored his call for military assistance to help reopen the critical waterway. Global oil prices have soared due to the closure of the Strait of Hormuz.In a post on Truth Social, Trump wrote: 'NATO WASN'T THERE WHEN WE NEEDED THEM, AND THEY WON'T BE THERE IF WE NEED THEM AGAIN.' Trump's frustrations with the alliance 'began' with their opposition to his desired takeover of Greenland.Despite these tensions, Republican senator Mitch McConnell issued a statement in support of the alliance, urging Trump to be 'clear and consistent' and emphasizing that it's not in America's interest to 'spend more time nursing grudges with allies who share our interests than deterring adversaries who threaten us.'Congress passed a law in 2023 that prevents any US president from pulling out of NATO without its approval, championed by Trump's current secretary of state, Marco Rubio.

Iran and the United States each declared a triumph after agreeing to a two‑week ceasefire that was announced just before President Donald Trump’s deadline to force Tehran’s surrender. The conflict, which began on 28 February, has already claimed 2,076 lives in U.S.–Israel strikes on Iran and has caused thousands more deaths across the region. The fighting has also shocked global energy markets, stranding oil tankers and pushing prices to unprecedented levels. Trump announced on Truth Social that the United States would halt bombing Iran after receiving a “workable” 10‑point ceasefire proposal, adding that “almost all of the various points of past contention have been agreed to.” Iran, for its part, said it would reopen the Strait of Hormuz to commercial traffic, even as some citizens denounced the government’s perceived capitulation. Both parties are set to resume Pakistan‑mediated talks in Islamabad on Friday, though analysts warn that earlier red lines may resurface. Key terms of the Tuesday agreement: the United States will suspend air strikes for two weeks, citing that it has already achieved its military objectives and is close to a “definitive agreement concerning long‑term peace.” Iran’s foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, pledged to halt “defensive operations” and to allow safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz, while also indicating willingness to fund reconstruction from fees collected on transiting ships. Domestic reaction in Iran remains volatile. University of Tehran professor Foad Izadi noted that the public’s pessimism stems from two prior escalations—June’s 12‑day war and the February 28 strikes—both of which occurred amid ongoing negotiations. Earlier demands: The United States had presented a 15‑point plan on 25 March, calling for a 30‑day ceasefire, immediate reopening of the Strait, Iran’s de‑commissioning of its nuclear facilities, a total ban on uranium enrichment, handover of nuclear stockpiles to the IAEA, cessation of support to regional proxies, strict limits on ballistic missiles, and a full lift of sanctions, among other items. Iran responded with a 10‑point proposal that emphasized a non‑aggression commitment from the United States, controlled passage through the Strait, acceptance of its enrichment programme, comprehensive sanctions relief, withdrawal of U.S. combat forces, compensation for war damages via shipping fees, and a binding UN Security Council resolution. Both sides have already made concessions. Iran moved from demanding a permanent ceasefire to accepting a two‑week pause, and it shifted from insisting on reparations to proposing reconstruction funding from Strait fees. The United States, meanwhile, has softened its demand for an “unconditional” Iranian surrender and has not reiterated its earlier insistence on dismantling Iran’s missile capabilities. One of the most contentious issues remains the status of Lebanon. While Pakistan’s prime minister said the ceasefire would extend to Lebanon, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu denied any such inclusion, and Israel launched a major bombing campaign in Beirut shortly thereafter, killing hundreds. Looking ahead, analysts highlight that the United States is unlikely to concede on the complete withdrawal of its roughly 50,000 troops stationed across 19 Middle Eastern sites—a demand Tehran has placed on the table. The outcome of the upcoming talks will hinge on whether Washington can accommodate Tehran’s broader political and economic requests without compromising its strategic objectives.

US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced on Wednesday that the United States had achieved a "decisive" military victory over Iran, claiming the Iranian missile programme has been "functionally destroyed." Speaking alongside General Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Hegseth described the operation—codenamed Operation Epic Fury—as a "historic and overwhelming" triumph that met every objective, including the dismantling of Iran’s navy, air‑defence systems and missile‑production capability. The declaration came a day after President Donald Trump stepped back from a threatened full‑scale assault on Iran, just two hours before a self‑imposed deadline for Tehran to reopen the blockaded Strait of Hormuz. The resulting cease‑fire agreement stipulates that Iran will not possess a nuclear weapon and that the United States will monitor the country’s enriched uranium stockpiles. While Hegseth emphasized that "they can still shoot here and there, but that would be very unwise," he also warned that US forces will remain in the region to ensure compliance with the two‑week cease‑fire and to oversee the safe transit of vessels through the strategic waterway. Iran’s response was equally emphatic. The Supreme National Security Council, cited by IRNA, congratulated the Iranian people on a "victory" and urged perseverance until the details of that victory are finalized. The council highlighted Iran’s alliances with the so‑called "axis of resistance" in Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen and occupied Palestine, claiming the coalition has delivered blows to the enemy over the past 40 days. At the same briefing, General Caine confirmed that US military objectives in Iran have been met, but framed the cease‑fire as a "pause" rather than a permanent end to hostilities, noting that forces remain ready to resume combat if necessary. In parallel diplomatic developments, a senior Iranian official told Reuters that Tehran could reopen the Strait of Hormuz on Thursday or Friday, contingent on a cease‑fire framework being reached ahead of a scheduled US‑Iran meeting in Pakistan. The closure of the strait has previously disrupted global oil and gas markets, making its reopening a critical economic signal. Trita Parsi, vice‑president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, told Al Jazeera that President Trump needed an exit from a war he described as "an absolute disaster" and that the next two weeks are "crucial" for any genuine diplomatic opening, though he cautioned that the situation is not yet resolved. Analysts note that the cease‑fire’s success will hinge on Iran’s willingness to allow unfettered navigation through the Strait of Hormuz and on US verification of Iran’s uranium holdings. The coming fortnight will test whether the declared victory translates into lasting stability in a volatile region.

Assam, India – Under the sweltering April sun, Akram Ali stood amid the rubble of his four‑room house, a home he had built over 45 years ago. The demolition, part of a government‑led bulldozing operation on March 14, turned his residence into a pile of debris.Bulldozers descended on Islampur, a Muslim‑majority neighbourhood on the outskirts of Guwahati, and for four hours razed homes across 177 hectares (437 acres). The sweep rendered 400 families homeless, including Ali, who now lives in a tarpaulin shanty a few kilometres from his former home.Ali, a daily‑wage worker, told Al Jazeera that despite identifying as Goriya – “son of the soil” – his house was destroyed. The Goriyas are an Assamese‑speaking Muslim community traditionally settled in the tea‑belt region. In 2022, the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) officially recognised the Goriya, along with four other Muslim sub‑groups, as “Indigenous” to Assam.While this designation has afforded the Indigenous Muslims a degree of cultural safety, it has not shielded them from the state’s aggressive land‑clearance drives. Ali questioned the distinction, asking, “Weren’t our homes demolished because we are Muslims?”Muslims make up more than a third of Assam’s 31 million residents, according to the 2011 census. Of these, roughly 6.3 million are Bengali‑speaking “miyas,” often labelled “outsiders,” while about 4 million belong to Indigenous groups like the Goriya.The BJP, led nationally by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, has been courting the Indigenous Muslim vote ahead of the April 2026 state elections, where it seeks a third consecutive term after governing since 2016. Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma, who has spearheaded the party’s crackdown on “miyas” since 2021, claims the government will “never target” Indigenous Muslims.Political analyst Bonojit Hussain explains that the BJP’s outreach serves two purposes: softening its communal image and capturing decisive vote blocks in constituencies where Indigenous Muslims and Hindus together decide the outcome. In seats such as Nalbari, where Indigenous Muslims account for over 25 % of the electorate, and Barkhetri, with roughly 80,000 Muslim voters, the community’s support can swing the result.Upper Assam, a region with a strong Assamese‑speaking identity, is especially critical. Journalist Firoz Khan notes that Indigenous Muslims influence the outcome in seven or eight of the 39 seats there, prompting the BJP to temper its overtly anti‑Muslim rhetoric in the area.Despite the party’s overtures, many Indigenous Muslims remain skeptical. Moinul Islam, spokesperson for the rights group Sadou Asom Goria Jatiya Parishad, warned that the BJP’s broader anti‑Muslim policies—evictions, voter‑list objections, and alleged deportations—are unlikely to win their votes.Earlier in 2025, similar demolition drives displaced hundreds of Goriya families in Lakhimpur and Golaghat districts, and a systematic campaign to challenge Muslim names on electoral rolls further strained relations.BJP spokesman Kishore Upadhyay dismissed the allegations as “malicious, biased and politically motivated,” but Indigenous groups argue the pattern signals an attempt to erase their cultural legacy.Recent actions by the state government reinforce this perception. Chief Minister Sarma renamed the only medical college in Barpeta—previously bearing the name of Goriya freedom fighter Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed—arguing that institutions should reflect their geographic location. Critics view the move as symbolic of a broader effort to marginalise Muslim contributions to Assam’s history.In December 2025, Sarma also proposed dropping the hyphen in “Sankar‑Azan,” a name that celebrated the syncretic legacy of 15th‑century polymath Srimanta Sankardev and 17th‑century Sufi saint Azan Peer. Communist Party member Isfaqur Rahman warned that such revisions reflect a “slow erasure of Assamese Muslim heritage.”For Ali, the demolition has hardened his political stance. “After being evicted, the chief minister called us illegal immigrants and broke our backs by destroying our homes,” he said. “We are the new miyas.”

Cheng Li-wun, chairwoman of Taiwan’s main opposition party the Kuomintang (KMT), used a high‑profile trip to mainland China to advocate for renewed dialogue with Beijing. On Wednesday she laid a wreath at Sun Yat‑sen’s mausoleum in Nanjing, invoking the revolutionary’s legacy of “equality, inclusiveness and unity” as a moral foundation for cross‑strait reconciliation. Her visit marks the first time a KMT leader has set foot in China in ten years. Cheng said the core values of Sun’s ideal—"all under heaven are equal"—should guide efforts to promote reconciliation and regional prosperity across the Taiwan Strait. During the trip Cheng also expressed hopes to meet Chinese President Xi Jinping, framing the potential encounter as a diplomatic test that could demonstrate the effectiveness of dialogue over deterrence. The timing of the trip is notable. It comes amid heightened friction between Taipei and Beijing, with China continuing to assert sovereignty over Taiwan while refusing to engage with President William Lai Ching‑te, whom it labels a “separatist”. Amid concerns that a distracted United States may be less able to guarantee Taiwan’s security, some Taiwanese voters view a thaw in relations as attractive. Wen‑ti Sung, a non‑resident fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Global China Hub, told Al Jazeera that a cordial photo‑op between Cheng and Xi could bolster the KMT’s argument that dialogue is more effective than military deterrence. Domestically, Cheng’s outreach occurs as Taiwan’s opposition‑controlled parliament has stalled a proposed $40 billion increase in defence spending. She acknowledged Taiwan’s democratic evolution, referencing the legacy of the “White Terror” period, while also praising China’s recent development achievements. The governing Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) sharply criticized the trip, accusing the KMT of undermining national security. Party spokesperson Wu Cheng argued that if the opposition truly seeks stability, it should stop blocking the defence budget increase. Neither Beijing nor Taipei formally recognises the other’s government, leaving any dialogue fragile and heavily politicised. Cheng’s visit therefore represents both a symbolic gesture toward historic ties and a contested move within Taiwan’s polarized political landscape.

The United States government has reaffirmed its position that it plans to deport Salvadoran immigrant Kilmar Abrego Garcia to Liberia, despite arguments that doing so would be vindictive.On Tuesday, lawyers for the administration of President Donald Trump told US federal judge Paula Xinis that it remains committed to Liberia as a destination.Abrego Garcia, however, has said that, if he must be deported, he would prefer to be sent to Costa Rica, and the government there has indicated it would accept him.But the Trump administration’s insistence on sending Abrego Garcia to Africa has raised questions about its motive.Critics have accused the US government of seeking retribution against Abrego Garcia, whose case has spurred scrutiny over the legality of Trump’s mass deportation campaign.The case began with a high-profile mistake. In March 2025, less than three months into Trump’s second term, Abrego Garcia was wrongfully deported to his native El Salvador, in violation of a 2019 protection order that found he could face gang violence if returned to the country.The Trump administration, at the time, described Abrego Garcia’s removal as an “administrative error”.Still, it initially refused to seek his return, arguing that Abrego Garcia was a gang member and that, once abroad, he was subject to El Salvador’s leadership. Abrego Garcia, though, had no criminal record at the time of his deportation.Abrego Garcia was imprisoned, first at El Salvador’s Terrorism Confinement Centre (CECOT) and later in a second prison in Santa Ana, El Salvador.Meanwhile, lawyers in the US had turned to US courts to reverse his deportation.In early April 2025, Judge Xinis ruled that the US government had to “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s return to the country, and later that month, the US Supreme Court upheld her ruling in a unanimous decision.But it was only in June 2025 that Abrego Garcia was brought back to the US. In announcing Abrego Garcia’s return, the Trump administration revealed it would be filing criminal charges against him for human smuggling.He pleaded not guilty, but was forced to remain in jail. The Trump administration had deemed him a flight risk, and his own lawyers feared that stepping out of his jail cell would land him in immigration detention instead.When a court ordered his release in August, this is exactly what happened: Immigration agents took him back into custody within days.Authorities at the time said they would deport him to Uganda. Later, they changed the proposed destination to Liberia.Abrego Garcia was ultimately freed from immigration detention in December, but he continues to fight both his criminal charges and his deportation proceedings.At Tuesday’s hearing, Judge Xinis questioned why the Trump administration would not consider deporting Abrego Garcia to Costa Rica instead of Liberia.She pointed out that the country had recently inked an agreement to accept 25 removals from the US per week.In response, Ernesto Molina, the director of the Justice Department’s Office of Immigration Litigation, suggested that Abrego Garcia could “remove himself” to Costa Rica.But Xinis called the proposal a “fantasy” and noted that he cannot leave as long as the Justice Department is prosecuting him on criminal charges. He is legally required to attend his criminal hearings.After the tense exchange, Xinis set another hearing on the matter for April 28.

Researchers have made a significant breakthrough in understanding why weight-loss medications, such as GLP1 receptor agonists, work better for some individuals than others. A recent study published in Nature has identified genetic variations in two genes involved in gut hormone pathways that regulate appetite and digestion. These genetic variations may help account for different weight-loss results or side-effects when taking glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP1) medicines, which mimic natural gut hormones to regulate appetite, insulin release, and digestion. The study analyzed data from 27,885 patients on GLP1 drugs and found that specific genetic variants were associated with slightly more weight loss or side-effects like nausea and vomiting. The findings suggest that genetic differences may contribute to why people respond differently to weight-loss jabs. However, the overall impact of genetics appeared to be modest, with non-genetic factors such as sex, drug type, dose, and duration appearing to explain a substantially larger proportion of variability. The study's results reinforce that while there is substantial variability in response to GLP1 therapies, genetics is only one part of a much more complex picture. According to Marie Spreckley, an obesity expert at the University of Cambridge, the study provides plausible evidence that genetic variants could affect outcomes. However, she notes that the magnitude of these genetic effects is small in clinical terms, and that behavioral, clinical, and treatment-related factors remain the dominant drivers of outcomes. The study's authors suggest that their findings could support future efforts to use genetic information when making treatment choices for obesity. However, Spreckley cautions that the evidence is not yet sufficient to support using genetic information to guide treatment decisions in routine clinical practice.

Stephen Fry opened his appearance on ITV’s The Assembly with a startling question: “You tried to kill yourself a couple of times. Are you happy to be alive now?” The boldness set the tone for a conversation that veered far from the usual celebrity‑friendly script.The programme distinguishes itself by placing a well‑known guest in front of a panel of young adults with neurodivergence or learning disabilities. Free from the conventional safeguards of mainstream talk shows, the panel asks questions that are simultaneously unconventional and deeply human, prompting guests to respond without the usual rehearsed veneer.For Fry, the format proved liberating. Known for translating complex ideas into accessible language, he used the platform to discuss suicidal ideation, likening the experience to the lingering memory of a broken limb—painful yet now distant. This candidness allowed him to reaffirm why he remains a cultural touchstone.One of the most memorable moments came when a participant asked, “I read that you are bipolar. One of my family has that. How can I help them?” Fry responded with a vivid analogy, describing bipolar disorder as a “rainstorm raging inside you—eventually the sun returns, and it’s the weather, not the person, that changes.” This explanation resonated as both compassionate and educational.The interview oscillated between gravitas and levity. Fry fielded whimsical queries such as “Can you help me meet Céline Dion?” and “How much have you spent on cocaine?” alongside the probing “Are you a top or a bottom?” The juxtaposition amplified the emotional weight of the serious topics.At one point, a young panelist named Luca chose not to ask a question, instead performing William Wordsworth’s poem “The World Is Too Much With Us” with theatrical flair—a rare blend of poetry and performance that underscored the show’s experimental spirit.Another highlight involved Jacob, a panel member who brandished a list of Fry’s past advertising gigs—Heineken, Twinings, Honda, and more—before delivering the punchline, “Is there anything you wouldn’t do for money?” The extended joke built a collective laugh that softened the subsequent, more probing inquiries.Critics have likened the show’s tone to a hybrid of Radio 4’s In the Psychiatrist’s Chair and the cheeky, irreverent style of classic British comedy interviews such as those with Dame Edna Everage or Mrs Merton, creating a unique space where vulnerability and humor coexist.The episode concluded with Nina Simone’s “I Wish I Knew How It Would Feel to Be Free” playing as Fry reflected on his experiences with antisemitism and bipolar disorder. Moved by the music, he rose and danced, offering a visual testament to the therapeutic power of the format.The Assembly aired on ITV1 and is now available for streaming on ITVX.