Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

The Lead: Trump's Wartime Coal Funding InitiativePresident Donald Trump is utilizing the Defense Production Act, a cold war-era statute typically reserved for national emergencies, to allocate $700 million in grants to coal-fired power plants across the United States. This move represents the latest effort by the administration to bolster what Trump calls "clean, beautiful coal," despite scientific consensus that coal remains the dirtiest of fossil fuels and a leading contributor to climate change.The Defense Production Act: A Novel Application for CoalTrump's announcement came during a White House press conference where he detailed how the $700 million investment would protect 14 coal plants and 42 coal mines across 10 states that all voted for him in the previous election. The funds will also finance the construction of two new coal plants in Alaska and West Virginia, as well as a new coal export terminal in Oakland, California, and the restart of an existing facility in Maryland."As a result of the $700m investment that I'm announcing today, we will protect 14 coal plants and 42 coalmines, a tremendous number, and build two new coal plants and one massive new export terminal," Trump stated.The administration's attempts to provide a cuddly rebranding to coal have even extended to creating a new mascot with giant eyes, called Coalie, and gushing social media posts that include an image of a lump of coal wearing sunglasses as if it were on the TV show Love Island."You're not allowed to say 'coal' within the Trump administration unless it's preceded by the words 'clean, beautiful,'" Trump said on Thursday. "Complicates our life, but it's good."Financial Implications: Cost of Coal vs. RenewablesDespite Trump's claims that the initiative will lower energy costs, energy experts maintain that coal plants are more expensive to build and operate than renewable power sources. The administration has previously doled out hundreds of millions of dollars to the coal industry, signed orders forcing ratepayers to pay extra for aging plants to remain operational, and dismantled environmental regulations limiting toxins from coal.The coal industry, however, applauded the new order, with Rich Nolan, chief executive of the National Mining Association, arguing that "coal generation shields consumers from the impacts of volatile energy prices and supply challenges" and will help meet increased electricity demand from the artificial intelligence sector.Environmental and Health ConsequencesEnvironmental groups have strongly criticized the administration's latest aid for coal, with Patrick Drupp of the Sierra Club calling it "disgusting and reprehensible" that taxpayer dollars are being given to "deadly and expensive coal plants that will make Americans sicker and drive up electricity prices even more."Scientific evidence shows coal is the most carbon-dense fossil fuel and a leading cause of the climate crisis when burned. Research has estimated that as many as 460,000 deaths in the US from 1999 to 2020 were attributable to air pollution from coal plants alone, which releases tiny toxic particles that sicken miners and trigger widespread respiratory and heart health problems.Future Outlook: Coal's Declining Market ShareDespite Trump's efforts to revive the coal industry, the sector continues to face significant headwinds. US coal production is currently less than half of what it was in 2008, with coal declining as both a fuel for electricity and as an input for manufacturing materials. The number of people working in coal has declined by more than 90% in the past century, with more people now employed at Waffle House restaurants across the US than in coal mining.Environmental advocates question the long-term viability of Trump's coal strategy, with Kit Kennedy of the Natural Resources Defense Council asking, "What's next, a taxpayer bailout to build new phone booths?" She characterized the move as "going to mean higher bills and dirtier air," calling it "a waste" of taxpayer resources.

EU Announces New Sanctions Targeting Extremist Israeli SettlersThe European Union announced on Thursday, 28 May 2026 that it is sanctioning four entities and three individuals it deems “extremist Israeli settlers” for “serious” human‑rights violations against Palestinians in the occupied West Bank.Specific Entities and Individuals Added to the Sanctions ListThe newly listed parties include:Nachala Settlement Movement and its director Daniella Weiss, accused of encouraging forced displacement of Palestinians.Israeli NGO Regavim and its director Meir Deutsch, cited for lobbying the demolition of Palestinian property and an EU‑funded primary school.NGO Hashomer Yosh and its president Avichai Suissa, linked to at least 28 violent outposts and settlements and the recruitment of armed volunteers.The Amana cooperative of the Gush Emunim settler movement, said to have played a key role in initiating, financing, and facilitating at least 30 violent outposts and settlements.Sanctions Scale: Cumulative Figures and Recent AdditionsWith these additions, the EU now sanctions 136 persons and 41 entities under its Global Human Rights Sanctions Regime, which was created in 2020. The regime covers acts such as genocide, crimes against humanity, and other serious violations.The latest round brings the total of newly sanctioned settlers to four entities and three individuals, following an earlier package announced earlier in May that also targeted Israeli settlers and Hamas leaders.Implications for the West Bank Conflict and EU Foreign PolicyThe sanctions mark a long‑awaited shift after a previous veto by Hungary’s illiberal government was lifted following the appointment of Prime Minister Peter Magyar. By targeting settler groups, the EU signals a stronger stance on settlement‑related violence, which has escalated since the start of Israel’s war in Gaza.Israel has condemned the measures, asserting a right to settle in the West Bank despite international‑law violations. The West Bank has seen the highest settlement expansion since 2017, and more than 1,000 Palestinians have been killed there according to UN figures.What May Follow: Potential Shifts in Regional DynamicsAnalysts expect the EU’s action could pressure the Israeli government to curb settler violence and reconsider expansion policies, especially as international scrutiny intensifies. Future EU steps may include further sanctions or diplomatic initiatives aimed at protecting Palestinian rights and stabilising the region.

The Enduring Appeal of BoundI'm not necessarily inclined towards what might typically be dubbed "feelgood." No, you won't find me seduced by a happy ending, nor am I partial to the oeuvre of Disney (in fact, I find all the talking animals and poreless princesses a bit grotesque). The raw edges and friction of feelbad have tended to be much better suited to my tastes: the porno chic slasher Knife+Heart, the sartorial murder of In Fabric and the snuff film-obsessed Thesis. Sex and gore, basically. For a long time, my favourite film was Crimes of the Future: a stomach-churning body horror about sexual-surgical experiments.A Queer MasterpieceHowever, there is one movie that reveals a slightly soft(er)core side to my viewing habits, which I frequently return to in order to feel the gushy feelings and butterflies of a school crush. That film is Bound. The 1996 directorial debut from the Wachowski sisters, the plot revolves around an opposites-attract scenario which is both familiar and high stakes: plumber Corky, and mafia moll Violet. When their eyes meet across an elevator, the tiny vestibule becomes thick with sexual tension: it is so on.Most of what makes this film work is the palpable chemistry between Corky, whose slick masculinity is embodied by Gina Gershon, and Violet, played with ultimate sex pot prowess by Jennifer Tilly. The whole thing is shot in the conventions of the sapphic gaze: we get plenty of closeups of Corky's hands wrestling with pipes, snaking holes and unscrewing things in languorous, laborious detail.Say what you will about how openly queer actors should play openly queer roles, but this film – starring two ostensibly cis, straight female leads – is a masterclass in lesbian eroticism. The two main actors so seamlessly embody a masc/femme dynamic, without the try-hard didacticism of many later cinematic attempts, to create a relationship that feels oddly real (except much, much hotter).Character Analysis and ChemistryHaving just starred as the vamp Cristal Connors in the trash-cult, 1995 Vegas romp Showgirls, it's uncanny to see Gershon undergo such a dramatic gender transformation to play a butch pin-up just one year later. It's not a stretch to say that Corky has the kind of sly smirk and shaggy hair that no doubt served as the blueprint to The L Word's Shane.And then, well, there's Jennifer Tilly. A porcelain doll: her sex appeal is painted on the surface of her pout and her whole-bosom sighs but, underneath, she has a strong and stony demeanour. A complex female protagonist who smolders and manipulates to get what she wants from men, and a femme imprisoned by her own beauty, Tilly delivers probably the most astute performance exploring the double life of a straight-passing lesbian which I have ever seen.The Plot and Its ThemesAnyway, back to the plot. What comes after our protagonists' initial meeting is oh-so relatable: Corky, having just got out of prison, is particularly vulnerable to Violet's high-femme charms. In a turn that can only be explained by unbridled lust, Corky agrees to help her in a mad caper to steal $2m from the mob and pin it on her boyfriend. I, too, fear that I would do whatever Violet asked me to.But, to be honest, the crime plot is pretty inconsequential to me. What do I care if they pull it off or not? If you're interested, however, there are some tired – almost femmephobic – overnotes, where Corky begins to doubt if Violet is really the lesbian she says she is, or if she will ditch her for a man the first chance she gets. But despite it all, they get their own happy ending.Interestingly, the plot draws an equivalence between the prison time served by Corky and Violet's very own sentence: the years she spends as a clandestine lesbian in straight relationships with men, for her own financial survival. At the end of the film, evading prison and with a stack of cash, they are both free: Corky of the criminal justice system, and Violet from the confines of cis-heterosexual society.Legacy and Cultural ImpactWhile this film came out about 30 years ago – in my birth year – it remains the most convincing depiction of dyke sexual dynamics I have ever seen on screen. While they weren't out at the time, the Wachowski sisters (both trans lesbians) were cinematically brave: depicting the cheek, mischief and pleasure of sapphic relationships with Bound. I'm of a different generation to the directors, and I supposedly have access to a whole plethora of queer representation, but if it wasn't for this film made by two trans women in the 90s, I wouldn't have cinematic proof of my own sexuality.Bound is available on Kanopy or to rent digitally in the US and to rent digitally in the UK and Australia

Netflix co-founder Reed Hastings is leaving the streaming service he co-founded 29 years ago, as the company regains its footing after losing a $72 billion deal for Warner Bros Discovery to Paramount Skydance.In a letter to investors released on Thursday, Netflix said Hastings will not stand for re-election at its annual meeting in June and plans to focus on philanthropy and other pursuits.The company's stock plunged about 8 percent on the news of Hastings's departure. The co-founder is credited with helping to revolutionize how movies and television shows are delivered in homes, upending Hollywood's business model.“Netflix is growing revenues double-digits, expanding margins in 2026 and gushing free cash flow,” said LightShed Partners media analyst Richard Greenfield. “While the Q1 was uneventful financially, the departure of Reed Hastings has spooked investors.”Netflix reaffirmed in a 14-page shareholder letter that its mission remains “ambitious and unchanged” – to entertain the world, providing movies and series for many tastes, cultures and languages. The company’s full-year outlook remained unchanged.The company did not say how it plans to spend the $2.8 billion termination fee it received after losing the Warner Bros movie studio and HBO, and lifted its earnings per share to $1.23 in the first quarter compared with 66 cents per share in the same quarter last year.Revenue rose to $12.25 billion, an increase of 16 percent from the year-ago period, modestly exceeding analyst forecasts of $12.18 billion.Netflix, which long told investors that a Warner Bros acquisition was a “nice to have, not need to have” proposition, highlighted areas of future growth.The company said its investment in expanding its entertainment offerings, with video podcasts and live entertainment – such as the World Baseball Classic in Japan – is driving engagement.It plans to use technology to improve the user experience and improve monetization, as advertising revenue remains on track to reach $3 billion in 2026 – a twofold increase from a year ago.

Becoming a parent reshapes every facet of daily life—the late‑night outings fade, responsibility expands, and the role shifts from being cared for to becoming a caretaker. This profound transition forms the emotional core of Jess Brodie’s new play, Gush. The playwright deliberately zeroes in on the moments before birth, a period she describes as a “still point” where reflection and anticipation collide. Rather than dramatizing labor itself, Brodie explores the inner landscape of a woman on the brink of motherhood. At the centre of the piece is Ally, a pregnant woman whose bulging belly becomes a visual reminder of her mounting anxieties. She grapples with sleepless nights, dietary restrictions, and the looming deadline of maternity leave, while also confronting an unfinished personal identity that must now accommodate the role of “mum”. Beyond the familiar pressures of pregnancy, the monologue delves into Ally’s quest for self‑realisation. The impending birth is portrayed as a ticking time‑bomb, intensifying her doubts about a middle‑class existence shared with a neurotic, controlling partner. The narrative questions whether she should finally honour the sexual desires she has long suppressed. Critics may note the play’s narrow focus—its politics are largely self‑absorbed, and its feminist themes risk sounding solipsistic. Nevertheless, Brodie’s script is laced with wit and unexpected turns, keeping the audience firmly engaged. In Becky Hope‑Palmer’s meticulously crafted production, the set—half stark white surface, half inviting cushion pool—mirrors the tension between alienation and comfort. It is Jessica Hardwick’s performance that elevates the piece. Her voice, both resonant and precise, navigates Brodie’s rapid tonal shifts—from irony to panic, embarrassment to eroticism, fury to humor—with remarkable sensitivity. Hardwick’s portrayal makes Gush a must‑see, even for those who might otherwise overlook the play’s limited thematic scope. The production runs at the Traverse Theatre in Edinburgh until 25 April.

When President Donald Trump inaugurated Operation Epic Fury with Israel on 28 February, his administration outlined broad goals: neutralise Iran’s missile programme, cripple its navy and prevent a nuclear breakout. Within a month those objectives morphed, expanded and at times directly contradicted each other. On 29 March, aboard Air Force One, Trump told reporters that Iran had accepted most of Washington’s 15‑point demand list, conveyed through Pakistan, and even shipped oil to the United States as a goodwill gesture. In the same interview he floated the idea of seizing Kharg Island—the hub for 90 % of Iran’s oil exports—stating, “maybe we take Kharg Island, maybe we don’t. We have a lot of options.” The following day, 30 March, Trump posted on Truth Social that the United States was in “serious discussions with a new, more reasonable regime” in Tehran and claimed “great progress.” He simultaneously warned that, absent a swift deal, the U.S. would destroy Iran’s power plants, oil wells, Kharg Island and even its desalination facilities, and would force the Strait of Hormuz to reopen immediately. By 31 March, with U.S. gasoline prices climbing above $4 per gallon, Trump hinted at a rapid withdrawal, saying the U.S. would leave Iran “within two or three weeks.” He told European allies that if they needed oil or gas they could “go up through the Hormuz Strait” on their own, and rebuked the United Kingdom for not standing up for itself. On 1 April, Trump claimed on Truth Social that Iran’s new leadership had requested a U.S. cease‑fire, but only after the Hormuz Strait was “open, free, and clear.” He reiterated that the war was “not about oil,” yet threatened to blast Iran’s electric grid “back to the stone ages.” Iran’s foreign ministry dismissed the cease‑fire request as “false and baseless,” and the Revolutionary Guard warned the strait remained under its control. Following a U.S.–Israeli strike that demolished a bridge between Tehran and Karaj on 2 April, Trump posted that the next targets would be “bridges, then electric power plants,” signalling an escalation despite earlier talk of withdrawal. Finally, on 3 April, he suggested that reopening Hormuz and seizing Iranian oil could become a “gusher for the world,” a stark reversal of his earlier assertion that the conflict had nothing to do with oil. These rapid shifts illustrate a pattern of policy flip‑flopping that complicates diplomatic efforts, fuels market uncertainty, and raises questions about the strategic coherence of the U.S. approach to the Iran war.