Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

President Donald Trump has unveiled a bold budget request, seeking $1.5 trillion for military spending, a nearly 40% increase from the previous year. This ambitious proposal underscores the White House's priorities, emphasizing military strength and law enforcement.The budget request, while not legally binding, sets the stage for intense congressional negotiations. It includes a proposed $455 billion increase over fiscal year 2026, separate from an emergency request of $200 billion for the US-Israeli conflict with Iran.The plan involves significant shifts in funding, with $73 billion in cuts to domestic programs, including initiatives to counter climate change, boost renewable energy, and support equality and access in housing, education, and healthcare. Instead, funding would be redirected to projects such as Trump's Golden Dome missile defense system, critical minerals investment, US shipbuilding, and troop salary increases.Trump's proposal also emphasizes immigration enforcement, calling for continued funding for the Department of Homeland Security and Immigration and Customs Enforcement to support his mass deportation campaign. The request includes a 13% increase for the Department of Justice, focusing on violent crime.The budget plan faces challenges, including a potential deadlock in Congress over funding for ICE and Customs and Border Patrol. The administration suggests passing the budget through a mechanism known as reconciliation, which could be achieved with a simple majority in Congress.The US military expenditure has steadily increased, reaching $997 billion in 2024, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. The country consistently spends more on its military than the next nine countries combined, raising questions about priorities in defense and domestic spending.

Analysts say that more than two years of relentless campaigns against Gaza, the Houthis, Lebanon and now Iran have reshaped Israel’s politics, economy and social fabric.Washington, rather than Jerusalem, is likely to decide the ultimate outcome of the conflict that Israeli leaders describe as an “existential battle” with Tehran.According to the Bank of Israel, the cumulative cost of these wars has reached 352 billion shekels (about $112 bn), which translates to roughly 300 million shekels ($96 m) per day. The financial pressure is compounded by the International Court of Justice hearing credible genocide accusations and the International Criminal Court’s arrest warrants for the prime minister and a former defence minister.Domestically, Israelis endure frequent air‑raid alerts and school closures, while many families juggle work and shelter duties. Yet a poll by the Israel Democracy Institute in late March showed that 78 % of Jewish Israelis still support continuing the war, even as a majority doubt that Washington and Israeli planners have fully grasped Tehran’s capabilities.Political commentator Dahlia Scheindlin told Al Jazeera that a “graveness” has settled over the population, noting a grim determination to press on despite exhaustion.Israel’s right‑wing coalition, led by figures such as National Security Minister Itamar Ben‑Gvir and ultra‑Orthodox Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, has pushed through a controversial death‑penalty law targeting Palestinians and approved a record $271 bn budget. The budget allocates substantial funds to ultra‑Orthodox and settler communities, a move described by critics as an attempt to shore up Prime Minister Netanyahu’s waning support.Internationally, the United Nations, European Union and several Muslim‑majority states have condemned the new death‑penalty legislation, though Israel has so far avoided direct sanctions.Economists warn that the war’s fiscal impact extends beyond defence spending. A Le Monde analysis highlighted rising defence outlays, lost productivity from reservist mobilisation, and dampened consumer activity. While temporary tax cuts have mitigated fuel‑price spikes caused by Iran’s closure of the Strait of Hormuz, political economist Shir Hever cautions that Israel’s reliance on imported fuel means any relief is short‑lived.Hever likens the current economic trajectory to that of a “totalitarian state,” where military expenses are pursued arbitrarily, ignoring broader economic stability.Ultimately, the war’s duration may hinge more on U.S. policy than Israeli strategy. When asked by Newsmax about progress toward its goals, Prime Minister Netanyahu could only claim the effort was “halfway” achieved.

At the start of 2026 Pakistan was sitting on a surplus of imported liquefied natural gas (LNG). Three consecutive years of falling demand – from a peak of 8.2 million tonnes in 2021 to 6.1 million tonnes by late 2025 – were driven by cheap solar panels and reduced industrial activity. The government responded by quietly selling excess cargoes abroad and shutting down domestic wells to avoid over‑pressurising pipelines. Any gas that could not be diverted would have been pushed into household networks at a loss, adding billions to the sector’s crippling debt. Everything changed on 28 February when the United States and Israel launched the "Epic Fury" operation against Iran. The strikes killed Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and targeted missile sites, air defences and military infrastructure. Iran retaliated with hundreds of missiles and drones, choking traffic through the Strait of Hormuz – a chokepoint for roughly 20 % of global oil and gas. As part of its retaliation, Iranian drones hit Qatar’s Ras Laffan Industrial City on 2 March, the world’s largest LNG export hub. Qatar, the second‑largest LNG exporter after the United States, declared force majeure and halted all production, releasing it from contractual delivery obligations. The fallout was immediate. Qatar’s forced shutdown cut its LNG output by 17 % and disrupted the supply chain that fuels Pakistan, which sources almost all of its imported gas from Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. Pakistan’s LNG arrivals plummeted from 12 shipments in January to just two in March. Monthly cargo data from the Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority (OGRA) show that the country received between eight and twelve shipments a month through 2025, but only two arrived after the conflict began. Price pressure followed. On 13 February state‑owned Pakistan State Oil and Pakistan LNG Limited bought eight cargoes at an average of $10.47 per MMBtu (totaling $257.1 million). By 12 March the two cargoes that did arrive cost $12.49 per MMBtu – a 19 % increase in just one month. Long‑term contracts have left Pakistan with little flexibility. Two government‑to‑government agreements with Qatar, spanning 15 and 10 years, commit the country to nine shipments a month. Even as domestic demand fell – LNG’s share of Asian markets dropped from ~30 % in 2020 to ~18 % in 2025 – the contracts remained binding. Solarisation has been a double‑edged sword. By 2025 Pakistan installed 34 GW of solar capacity, with about 25 GW feeding the national grid, driving an 11 % decline in overall electricity demand between 2022 and 2025. Gas‑fired power plants built for imported LNG are now under‑utilised, especially during daylight hours. Analysts warn that the surplus was predictable. “Pakistan’s energy planning has been locked into long‑term contracts with little room for adjustment,” says Haneea Isaad of the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA). The resulting circular debt now stands at 3.3 trillion rupees (≈ $11 billion), and the government is negotiating to off‑load 177 unwanted shipments worth $5.6 billion through 2031. With Qatar’s LNG shipments effectively halted, the country faces a potential shortfall of more than 21 % of its power generation capacity. The National Electric Power Regulatory Authority confirmed that LNG supplies are under force majeure, while coal imports from South Africa and Indonesia continue. To mitigate the gap, Pakistan is reviving domestic gas production that had been throttled during the surplus period. Roughly 350–400 million cubic feet per day of domestic gas were previously held back for LNG imports, now being released to the grid. Nevertheless, analysts caution that even with restored domestic gas, imported coal and hydropower, “the energy shortage may persist, especially during the peak summer months.” Summer pressure is already building. The State of Industry Report 2025 recorded peak electricity demand of over 33,000 MW last summer, while winter demand sits around 15,000 MW, helped by solar generation of 9,000–10,000 MW daily. Furnace oil, the primary backup fuel, now costs 35 rupees per unit (≈ $0.12), more than double since the Strait of Hormuz disruption. Consumers with grid electricity face higher bills and possible outages; industrial users reliant on gas risk production cuts; those equipped with rooftop solar and battery storage are best insulated. “Returning to the spot market is unlikely given Pakistan’s dire financial position, and competing with wealthier nations would price the country out,” Isaad warns. “The realistic outcome may be planned load‑shedding of two to three hours daily.”

Rising fortunes among the ultra‑rich under the Trump administration have ignited a wave of tax‑reform campaigns across the United States. In California, volunteers like Karen Sanchez are gathering signatures for a one‑time 5% wealth tax targeting the state’s 200‑plus billionaires to offset federal cuts to hospitals, education and food‑assistance programs.At least ten states are exploring similar measures. Washington recently enacted its first income‑tax aimed at roughly 20,000 millionaire households, while Massachusetts and Minnesota already channel wealth‑tax proceeds into preschool, K‑12 meals and transportation infrastructure.On the federal front, Senators Bernie Sanders and Representative Ro Khanna have introduced the “Make Billionaires Pay Their Fair Share Act,” proposing an annual 5% levy on billionaire net worth. Khanna argues that the ultra‑wealthy fund private health insurers, defense contractors and political campaigns, creating a stark fairness gap.Data from Oxfam shows that in the twelve months after Trump’s re‑election, billionaire fortunes grew at a rate three times faster than the average annual growth of the previous five years. Meanwhile, the federal minimum wage has remained stagnant at $7.25 for fifteen years, underscoring the widening economic divide.A Data for Progress poll released last fall found that 70% of Americans believe the economic system favours corporations and the wealthy. “People are angry and want change,” says Amy Hanauer of the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP), noting that activists are leveraging every level of government to seek relief.The movement draws on a two‑decade history of class‑based activism, from the Occupy Wall Street protests to Senator Sanders’ 2016 campaign that foregrounded wealth‑tax proposals. Yet inequality has deepened: CEOs of the five largest U.S. firms now earn, on average, **$52 million** annually—over a thousand times the typical worker’s salary.Political spending by billionaires has also exploded. A recent New York Times analysis reveals that billionaire contributions rose from **0.3% of campaign funds in 2008** to **19% in 2024**, amounting to more than **$3 billion** from roughly 300 ultra‑rich donors, many of whom supported candidates opposing wealth taxes, including former President Donald Trump.The war in Iran has further inflamed resentment, with the United States spending **$11.3 billion** in the first week of bombardment—far exceeding the annual budgets of agencies such as the CDC, EPA and the National Cancer Institute.Local victories are feeding the momentum. New York City’s mayoral race saw Zohran Mamdani win on a platform that includes taxing the rich to fund affordable housing, groceries and transit. Councilmember Chi Ossé led a 1,500‑person march to the state capitol, urging Governor Kathy Hochul to permit a city‑level millionaire tax, a move that now has backing from some state Democrats.Beyond New York, states like Rhode Island, Hawaii, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Illinois and New Mexico are debating various wealth‑tax mechanisms, including the popular “mansion tax” on high‑value home sales. Currently, **17 localities** have adopted such taxes, most passed between 2018 and 2023.California’s gubernatorial race has become a flashpoint. Billionaire‑backed candidates Matt Mahan and Tom Steyer are vying to replace Governor Gavin Newsom, with the tech elite—such as Sergey Brin and Joe Lonsdale—pouring money into campaigns opposing the billionaire tax. Of the 30 billionaires who have contributed to the race, **25 supported Mahan**, who has positioned himself as a staunch anti‑tax candidate.For Sanchez, the stakes are personal. The proposed tax seeks to replace **$100 billion** in federal health‑care funding cut by Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” which threatens hospital closures and layoffs in the nation’s fourth‑largest economy. She aims to collect **875,000 signatures** by late June to secure the initiative on the November ballot.“It’s creating a network of groups all working toward a common good,” Sanchez says, reflecting a broader sentiment that collective action could finally translate the public’s demand for fiscal fairness into concrete policy.

Britain is confronting the most severe energy shock since the early 1970s, as exports of oil, gas and fertiliser from the Middle East have abruptly stopped. The government says a response plan exists, but details remain vague. It is unclear whether the UK is better prepared for the fallout from Donald Trump’s war with Iran than it was for the pandemic six years ago. Ministers are sending a "we have your back" message to the public while simultaneously signalling to financial markets that any assistance will be limited and targeted. Contingency planning is especially difficult when dealing with an unpredictable leader like Trump. Britain’s heavy reliance on imported energy and food means that reassurance can only hold for a short time. The economy entered the conflict already on shaky ground: unemployment rose steadily throughout 2025 and growth stalled to a virtual standstill in the final quarter of that year. The sudden loss of Middle‑East energy and fertiliser supplies now adds a colossal supply shock. Last year, Trump’s “liberation day” tariff hikes served as a dry run for a far more serious confrontation. This time, the war is taking place in a region that is both volatile and crucial to the global economy. In the past two weeks, the repercussions have been felt across Asia – the Philippines declared a state of emergency, Sri Lanka introduced a four‑day work week, and South Korea announced budget measures to help households cope with soaring energy bills. The continent is the most dependent on Gulf‑exported energy, making the impact there the sharpest. The International Monetary Fund warned that the shock will drive higher prices and slower growth worldwide. Shortages push fuel and food prices up, eroding disposable income, prompting businesses to cut staff, and increasing the risk of recession. The UK, already projected to be one of the poorest‑performing major economies in 2026, could see its fresh graduate cohort face a brutal job market. Trump’s claim that the war could end within two or three weeks appears desperate. Even a rapid cease‑fire would leave substantial collateral damage, creating a stagflation scenario that could hurt Republican prospects in the upcoming mid‑term elections. British officials hope a swift resolution will limit economic damage, allowing a short‑term inflation spike to subside and the Bank of England to resume interest‑rate cuts. Treasury plans include scrapping the planned autumn fuel‑duty rise and providing targeted help for the poorest households, though the path is unlikely to be that simple. Currently, the Treasury is hesitant to act boldly for fear of unsettling bond markets. History – the 2008 banking collapse and the 2020 pandemic – shows that governments can act decisively without triggering a market backlash, using tools such as aggressive rate cuts, increased borrowing, and quantitative easing. The Bank of England has warned of a "substantial negative supply shock" and is expected to soften markets for future rate cuts, which are inevitable. Finance Minister Rachel Reeves could mitigate labour‑market pain by reversing recent increases in employers’ National Insurance contributions, subsidising public transport, and even lowering speed limits to conserve energy. The war, like the pandemic and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, underscores the fragility of global supply chains and the need for greater British self‑reliance. Investing heavily in renewable energy is essential, but the UK also imports roughly 40% of its food and has not run a manufacturing trade surplus since 1982. In a world of disrupted supply lines, a robust plan for economic self‑sufficiency is more urgent than ever. Larry Elliott is a Guardian columnist.

The UK government is set to implement disability benefit cuts affecting nearly 730,000 severely ill and disabled people, reducing their universal credit support by half. The 'health element' of universal credit will be cut to £50 per week and then frozen, unless claimants meet strict criteria for being terminally ill or having a 'severe' and 'lifelong' condition. Charities and disabled people's organizations warn that this change will push people into deep financial hardship and, in some cases, destitution. They fear that families losing out on this vital income could face eviction, go without food and heating, and lose access to the care they depend on. The cut applies to new claimants, meaning that if someone applies for help next Monday, they will be on average £3,000 a year worse off by the end of the decade than if they'd applied this week. This has raised concerns about the fairness and effectiveness of the current welfare system. Critics argue that the government's approach to welfare reform is flawed, as it fails to account for the complexities of disability and illness. They suggest that a more comprehensive approach is needed, including investing in mental health services and preventive healthcare, to address the root causes of disability and support those in need.

UK businesses are planning to raise their prices more rapidly in the coming months due to the escalating costs triggered by the Iran conflict. A recent survey conducted by the Bank of England among over 2,000 chief financial officers revealed that companies now anticipate increasing their prices by 3.7% over the next year. This marks an increase from 3.4% in February, while the expectation of inflation across the economy has also risen from 3% to 3.5%. The effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz has significantly driven up oil and gas prices, leading to predictions of wider price rises as these higher costs impact industries. The UK Chancellor, Rachel Reeves, has met with retail bosses to discuss the risks of supply shortages and price increases. There is also pressure on her to mitigate the impact of likely rises in household gas and electricity bills before next winter and to reconsider plans for a 5p per liter increase in fuel duty set to take effect by next March. Bank of England policymakers are closely monitoring UK companies' pricing intentions as they consider whether to raise interest rates in the coming months from their current level of 3.75%. Financial markets are currently pricing in two interest rate rises by the end of the year, reflecting a sharp turnaround from expectations of rate cuts before the conflict began. However, Bank of England Governor Andrew Bailey has cautioned that markets may be getting ahead of themselves, and weak consumer demand may prevent companies from passing on cost increases to their customers. He noted that businesses often report an absence of pricing power. Inflation on the consumer price index was steady at 3% in February but is now expected to rise.

The United States has been proposing unusual bilateral health agreements to developing countries, mostly in Africa, in exchange for access to sensitive health data and critical minerals. These deals have sparked concerns of exploitation and have been met with resistance from several countries.In November, the US approached Zimbabwean authorities with a proposal that would have provided over $300m in funding in return for sensitive health data. However, Harare felt that the negotiations were 'lopsided' and promptly pulled out.Zambia also pushed back against a similar proposal, citing 'problematic' clauses that sought access to the country's minerals, including copper, cobalt, and lithium. The US had offered $1bn in funding over five years, but Lusaka requested a review of the proposal.Several African countries, including Nigeria and Kenya, have signed the health pacts, but the terms agreed remain unclear.Data or mineral demands in return for health aid are unprecedented in the history of US-Africa relations. Policy experts argue that tying crucial funding to sensitive national assets could have negative consequences for African nations and the US itself.'Supporting global health has clear benefits to the United States in terms of prevention of pandemics that can affect Americans too,' said Sarang Shidore, Africa director at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. 'Linking such aid to payoffs in the extraction of critical minerals smacks of exploitative practices.'African nations have long relied on US funding to foot many of their health bills. In 2024, African countries received $5.4bn in US assistance, largely spent on humanitarian, health, and disaster needs.However, the US has argued that aid cuts suit its America First agenda, which prioritizes national interests. The stance has been met with criticism, with some economists arguing that aid is often ineffective and causes overreliance.Washington is now focused on government-to-government deals, which have typically required governments to take on an increasing share of their own health budgets in the next four to five years.Some analysts see this as a positive move to reduce overdependence on foreign funding and force governments to prioritize health spending in their budgets. However, the clauses that Washington is demanding to leverage its aid for data, rare earth elements, and other minerals have caused widespread outrage in some countries.In the case of Zambia, the US reportedly asked for access to the country's critical minerals in return for $1bn over five years. The US also asked for a one-way data-sharing agreement for 10 years.If Lusaka fails to ink a deal, US aid funding to the country will be discontinued, which could mean losing the remnants of funding Zambia still receives from the PEPFAR programme.

The UK government's proposal to boost North Sea oil and gas drilling is unlikely to provide relief to consumers in the form of lower energy prices. Oil prices have surged to $100 a barrel following the US and Israel's attack on Iran, with potential increases to $150 a barrel due to supply issues in the Strait of Hormuz.Kemi Badenoch, leader of the Conservative party, has introduced a plan to 'get Britain drilling' by opening new oil and gas fields in the North Sea. However, experts argue that this will not reduce energy bills for UK consumers. Oil and gas are sold on international markets, and prices are set globally, so there is no direct discount for UK consumers.The Conservative party has previously acknowledged this, but now suggests that tax reforms and removal of VAT on bills could deliver £200 cuts to household energy bills. The plan involves scrapping the windfall tax on North Sea producers, which has raised about £12bn so far.Critics argue that the windfall tax is essential and that removing it would not stimulate production significantly. The tax does not increase prices to consumers and has the support of the International Energy Agency.Analysis suggests that redirecting tax revenues from the North Sea back to consumers would have a minimal impact on bills. A study found that households would gain only about £16 a year if tax revenues from a maximally exploited North Sea were redistributed.Badenoch's claims about job creation in the North Sea are also disputed. The sector is declining, and geology, not politics, will dictate the future of North Sea oil and gas. Most of the UK's sector has already been drained, with only about 218m tonnes of oil recoverable by 2050 from existing fields.New drilling could add only 74m tonnes of oil and 1.1% to gas production, equivalent to putting off the end of the North Sea by a year or two. Job losses in the sector are a concern, with at least 70,000 jobs lost in the decade to 2024.Experts stress that renewable energy sources are a more secure and sustainable alternative. The UK should focus on creating conditions for clean energy infrastructure to attract investment and drive growth.