Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

One year ago, US President Donald Trump introduced a 10% global tariff, sparking a trade war with far-reaching consequences. The immediate impact was severe, with the stock market experiencing its worst drop since the pandemic. In response, countries scrambled to negotiate deals with Washington or retaliate with their own tariffs. Recently, the Supreme Court ruled that most of Trump's tariffs are illegal, citing the president's lack of authority to impose broad, open-ended tariffs under a national emergency. However, this ruling did not end the trade war. Within hours, Trump invoked a different statute to launch a temporary tariff, set to expire in July. The effects of the tariffs have already reshaped the US economy. The average effective US tariff rate surged from 2.6% to over 13%, the highest level since World War II. This significant increase has led to higher costs for American consumers. According to the Tax Foundation, US households paid $1,000 more in 2025 for the same goods. Tarrifs work by imposing a tax on foreign goods and services, making them more expensive and encouraging local purchases. Despite Trump's promise that tariffs would reduce the trade deficit and make the US richer, the reality is that the average US consumer is worse off. The Penn Wharton Budget Model reports that the US collected over $287.1 billion in customs duties in 2025 and $64.4 billion in 2026. Economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York found that nearly 90% of the economic burden from tariffs has fallen on US businesses and consumers, with foreign exporters absorbing only a small percentage of the cost. Lower-income households have been disproportionately affected, as they spend a higher proportion of their earnings on essential goods like food, clothing, and transportation. Following the Supreme Court's ruling, the government may be required to refund up to $175 billion to businesses that paid the tariffs. With Trump's tariffs being replaced by a flat 10% tariff, the Tax Foundation projects that the average cost to US households will fall to about $600. While an improvement, it remains a significant cost for consumers.

President Donald Trump has announced a new policy threatening to impose 100% tariffs on US pharmaceutical companies that do not agree to lower their drug prices. This move is part of his effort to address the high cost of prescription medications in the US.The tariffs will specifically target branded drugs and their active ingredients, while generic drugs, which account for over 90% of medicines sold in the US, will be exempt for at least one year. Additionally, certain specialty drugs, such as orphan, veterinary, and other specialty drugs, will be exempt if they are from countries with which the US has a trade deal or meet urgent public health needs.Drugmakers that enter into pricing agreements with the White House and onshore drug production will be exempt from the tariffs. Companies planning to increase their domestic manufacturing will face a 20% tariff that will escalate to 100% over four years.The policy has been met with criticism from industry groups, such as the Midsized Biotech Alliance of America (MBAA), which argues that it creates an "unfair two-tiered system" that benefits large companies with diversified portfolios.Trump has been under pressure to lower drug prices, with US patients often paying nearly triple what patients pay in other developed nations. The announcement comes as the White House faces pressure from consumers to address rising costs amid other tariff-related price increases and high gas prices triggered by geopolitical tensions.

Forecasts indicate that the worldwide secondhand apparel sector will expand by 12% in 2024, reaching $289 bn (£217 bn), buoyed by artificial intelligence tools and social‑media influencers that help consumers locate desired items.Platforms such as Vinted, Depop, Vestige and ThredUp are expected to sustain an average 9% annual growth over the next five years, pushing the market to an estimated $393 bn—roughly double the growth rate of the broader clothing industry.The outlook stems from ThredUp’s latest resale report, which incorporates analysis from GlobalData. In 2021 the market was valued at just $141 bn, meaning the projected 2024 figure is more than double that baseline.Major brands—including Dr Martens, Zara and Mulberry—are now entering the resale space, either by offering pre‑owned pieces or refurbishing items to satisfy rising consumer demand."Resale is no longer merely expanding; it’s capturing direct market share," said James Reinhart, co‑founder and CEO of ThredUp. The report notes that resale now accounts for one‑tenth of global clothing sales, and that the U.S. secondhand market grew nearly four times faster than the overall market by 2025.ThredUp’s own revenue climbed 20% to $310.8 m last year. Depop reported a 42% increase to £101 m, while Vinted posted a 36% rise to €813.4 m (£710 m) in 2024. However, profitability remains elusive: ThredUp posted a $20 m pre‑tax loss, Depop a £42 m loss, and only Vinted turned a profit, earning €76.7 m. Depop was recently acquired by eBay from Etsy.Reinhart warned that rising inflation—spurred by geopolitical tensions that lift energy and fuel costs for manufacturers—could push more shoppers toward affordable secondhand options."The industry stays robust, driven by young consumers' behaviour," he added.Artificial intelligence is streamlining the massive inventories of resale platforms, enabling rapid cataloguing and matching of items to buyer preferences. "Netflix and Spotify spent decades building data and algorithms to recommend content; AI can achieve similar personalization for fashion almost instantly," Reinhart explained, noting that this reduces friction between spotting an item on social media and completing a purchase.Looking ahead, the market’s next phase will be defined by firms that can unlock supply and leverage AI to connect inventory with the next generation of shoppers, according to Reinhart.Analyst Neil Saunders of GlobalData highlighted that consumers aged 14‑45 (Gen Z and millennials) are projected to generate 70% of market growth. He emphasized that discovery tools must migrate to the social feeds where these shoppers spend their time, and that technology will be essential to simplify selling and maintain sufficient stock for expanding demand.

Global markets were jolted on Thursday as oil prices skyrocketed and stocks sank following a televised address by Donald Trump, in which he vowed to take 'extremely hard' action against Iran in the coming weeks. This development has dashed investor hopes of a swift resolution to the conflict in the Middle East.Brent crude prices jumped by 8% to surpass $109 a barrel, reversing the previous day's decline when hopes of de-escalation had briefly pushed the international benchmark below $100 a barrel.Asian markets were particularly hard hit, with Japan's Nikkei index falling 2.4%, China's CSI 300 index dropping 1.36%, and South Korea's Kospi tumbling 4.8%. In Europe, Germany's Dax fell 2%, France's Cac 40 dropped 1.15%, and Italy's FTSE Mib was down 1.45%. The FTSE 100 in London initially opened 0.7% lower but later stabilized, buoyed by gains in fossil fuel companies BP and Shell, which rose 4.5% and 3.1% respectively.Government borrowing costs also increased, with the yield on 10-year UK gilts rising four basis points to 4.886% and the two-year UK bond yield rising six basis points to 4.36%, reflecting growing fears of inflation due to higher energy costs.Chris Beauchamp, chief market analyst at IG, noted that investors are betting on the impact of delayed oil supply deliveries from the Gulf, given Trump's failure to provide guidance on a potential end to the US-Israeli conflict with Iran. 'Instead of 'no more war', we got 'no, more war!', Beauchamp said, highlighting the market's concerns about hundreds of millions of barrels of oil that may not be delivered soon.The US dollar gained 0.6% against a basket of major currencies as investors sought safe-haven assets, pushing the pound down by almost a cent to $1.321. The market turmoil is already affecting consumers, with the Bank of England warning that 1.3 million more homeowners may see their mortgage payments rise due to financial shocks from the Iran conflict.Additionally, data from the RAC showed that petrol and diesel prices jumped by a record amount in March, with the average price of a litre of unleaded petrol rising by 20p to 152.83p by the end of the month, surpassing the previous monthly record.

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 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.

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.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration announced on Wednesday that it has granted expedited approval to Eli Lilly’s oral weight‑loss medication, orforglipron—marketed under the brand name Foundayo. This makes Foundayo the second GLP‑1 pill to reach U.S. consumers, following Novo Nordisk’s Wegovy tablet approved in December. Orforglipron works by mimicking a natural hormone that regulates appetite and satiety, offering a non‑injectable alternative to existing GLP‑1 injectables. David A. Ricks, Eli Lilly’s chair and CEO, highlighted that fewer than one in ten eligible patients are currently using GLP‑1 therapies, citing barriers such as cost, stigma, and perceived complexity. Unlike Wegovy, which must be taken on an empty stomach each morning, Foundayo can be taken anytime of day regardless of meals, simplifying dosing schedules. Patients will start on a low dose that is gradually increased to mitigate side‑effects. Pricing is projected at $149 per month for the initial dose, with higher‑strength formulations potentially reaching $349 monthly. While private‑insurance coverage remains uncertain, a Trump‑administration proposal could allow Medicare to cover certain patients as early as this summer, with copayments as low as $50 per month. Distribution will commence on Monday through LillyDirect’s direct‑to‑consumer channel, with broader availability in pharmacies and telehealth platforms expected shortly thereafter. The convenience of a once‑daily pill is anticipated to improve adherence, especially for individuals who avoid injectables due to needle aversion or rigid dosing requirements. The approval follows a fast‑track submission submitted only months ago, positioning Foundayo to enter the market roughly three months after Wegovy. This rapid rollout is set to intensify competition in the burgeoning GLP‑1 space, where new agents are continually emerging with claims of better efficacy and lower costs.

The UK Prime Minister's recent announcement of a 'five-point plan' to address the energy crisis has been met with skepticism. During his remarks from Downing Street, Prime Minister Starmer outlined measures that were largely pre-existing or unrelated to the immediate crisis. The plan included: cutting energy bills by over £100 per household, which was announced by Chancellor Rachel Reeves in last November's budget and has since been adjusted to £117 for an average dual-fuel household; extending the cut in fuel duty until September; supporting people exposed to heating oil rises with £53m; investing in clean British energy through the Clean Power 2030 plan; and pushing for de-escalation in the Middle East. Critics argue that most of these points were not new and did not adequately address the current crisis. The plan did not provide specifics on who else could get help with energy bills or how targeted support would be delivered. The Clean Power 2030 plan, a five-year £200bn infrastructure project, will not yield immediate results for consumers, with savings expected to arrive around 2040. The article concludes that repeating measures from last November's budget is not a plan and that a proper five-point plan would be needed if an energy price shock turns into a supply shock, possibly meaning rationing.