Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

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.”

President Donald Trump announced on Truth Social that Pam Bondi is being removed as Attorney General, ending a contentious 14‑month stint at the Justice Department. Bondi, who described her upcoming shift to the private sector as a "transition," will leave the post within the next month. In a rapid reshuffle, Trump elevated Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche—who previously served as the former president’s criminal‑defense lawyer—to acting attorney general. The president also hinted that EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin could become the permanent replacement, signaling a continued preference for close allies in key legal roles. Bondi’s ouster follows a series of high‑profile controversies. Most notably, her management of the Jeffrey Epstein files drew intense scrutiny. After promising full transparency, the Justice Department released heavily redacted documents that failed to satisfy public and congressional demands for a "client list" and other evidence. Critics, including victims’ attorney Gloria Allred, called her departure "long overdue" for mishandling the files. Beyond the Epstein saga, Bondi struggled to deliver the political prosecutions Trump expected. Efforts to pursue former FBI Director James Comey and other officials linked to investigations of the president stalled or collapsed, fueling Trump’s frustration that she was not "weaponising" the department aggressively enough against his perceived enemies. Bondi, a former Florida attorney general and the state’s first female AG, built a reputation on tough‑on‑crime initiatives such as combating human trafficking and cracking down on "pill mills." However, her limited involvement in the original Epstein non‑prosecution deal and her heated exchange with a Democratic lawmaker—where she called him a "washed‑up loser"—further eroded confidence in her leadership. The White House confirmed that Bondi’s private‑sector role will be announced "in the near future," while Blanche issued a statement on X thanking Trump for the trust placed in him and pledging to "continue backing the blue, enforcing the law, and keeping America safe." Congressional oversight intensifies as the House Oversight Committee had scheduled Bondi to appear before it on April 14 to answer questions about the Epstein documents. With her exit, committee chair James Comer said Republicans would deliberate whether to pursue the subpoena, while Democrats, led by Robert Garcia, insist she "will not escape accountability." Reactions span the political spectrum: Democrats such as Senator Elizabeth Warren denounced the DOJ under Bondi as a "cesspool of corruption," whereas Republican Senator Chuck Grassley praised her responsiveness to oversight and noted a decline in violent crime during her tenure. Republican Thomas Massie urged the next AG to release all Epstein files and pursue arrests. As the administration searches for a permanent attorney general, the choice between Blanche and Zeldin will signal how closely Trump intends to align the Justice Department with his political agenda moving forward.

President Donald Trump escalated rhetoric on Thursday, stating that the United States has yet to begin a full‑scale campaign against Iran’s remaining infrastructure and hinting that bridges and electric power plants could be next targets. The comment followed the release of video showing a U.S. strike on the newly completed B1 bridge that connects Tehran to Karaj, an attack that Iran reports killed eight people and injured 95. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi condemned the strike on civilian infrastructure, describing it as evidence of the “defeat and moral collapse” of the aggressor. In a statement posted on X, he warned that such attacks would not force Iran to surrender. The conflict, now entering its fifth week, has begun to ripple through regional and global markets. Instability around the Strait of Hormuz—a vital conduit for oil and gas—has prompted nations to scramble for alternative shipping routes. Satellite images this week captured smoke over Iran’s Qeshm Island, underscoring the heightened risk to infrastructure near the strategic waterway. Amid stalled negotiations with Iran’s new leadership, Trump’s intensified language comes as the United Nations Security Council prepares to vote on a resolution that could authorize member states to use “defensive means” to keep the strait open. Araghchi warned that any provocative action in the Council would only worsen the situation. Iranian media have begun listing potential retaliation targets, naming major bridges in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Jordan as possible future strike points. The semi‑official Fars News Agency highlighted these crossings as vulnerable following the Karaj bridge attack. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) claimed responsibility for recent strikes on U.S.-linked industrial sites in the Gulf, including steel facilities in Abu Dhabi and aluminium plants in Bahrain. The IRGC warned that if attacks on Iranian industries continue, “the next response will be much more painful” and will focus on the occupier’s core infrastructure. Health infrastructure has also suffered. Iran’s Health Ministry reported that U.S. and Israeli raids severely damaged the Pasteur Institute of Iran, a key research center for diseases such as cholera and COVID‑19. Ministry spokesperson Hossein Kermanpour called the strike “a direct assault on international health security.” WHO Director‑General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus echoed the condemnation, noting that the institute is now unable to deliver health services. The WHO has documented more than 20 attacks on Iranian healthcare facilities since the start of March. In a separate claim, Iranian officials said air defenses downed a second U.S. F‑35 fighter jet over central Iran, suggesting the pilot’s survival was unlikely. The United States has not responded to the allegation. Israel’s military reported a fresh barrage of Iranian missiles, which triggered air‑defence alerts and caused damage to homes, vehicles, and a train station in Tel Aviv. The widening hostilities, combined with threats to critical energy and health infrastructure, highlight the growing regional volatility and its potential to disrupt global markets.

The 70‑year‑old grandson of H. B. Reese, the man who created Reese’s Peanut Butter Cups, has publicly accused the $42 billion Hershey Company of quietly swapping the original milk‑chocolate and peanut‑butter formulas for cheaper compound coatings and “peanut‑butter‑style crèmes.”Brad Reese’s complaint, first aired on LinkedIn on Valentine’s Day, claims the confectionery giant has been “rewriting recipes” across flagship brands, a practice he describes as an “ingredient drift” that undermines both brand integrity and shareholder value.At a recent investor conference, Hershey announced it would restore the classic recipes for roughly 3 % of select products by next year, while insisting that the iconic Reese’s Peanut Butter Cups have never been altered.Chief Growth Officer Stacy Taffet explained that the company is “transitioning our sweets portfolio to colors from natural sources” and is committed to aligning all Hershey and Reese’s offerings with their historic milk‑ and dark‑chocolate formulas.Reese, however, dismissed the move as a “board‑level accountability problem,” arguing that the delayed rollout has already prompted shareholders to sell stock and that “your consumers are revolting.”In an interview with the New York Times, Reese labeled Hershey’s actions a “PR stunt,” insisting that a genuine commitment would mean an immediate return to the original recipes.Hershey counters that the recipe revisions are not a reaction to Reese’s criticism but stem from a strategic decision made after a 25 % increase in research and development spending aimed at talent, technology, and nutrition science.The dispute has taken on a personal dimension for Reese, who alleges the changes began after Hershey acquired the Reese’s brand in the 1960s. He recounts a recent taste test of Reese’s Unwrapped Chocolate Peanut Butter Creme Mini Hearts, stating, “I had to spit it out—it wasn’t real milk chocolate or real peanut butter.”Reese’s family, speaking to USA Today, clarified that his statements are his own and do not reflect the family’s view, adding that they continue to respect Hershey’s leadership and believe H. B. Reese would be proud of the brand’s current stewardship.Undeterred, Brad Reese retorted on LinkedIn that Hershey is “shooting the messenger,” accusing the company of managing perception rather than fixing the alleged product issues and warning that “the evidence chain isn’t going away.”

The Guardian’s investigation has revealed that the company responsible for the unauthorised partial felling of a 500‑year‑old oak in Whitewebbs Park, Enfield, was Ground Control, a maintenance business that reports a turnover of £190 million. The tree was cut down in September 2025 on behalf of Mitchells & Butler Retail (MBR), the owner of the Toby Carvery restaurant chain. MBR initially defended the action, claiming its contractor warned that the oak was diseased and posed a safety risk. However, a coalition of experts – including a Forest Commission investigator and ancient‑tree specialist Russell Miller – found the tree to be healthy with no imminent danger. Miller described the alleged “hazard” as an old, semi‑occluded wound that did not justify felling the entire tree. According to Dr. Ed Pyne of the Woodland Trust, the delay in identifying the contractor highlights a broader lack of transparency: "What evidence exists that the tree was dangerous? What qualifications did the operatives have?" He added that the justification for the removal remains unsubstantiated. Ground Control’s own documentation shows the work was assigned to its grounds‑maintenance team rather than its specialist arborists, a detail that fuels further criticism of MBR’s decision‑making process. Sources close to the firm say an internal review was conducted by a contracts manager, not a tree expert. Enfield Council, which owns the park, has launched legal action to evict Toby Carvery after MBR refused to apologise or offer compensation. The council also referred the incident to the police, but officers declined to investigate, deeming it a civil matter. Complicating the dispute, MBR is majority‑owned by investment group Enic, which holds strong financial ties to Tottenham Hotspur. The football club plans to develop a women’s training academy on 17 hectares adjacent to the park, a proposal opposed by the local campaign group Guardians of Whitewebbs. The group has secured a judicial review of the planning permission, set for June. In a statement last April, MBR asserted that its “specialist arboriculture contractors” deemed the split and dead wood a serious health‑and‑safety risk. A Toby Carvery spokesperson declined further comment, citing ongoing legal proceedings. The revelation of Ground Control’s involvement adds a new layer to the controversy, raising questions about corporate responsibility, environmental stewardship, and the adequacy of legal protections for historic trees in urban green spaces.

Three United Nations experts have urged for a thorough and independent investigation into Israel's recent killing of three journalists in Lebanon, condemning the incident as 'another egregious attack on press freedom by Israeli forces.'The UN special rapporteurs, Irene Khan, Morris Tidball-Binz, and Ben Saul, emphasized that journalists carrying out their professional duties in armed conflict are civilians and must not be targeted or made the object of attack.They stated that the deliberate killing of journalists not directly participating in hostilities constitutes a serious violation of international human rights and humanitarian law and a war crime. The experts also stressed that working for media outlets affiliated with an armed group does not mean journalists are directly participating in hostilities under international law.The Israeli military killed Al Mayadeen journalist Fatima Ftouni, her brother Mohamad Ftouni, and Al-Manar's Ali Shoaib in a targeted strike on their car in southern Lebanon on March 28. Israel accused Shoaib of being a fighter with the Lebanese armed group Hezbollah, but provided no evidence and was rejected by Shoaib's colleagues and the UN experts.The UN experts warned that Israel's killing of Lebanese journalists is part of an effort to silence reporting on Israel's military action in Lebanon and shut down news coverage of war crimes, similar to what occurred in Gaza. They also noted that Israel was responsible for two-thirds of all killings of journalists in 2024 and 2025, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ).At least 1,345 people have been killed and 4,040 wounded in intensified Israeli attacks across Lebanon since early March, according to the Lebanese Ministry of Health.

According to Al Jazeera, smoke and embers were spotted over Isfahan shortly after a strike took place in the area. The visual evidence points to a recent incident that has heightened concerns about security and stability in the region. While details about the perpetrators or the scale of the strike remain unclear, the presence of smoke suggests a significant impact on the city’s environment and its residents.

The ongoing closure of the Strait of Hormuz, a crucial oil and gas shipping route blocked by Iran since the US-Israeli attacks began, is having ripple effects around the world. If the strait remains closed, transport blockages across the Middle East could cause significant shocks to food and medicine supplies in the UK.UK Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper is hosting a meeting with 35 other countries to discuss reopening the strait. Experts warn that a prolonged closure could lead to food price inflation doubling in England and medicine shortages due to disrupted supply chains.Impact on Food SuppliesProf Tim Lang from City St George's, University of London, warns that 'all bets are off' for food supplies if the crisis continues. Rising fossil fuel prices will impact food transportation and production, as fuel is used to transport food and produce fertilizers and other inputs.The farming sector is already facing problems, with dairy production hit due to delayed fertilizer purchases and salad vegetable and dairy producers facing disruptions. Iranian imports like pistachios and saffron are also affected.Impact on Medicine SuppliesWhile there's no hard evidence of medicine shortages yet, price increases are being seen, which can signal disruptions in the medicine supply chain. Iran does not manufacture many medicines but affects the sector through rising energy costs and transport links between major pharmaceutical-producing countries and the UK.David Weeks from Moody's notes that shortages are driven by delays in petrochemical precursors for active pharmaceutical ingredients. Medicine stockpiles in European countries, including the UK, can last up to six months, but long-term conflicts could lead to more severe shortages.

A US court has dismissed a lawsuit from WhatsApp's former security chief, who alleged that parent company Meta ignored internal flaws he flagged about the messaging app's digital defenses.Abdullah Baig, who claims he was fired in retaliation for raising these concerns, had alleged that billions of users had been put at risk because of these vulnerabilities. Thousands of employees could view sensitive user data, including profile photos and location, Baig claimed in the lawsuit filed in September. A judge ruled he had not presented enough evidence to move forward.The US district court in northern California ruled last month to dismiss Baig's claims, with the judge, Laurel Beeler, writing on 19 March that 'the complaint does not contain sufficient facts to show that the plaintiff reported violations of SEC rules or regulations.'Baig was head of WhatsApp's security division from 2021 to 2025. He said he had expressed concerns about cybersecurity issues to his supervisor five times but was ignored; he also said he wrote directly to Meta's CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, about what he saw as a violation of US Securities and Exchange Commission rules and escalating retaliation against him. He also claimed that the company didn't fix the hacking of more than 100,000 accounts daily – and focused instead on user growth. At the time, WhatsApp said in a statement that he was 'a former employee dismissed for poor performance' who had filed a suit based on distorted claims.A WhatsApp spokesperson said: 'This ruling reaffirms what we've said all along: These claims have no merit. We're proud of our strong record of protecting people's privacy and security, and will continue building on it.'Baig's lawyer suggested in a statement emailed to the Guardian that the legal fight was not over. 'Mr Baig is not done fighting for users,' said Wilmer Harris, who represents Baig. 'The judge dismissed on pleading grounds, not merit, and we look forward to addressing those deficiencies and ensuring Meta has to finally engage with the substance of Mr Baig's allegations.'