Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

Prosecutors in Florida have moved to subpoena Tiger Woods' prescription drug records from a pharmacy, following his recent vehicle crash and DUI arrest. The legendary golfer's records from Lewis Pharmacy in Palm Beach, Florida, are being sought for the period from the start of the year through last month.The subpoena aims to obtain comprehensive details on Woods' prescription medication, including:the times prescriptions were filledthe number of pills dispenseddosage amountsany instructions provided with the medication, such as warnings about drivingAccording to court documents, prosecutors in Martin County, Florida, are seeking this information to aid in their investigation. Any objections to the subpoena must be filed within 10 days. Woods has pleaded not guilty in his DUI case.Woods' vehicle crashed on a beachside road on Jupiter Island, where he was traveling at high speeds in a 30-mile per hour zone. The accident resulted in $5,000 in damage to the truck. Although a Breathalyzer test showed no signs of alcohol, Woods refused a urine test.Following the incident, Woods announced he would be stepping away to seek treatment. This is not his first leave of absence following a car crash; in 2009, he took a four-month break after a previous accident.

Vice President JD Vance warned Iran that jeopardising the US‑Iran ceasefire over Lebanon would be "dumb", emphasizing that the United States expects the truce to remain intact despite Tehran’s frustrations. Pakistan, which brokered the two‑week ceasefire, publicly stated that Lebanon is part of the agreement. Vance, speaking to reporters in Hungary, countered that the United States does not consider Israel’s ongoing strikes on Lebanon as covered by the ceasefire. "If Iran wants to let this negotiation fall apart – in a conflict where they were getting hammered – over Lebanon, which has nothing to do with them and which the United States never once said was part of the ceasefire, that’s ultimately their choice," Vance said, adding, "We think that would be dumb, but that’s their choice." Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi echoed Pakistan’s position, highlighting Lebanon in his repost of Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif’s statement and asserting that the ceasefire terms are clear: the US must choose either a ceasefire or continued war via Israel. President Donald Trump and the White House, however, maintain that Lebanon was not part of the deal. Vance dismissed the contradictory messages as a "misunderstanding" and "bad faith propaganda," suggesting the Iranians mistakenly believed Lebanon was included. The lack of a clear explanation from US officials leaves observers questioning how such a misunderstanding could arise amid high‑stakes diplomacy. Israel’s track record of breaching ceasefires dates back to the November 2024 truce with Lebanon. On Wednesday, Israeli air strikes in Lebanon killed at least 254 people and injured more than 1,100, marking one of the deadliest assaults in the 15‑month conflict. Vance indicated that Israel has signaled a willingness to temper its operations in Lebanon, stating the Israelis have "committed to check themselves a little bit in Lebanon" to ensure the US‑Iran negotiations stay on track. The broader conflict intensified in early March after Hezbollah launched rockets in retaliation for Israeli attacks and the killing of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. Hezbollah now faces internal pressure from rival factions accusing it of dragging Lebanon into war on Iran’s behalf. Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) issued a stark warning: if Israeli aggression against Lebanon does not cease immediately, the IRGC will deliver a "regretful response" to what it called "evil aggressors" in the region.

The recent showdown between the US and Iran has ended with Iran emerging victorious and Trump being forced to pause his war efforts. This outcome is a clear example of how to defeat Trump. According to Robert Reich, a former US secretary of labor, the strategy that connects all the successful countermeasures against Trump is simple: refuse to cave to his demands, despite his superior military or economic power. Instead, use a kind of jiujitsu to turn Trump's power against him. Examples of successful countermeasures include: Iran using cheap drones and missiles to close the strait of Hormuz and drive up oil prices, putting pressure on Trump. China leveraging its control of rare earth metals to gain leverage in trade negotiations. Russia using its vast deposits of oil and natural gas to gain leverage over US allies. Canada and Mexico winning tariff showdowns with Trump by leveraging their economic importance to the US. Greenland curbing Trump's ambitions through public opinion. Inside the US, similar strategies have been used by: The people of Minneapolis, who organized non-violent resistance to protect immigrants. Harvard University, which leveraged its influence with federal courts to stop Trump's interference. Comedian Jimmy Kimmel, who turned a crisis into a ratings victory. Writer E Jean Carroll, who secured over $88m in damages from Trump in two civil cases. Law firms like Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, Susman Godfrey, and WilmerHale, which refused to follow Trump's executive orders. On the other hand, countries and organizations that have caved to Trump have only strengthened his leverage over them. For example, Europe seems incapacitated, fearing Trump will leave Nato, while media networks like ABC continue to lose viewers. The bottom line is that there is now a clear blueprint for how to defeat Trump: reject his demands and use your own asymmetric power to turn his power against him.

Janett and Erika Liriano, growing up in Queens as daughters of Dominican immigrants, were encouraged to dream big. By their late 20s, Janett had been named a Forbes 30 Under 30 Listmaker and was chief of staff at a biopharmaceutical firm, while Erika was making a name for herself in venture capital.However, feeling unfulfilled, they decided to leave their lucrative jobs and move to the Dominican Republic to start a chocolate company. Inspired by their parents' homeland and the country's rich cacao resources, they aimed to create a vertically integrated cacao company that would benefit local farmers.The Dominican Republic produces about 60% of the world's organic cacao, but most of its export is raw beans, with the majority of profit made in countries like Belgium, Germany, and the US. The sisters saw an opportunity to change this and create a more equitable supply chain.After months of research and planning, they launched Inaru Chocolate, a company that contracts directly with farmers and pays them a fixed rate, ensuring fair prices and better livelihoods. The company pays farmers 3% of every product sold, resulting in 30 to 50% higher earnings than what most other buyers offer.In 2023, they opened a 7,000-sq-ft chocolate factory outside Santo Domingo, employing 35 people and producing high-end chocolate. Their business model has attracted brands like the W Hotel and Zingerman's, with 80% of their business coming from B2B sales.The sisters' journey hasn't been easy, facing challenges like securing funding and navigating language barriers. Despite these obstacles, they have raised $12m in investments and are committed to creating jobs and empowering local farmers in their parents' homeland.

In a stark address delivered as the cease‑fire in the Iran conflict teetered, IMF Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva warned that the war will leave a permanent scar on the global economy, slowing growth beyond the IMF’s original projections for 2026. Georgieva noted that, had the hostilities not erupted six weeks ago, the Fund would have been poised to raise its 2026 growth outlook. Instead, even the most optimistic scenario now entails a downgrade, and a swift return to pre‑war conditions appears unlikely. The uncertainty surrounding the cease‑fire—exacerbated by divergent positions of Washington and Tehran—has already pushed oil prices higher, reflecting fears of continued disruptions to shipments through the Strait of Hormuz, a vital conduit for world energy supplies. According to the IMF’s upcoming World Economic Outlook, the conflict’s “scarring effects” will translate into lower living standards worldwide. The Fund had previously forecast global growth of 3.1% in 2026, a modest slowdown from 3.2% in 2025, buoyed by a tech‑driven investment surge. Georgieva emphasized that the war arrived when the economy was riding “considerable momentum” from technology investment and supportive financial markets. She outlined the mechanisms of damage: damaged infrastructure, supply‑chain interruptions, eroded confidence, and prolonged uncertainty over oil and gas production in the region. These factors will depress growth regardless of whether a peace agreement is ultimately reached. Georgieva highlighted that the most vulnerable will be net oil‑importing nations, poorer economies and small island states, which stand to feel the brunt of higher energy costs and reduced trade flows. She urged governments to avoid unilateral measures such as export bans or price controls, warning that such actions could "pour gasoline on the fire" and further destabilise markets. With many countries already carrying elevated debt levels and higher borrowing costs, the IMF chief called for targeted, temporary assistance to protect the most at‑risk households. She cautioned against broad tax cuts or blanket energy subsidies, which could stoke inflation and strain fragile public finances. Central banks, she added, should keep policy rates steady while remaining ready to act against inflationary pressures. Bank of England Governor Andrew Bailey, who also chairs the Financial Stability Board, echoed the IMF’s concerns, describing the conflict as a "very big shock" that has heightened market volatility. He stressed that the situation remains fluid and that policymakers must stay vigilant. Overall, the IMF’s message is clear: the Iran war will reshape the global growth trajectory for the foreseeable future, and coordinated, prudent policy responses are essential to mitigate its lasting impact.

On 23 June 2016, the United Kingdom’s electorate shifted from party‑centric voting to a binary choice between staying in or leaving the European Union. A decade later, about 60 % of the population still define themselves by the side they chose in that single referendum, turning a one‑off political decision into a lasting personal identity.While analysts often focus on the policy fallout—economic turbulence, party infighting, and shifting trade relations—the real impact runs deeper. The referendum ignited a civil‑war‑like split that continues to shape elections, media narratives, and everyday conversations across the country.Before the global upheavals of the George Floyd protests and the Covid‑19 vaccine rollout, Brexit was Britain’s most potent form of identity politics. It spawned new media outlets, such as GB News, and programmes like The Rest Is Politics, while also marginalising older cultural tropes like the “centrist dad” or “gammon” heckler on Question Time. Figures such as Nigel Farage and Zack Polanski now occupy the political fringe rather than the mainstream.The analysis draws on the new book Tribal Politics: How Brexit Divided Britain by political scientists Sara Hobolt and James Tilley. Their longitudinal surveys reveal a simple yet striking pattern: the referendum transformed a previously lukewarm public attitude toward the EU into a powerful, identity‑based habit.Prior to 2016, most Britons held only a mild Euroscepticism and gave the EU little thought. Even former Prime Minister David Cameron tried to silence the issue in 2006, believing it failed to engage voters. The sudden elevation of a niche concern to a national obsession forced ordinary citizens to pick a side, discuss it in pubs, and embed it into their self‑image—a process James Clear describes as building “identity‑based habits”.Data from Hobolt and Tilley show that emotional attachment to the Brexit identity was modest before the vote, rose sharply as the referendum approached, and surged dramatically after the result was announced. The post‑vote period saw a flood of EU‑themed merchandise, street rallies, and even flag‑clashes at cultural events such as the 2017 Last Night of the Proms.Crucially, the tribal divide has not faded. By 2025, only around 40 % of “Leavers” feel comfortable discussing politics with “Remainers”, and the sentiment is reciprocated. This goes beyond mere disagreement; it reflects a level of social discrimination where individuals on opposite sides would hesitate to share a home or marry into each other’s families.The authors note that the split now extends to perceptions of reality itself. Even in 2024, Remainers and Leavers disagreed on basic economic indicators, illustrating how the referendum reshaped not just policy preferences but fundamental worldviews.Class‑based voting, which dominated the 20th‑century British political landscape, has been largely supplanted by this new cultural cleavage. A previous study co‑authored by Tilley showed that the Labour Party’s turn toward the political centre in the 1990s eroded traditional working‑class loyalty. Today, leader Keir Starmer’s working‑class credentials appear largely symbolic, offering little substantive change.With class politics receded, culture wars have taken centre stage. The Brexit campaign’s vague promises about trade left the nation with a protracted, messy adjustment period. Immigration, famously dubbed the “baseball bat” issue by Dominic Cummings, remains the most polarising policy divide, followed by foreign aid and even the death penalty.Hobolt and Tilley’s most striking chart shows that while Remainers and Leavers clash over immigration, they share little disagreement on economic equality, workers’ rights, or public ownership—issues that directly affect household incomes. This suggests that the political battle is driven more by symbolic identity than by material concerns, benefitting those already financially secure.In sum, the United Kingdom’s post‑Brexit reality is one of entrenched tribalism, where a single referendum has reshaped social bonds, political discourse, and perceptions of truth itself. The nation continues to grapple with the legacy of a vote that turned a policy decision into a lasting cultural fault line.

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.

Atlético Madrid pulled off a remarkable 2-0 victory over Barcelona at the Camp Nou, dealing a significant blow to the home team's Champions League aspirations. The match's turning point came just before halftime when Barcelona's Pau Cubarsí received a red card for tripping Giuliano Simeone, and Julián Alvarez curled in a spectacular free-kick from the resulting spot, giving Atlético a crucial lead.The visitors doubled their advantage in the second half through Alexander Sørloth's header, which was set up by a beautifully worked move initiated by Antoine Griezmann. Despite being a man down, Barcelona pressed hard for a goal but were thwarted by Atlético's defense and the impressive form of goalkeeper Juan Musso.This win puts Atlético in a strong position ahead of the second leg at the Metropolitano, where they will look to secure a spot in the Champions League semifinals. For Barcelona, the defeat leaves them with a difficult task to overturn the deficit in six days' time.

Paris Saint-Germain dominated Liverpool in the Champions League quarter-final first leg, securing a 2-0 victory at the Parc des Princes. The gulf in quality between the two teams was evident throughout the match, with PSG creating numerous scoring opportunities.The hosts took the lead through a fortunate deflected strike from Désiré Doué, which looped over Liverpool goalkeeper Giorgi Mamardashvili. The Georgian goalkeeper made a vital contribution to prevent further damage at halftime, producing a fine save to tip away a Khvicha Kvaratskhelia shot that was heading towards the bottom corner.PSG extended their advantage in superb style through Kvaratskhelia, who held off Liverpool midfielder Ryan Gravenberch, rounded Mamardashvili, and converted into an unguarded net. The win leaves Liverpool facing a tough task to overturn the deficit in the second leg.