Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

The recent conflict in the Gulf has served as a harsh wake-up call for the British public regarding the state of the UK's armed forces. While air defence systems and fighter jets were swiftly deployed, the delayed arrival of a single destroyer, HMS Dragon, to Cyprus underscored concerns about Britain's military preparedness. Former Nato secretary general George Robertson criticised Keir Starmer for showing a 'corrosive complacency towards defence', warning that this put the UK in peril. In response, ministers pointed to 'decades of underinvestment' by previous governments and announced plans for the largest sustained increase in defence spending since the Cold War. The Ministry of Defence aims to spend 3.5% of GDP on defence by 2035. However, defence analysts argue that the UK's military has suffered from a 'lethal combination' of Treasury hostility to defence spending and the Ministry of Defence prioritising investment in ships and aircraft over the army. The British army has shrunk significantly since 1991, from 155,000 troops to 75,000 troops, with a reduction in armoured and infantry brigades. Defence experts, such as Ben Barry of the International Institute for Strategic Studies, blame this decline on inadequate resource allocation. Matthew Savill, director of military sciences at the Royal United Services Institute, notes that the UK has a decent spread of reasonably modern capabilities but faces several problems, including a lack of mass and reliance on allies. 'We've cut a lot of corners and in many cases we rely on our allies. That means we're particularly reliant on the US and others in certain areas and it can come back to bite,' Savill added. Britain's commitment to increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP from April 2027 is more ambitious than France's, but experts suggest that the UK can learn from France's approach. The UK's plans have been influenced by Poland's military transformation, which has seen defence spending rise to 4.8% of GDP, the highest among Nato countries.

Goldman Sachs's chief executive, David Solomon, has expressed heightened awareness of the capabilities of Anthropic's Mythos AI model and is collaborating closely with the tech firm following warnings about the cybersecurity risk it poses.The US bank has been closely monitoring the rapid advancements in artificial intelligence, including large language models (LLMs), as part of broader efforts to protect itself from hackers.“Obviously the LLMs are making rapid progress and we’re hyper-aware of the enhanced capabilities of these new models with the help of the US government and the model publishers,” Solomon told analysts on an earnings call on Monday.Anthropic, the company behind the Claude family of AI tools, claimed last week that its latest model, Mythos, posed an unprecedented risk due to its ability to expose flaws in IT systems. The company warned that AI models have reached a level of coding capability where they can surpass all but the most skilled humans at finding and exploiting software vulnerabilities.Solomon emphasized that Goldman Sachs is working closely with Anthropic and all of its security vendors to harness frontier capabilities. “We are very focused on supplementing our cyber and infrastructure resilience. And this is part of our ongoing capabilities that we have been investing in, and are accelerating our investment in.”The news comes after the US Treasury secretary, Scott Bessent, summoned Solomon and other big American bankers to Washington to discuss the Mythos model last week. The meeting focused on heads of so-called systemically important banks, where regulators believe that a major disruption to their operations, or their potential collapse, would put financial stability at risk.On Monday, the UK government’s AI Security Institute (AISI) warned that Mythos was a “step up” over previous models in terms of the cyber threat it posed. AISI said Mythos could carry out attacks that required multiple actions and discover weaknesses in IT systems without human intervention.

Some American cities shortlisted to host the 2031 Women's World Cup are contemplating withdrawal due to concerns related to Fifa's management of this summer's World Cup. The cities are exploring alternative options, such as focusing on hosting the 2031 Rugby World Cup instead.There are 40 stadiums on the US Soccer Federation's longlist for potential 2031 Women's World Cup venues, while World Rugby has received expressions of interest from 27 cities featuring 33 stadiums, with 20 stadiums appearing on both lists. Cities like Chicago and Pittsburgh have already declined to enter the running for Women's World Cup hosting rights, reportedly due to concerns about Fifa's financial demands.A source working with one of the cities in question noted that World Rugby is offering greater commercial freedom and has fewer demands regarding access to stadiums. Another source indicated that the Rugby World Cup is likely to be more profitable due to the demographic profile of rugby supporters and their expected spending on match attendance.Fifa delayed confirmation of the 2031 World Cup hosts from the end of this month to an unspecified date this year. The joint proposal from the US, Mexico, Costa Rica, and Jamaica is currently the only bid on the table. Additionally, there are concerns about the US government not providing Fifa with mandatory guarantees regarding obligations on visas, tax, safety, and security.The experience of dealing with Fifa for the upcoming men's World Cup has not been uniformly positive for all cities, with issues such as safety and security costs and public transport problems. World Rugby has announced that it will finance its event and share profits or losses with USA Rugby, rather than requiring hosts to underwrite the tournament.

The US Treasury secretary, Scott Bessent, recently convened a meeting with major American bank chiefs in Washington to address growing concerns over the cyber risks associated with Anthropic's latest AI model, Claude Mythos. This model has reportedly exposed thousands of vulnerabilities in software and popular applications.The meeting, which included Jerome Powell, the Federal Reserve chair, and CEOs from prominent banks such as Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, and Wells Fargo, was called to discuss the potential risks posed by this advanced AI technology. Jamie Dimon of JP Morgan was invited but could not attend.Anthropic has restricted the release of Claude Mythos to a limited number of businesses, including Amazon, Apple, and Microsoft, due to concerns that hackers could exploit the model's capabilities to compromise data security. The company has noted that the model uncovered vulnerabilities up to 27 years old that had not been previously identified.This development comes as the US government has designated Anthropic as a supply chain risk, a designation the company is contesting in court. The meeting highlights the increasing concern among regulators and financial leaders about the potential for AI to both enhance and threaten cybersecurity.

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.

SpaceX, led by Elon Musk, is gearing up for a historic initial public offering (IPO) that could value the aerospace and artificial intelligence company at $2 trillion. As part of its efforts to raise $75 billion, potentially the largest public offering in history, SpaceX will host an event for 1,500 retail investors in June.In a departure from the norm, the company has allocated a significant portion of its shares, up to 30%, for non-professional, non-institutional investors. This move is seen as a bid to leverage Musk's popularity among individual investors. The process will begin with a 'roadshow' to bankers on June 7, followed by the retail investor event on June 11.Bret Johnsen, SpaceX's chief financial officer, emphasized that retail investors will play a critical role in this IPO, stating that they have been 'incredibly supportive' of the company and Musk. The offering will be open to investors from the UK, EU, Australia, Canada, Japan, and Korea.The company's revenue reached $15 to $16 billion last year, with Starlink, its satellite internet service, and contracts with the US government being major contributors. Analysts predict revenues could reach $20 billion in 2026, driven by growth in satellite and space ventures.SpaceX's ambitious plans include developing datacentres in space to address energy challenges through a constant supply of solar power. The company is working on Starship, touted as the world's 'most powerful launch vehicle,' which is expected to play a crucial role in these endeavors.

Satellite‑imaging firm Planet Labs confirmed it will indefinitely suspend the distribution of visuals covering Iran and the wider Middle East conflict zone, responding to a direct request from the United States government.The California‑based company communicated the decision to its customers via email on Saturday, stating that the administration had asked imagery providers to impose an “indefinite withhold of imagery.”This restriction builds on a 14‑day delay introduced last month, which itself extended an earlier 96‑hour hold. Those temporary measures were intended to prevent hostile actors from exploiting commercial satellite data to target U.S. and allied forces.Planet Labs will withhold all imagery captured since March 9 and expects the policy to stay in place until the end of the war, which began on Feb. 28 when the United States and Israel launched aerial strikes against Iran. Since then, the conflict has escalated, with Iran firing missiles and drones at Israeli and U.S. assets and striking civilian infrastructure throughout the Gulf region.Founded in 2010 by former NASA scientists, the company said it will shift to a “managed distribution” model, releasing images only on a case‑by‑case basis for urgent, mission‑critical needs or when deemed to serve the public interest.“These are extraordinary circumstances, and we are doing all we can to balance the needs of all our stakeholders,” Planet Labs said in its statement.Satellite technology remains vital for military operations—supporting target identification, weapons guidance, missile tracking, and communications. Some space analysts warn that Iran could still access commercial imagery through adversarial channels, while journalists and researchers rely on such data to monitor hard‑to‑reach areas.

As the 2026 local and regional elections draw nearer, the spectre of Trussonomics looms large over the British political landscape. From the Conservatives to the Greens, parties are unveiling extravagant fiscal promises that they claim can be funded by cuts elsewhere or additional borrowing, while insisting the broader economy will remain unharmed. Critics warn that any adverse effects will inevitably be shifted onto people and businesses outside the parties' core constituencies, effectively socialising the risk. Only Keir Starmer and his Labour cabinet appear to resist the pressure to re‑engineer the economy without acknowledging inevitable spill‑overs or extra costs. Former Prime Minister Liz Truss famously pledged £45 bn of tax cuts, financed through extra borrowing and so‑called welfare “efficiencies”. The plan was pitched as a catalyst for an entrepreneurial surge that would lift the UK out of a prolonged period of low productivity. Heading into May’s local polls, the Conservatives are touting a new “big‑spending” agenda after recent welfare cuts, highlighted by a headline pledge to shrink the welfare bill by £23 bn. Shadow Chancellor Mel Stride declared that the “culture of ‘something for nothing’ must end, now”. Green Party leader Zack Polanski has softened some of his party’s more radical proposals, yet the manifesto remains vague. Earlier drafts featured a litany of “free lunches”, signalling an ambition to raise taxes by **more than £170 bn a year** by the end of the next parliament. Key components of the Green plan include a £90 bn annual carbon tax and a matching increase in day‑to‑day public spending, alongside a proposed £90 bn boost to the capital‑spending budget (raising it from £160 bn to £250 bn per year). Reform UK has embraced Trussonomics with gusto, promising to raise the income‑tax threshold from £12,570 to £20,000 – a move that would cost the exchequer **over £40 bn each year**. Underlying many of these pledges is a belief that the UK can reverse a century of economic decline with a “magician’s wand”, ignoring potential repercussions for financial markets, trading partners, and a rapidly disintegrating global order. While the article briefly references the United States and France, the French electorate’s recent rejection of similarly flamboyant policies in local elections serves as a cautionary tale: voters in key cities like Paris and Marseille opted for centrist candidates over the radical platforms of Marine Le Pen’s National Rally and Jean‑Luc Mélenchon’s LFI. The broader context is a decade marked by two major wars, a quantum technological shift, and accelerating climate change – none of which offer quick‑fix solutions. Labour’s economic strategy, championed by Rachel Reeves, hinges on an early‑parliament spending surge intended to generate growth before the next general election. However, the damage inflicted by the previous government is still being reassessed, with the public‑finance gap now appearing larger than the £22 bn initially highlighted by Reeves. Labour still holds considerable funds earmarked for investment, but bureaucratic inertia in Whitehall hampers swift action, and Starmer bears responsibility for this paralysis. Demonstrating tangible returns on public spending – with HS2 currently the sole benchmark – could justify future tax increases on higher earners, provided the money is not wasted. In an uncertain world, the article argues that rational, evidence‑based governance is preferable to “outlandish initiatives” that create a multitude of losers. Ultimately, the piece concludes that Truss’s experiment was a disaster not merely because of the misguided belief that tax cuts can drive sustainable growth in a mature economy, but because it relied on an imagined “escape hatch” to propel the UK to a higher economic plane.

More than 100 United States‑based international law scholars have signed an open letter denouncing the recent US‑Israeli strikes on Iran as a violation of the United Nations Charter and potentially amounting to war crimes. The letter, released on Thursday, asserts that the campaign – launched on February 28 – proceeded without UN Security Council authorization and without credible evidence of an imminent Iranian threat. According to the scholars, the legal basis for force against another state exists only in self‑defence against an actual or imminent armed attack, or when expressly sanctioned by the Security Council. Iran has not attacked the United States or Israel, and the Security Council did not approve the operation. The experts organize their concerns into four categories: the legality of the war decision, the conduct of hostilities, threatening rhetoric from senior officials, and what they describe as the dismantling of civilian‑protection safeguards within the US defence establishment under Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth’s “gloves‑off” approach. Among the most alarming incidents highlighted is the strike on a primary school in Minab, Iran on the first day of the conflict, which killed at least 175 people, the majority of them children. The letter also cites attacks on hospitals, water treatment facilities, and energy infrastructure, emphasizing that schools, health facilities, and homes have been targeted. The signatories condemn public statements by senior US officials, including a mid‑March remark by former President Donald Trump that the United States might strike Iran “just for fun,” and early‑March comments from Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth dismissing “stupid rules of engagement.” They argue that such rhetoric reflects an “alarming disrespect” for international humanitarian law, which is designed to protect civilians and combatants alike. Financially, the letter notes that the war is costing US taxpayers up to $2 billion per day, underscoring the broader economic burden of the conflict. The open letter was co‑authored by prominent legal scholars such as Yale Law School’s Oona Hathaway, former State Department legal adviser Harold Koh, NYU’s Philip Alston, and former Human Rights Watch chief Kenneth Roth. While the authors focus on the United States’ conduct, they warn of a heightened risk of atrocities throughout the region. Emphasizing the need for consistent application of international law, the scholars write: “We urge US government officials to uphold the UN Charter, international humanitarian law, and human rights law at all times, and to publicly make clear US commitment to and respect for norms of international law.”