A “dark money lobbying network” bankrolled by a major donor to Reform UK has been associated with “open advocates of far-right remigration”, said Byline Times.

Aerospace tycoon Richard Smith “owns 55 Tufton Street, the Westminster townhouse that houses a cluster of opaquely funded right-wing lobby groups”. One of these, the New Culture Forum, has platformed speakers who call for “mass deportations of ethnic minority British citizens”.

“A lot of the people who have come here legally, especially over the last 30 years, and those who have been born here, they don’t belong here,” Restore Britain campaign director Charlie Downes told the forum’s podcast, “Deprogrammed”, in August 2025.

As seen in the Makerfield by-election, Reform UK is being challenged on its right by Restore, which has advocated for “reverse mass migration”. Once a fringe, far-right concept, remigration is gaining traction not only in Britain but across the world.

What is remigration?

In general terms, it describes the process of an immigrant voluntarily returning to their country of origin, said Al Jazeera. However, in a far-right context, remigration has been appropriated as a “method of ethnic cleansing”, where “all non-white people are forcibly removed from traditionally white countries”.

The idea can be traced back to Nazi Germany of the 1930s, but it was revived by French novelist Renaud Camus’ “widely debunked” 2011 book “Le Grand Remplacement”, which advocated the Great Replacement theory.

Fifteen years later, the meaning of remigration can be “elusive”, said The Economist. The term is now “less a set of policies and more a catch-all term for a vision of Europe with its ethnic and cultural identity rid of what they call ‘Afro-Arab replacement migration’”. Proponents hope to capitalise on voters who feel “uneasy at the rapid scale of demographic change they witness around them”.

Is it becoming mainstream?

Social media is both driving and reflecting the rise in messaging around remigration policies. The idea gained “mainstream visibility” last year, said the Centre for the Study of Organised Hate. During 2025, there were 952,000 mentions of the term by 303,000 unique authors on social media – more than double the year before.

Support is also becoming more visible beyond online forums. In May, more than 500 activists and influencers congregated in Portugal for Remigration Summit 2026. “VIP guests” included former US Border Patrol chief Gregory Bovino and Jared Taylor, editor of white supremacist magazine American Renaissance, said Politico.

“Several thousand” anti-immigration protesters took to the streets of Rome in mid-June in support of a citizens’ initiative bill named “Remigration and Reconquest”, said Deutsche Welle. The bill, which gathered the 50,000 signatures required for discussion in parliament, includes proposals to offer foreigners financial incentives to agree to what it calls voluntary repatriation, while incentivising Italian families to have more children.

Who is pushing for it?

Many European parties have outlined their support for remigration in their election manifestos, said the Centre for the Study of Organised Hate. These include the Austrian Freedom Party, Alternative for Germany, and Dutch parties Forum for Democracy and Conservative Liberals.

Others who have expressed interest in remigration include Flemish Interest in Belgium, Lega in Italy, Vox in Spain, Alternative for Sweden, the Finns Party in Finland, and Reconquête (Reconquest) in France.

But it has also found favour in the Trump administration. In November, the official X account for the Department of Homeland Security posted that “the stakes have never been higher, and the goal has never been more clear: Remigration now”.

Does it have support in the UK?

“Millions will have to go,” said Rupert Lowe at the official launch of Restore Britain in February. The party’s manifesto promises that a legally resident foreign national in the UK who is “unable to speak English, lives in social housing, claims benefits, refuses to work, fails to integrate, commits crime or actively hates our way of life” would be deported under a Restore government.

But whether the concept has widespread appeal with the electorate is more doubtful. A YouGov poll in August last year found that 45% of Britons approved of “an immigration scenario whereby no more new migrants were admitted, and large numbers of recent migrants were required to leave”.

However, questioned on the specifics, respondents varied wildly; while 90% of those in favour supported the deportation of asylum seekers coming via small boat crossings, only 26% supported the removal of skilled migrant workers and even fewer supported expelling healthcare workers or foreign nationals who had taken British citizenship.

The Department of Health and Human Services is moving to make adjustments to testosterone-therapy labels, reversing changes made over a decade ago that restricted availability for some men. With hormone drugs being hailed as yet another wellness drug, experts worry the requested adjustments could trigger a testosterone free-for-all.

Why is the HHS asking for revisions?

The Food and Drug ​Administration as of 2015 required testosterone therapy labels to state that the “safety and effectiveness of the treatment had not been ​established” in men with symptoms associated with idiopathic hypogonadism, an age-related condition “involving low testosterone levels without a known underlying cause,” said Reuters. Now the HHS is requesting that labels be revised to remove that statement. The HHS also wants to update information related to prostate cancer risk and revise warnings regarding enlarged prostates after reviewing new data and evidence on the safety and benefits of hormone therapy.

These updates could “pave the way for easier access to testosterone replacement therapy” for a wider subset of men, said CNN. During Men’s Health Month, the HHS is “putting science back at the center of men’s healthcare,” said HHS Secretary of Health Robert F. Kennedy, Jr in a press release.

What are the risks of lessening the barrier to testosterone therapy?

No matter the outcome of the suggested revisions, experts warn that patients should still have “in-depth talks with their doctors about whether testosterone therapy could be helpful for them,” and doctors should “complete thorough evaluations,” said CNN. Besides, taking a warning off a label “isn’t the same as saying every man should be on the medication,” Jamin Brahmbhatt, a urologist and men’s health expert at Orlando Health, said in an email to the outlet.

For a man who genuinely has low testosterone, the “benefits are real: improved energy, sex drive, mood, muscle and bone strength,” Brahmbhatt said of testosterone therapy. However, for those with normal levels that are just “chasing an improvement in health motivated by online influencers,” the risks “may not outweigh the benefits.”

While experts insist that testosterone is not just a lifestyle drug that “men take to build muscle and feel good,” it is “increasingly being marketed that way,” said Nature. Influencers and “podcasters such as Joe Rogan and his guests” have “sung the hormone’s praises” and “scores of testosterone clinics are popping up” globally.

People have always “wanted a fountain of youth,” said Landon Trost, a urologist, to the Houston Chronicle. Hormones, “since really the 1970s or even earlier,” were considered the magical pills to achieve that goal. Today, the hormone is “widely prescribed in ways that aren’t covered by insurance” and that don’t “always align with mainstream medical guidance,” said the outlet.

Andy Burnham is preparing his bid for No. 10 after returning to Parliament as a Labour MP.

Burnham is “widely considered a frontrunner”, said The Independent, but now that Keir Starmer has announced his resignation, there are still a couple more weeks for other leadership candidates to throw their hats in the ring.

Some voters, though, are “terrified”, said The Sun, at what a perceived “hard-left Burnham government will do to their bank balances”.

Tax

Labour’s manifesto promise not to increase the rates of income tax, VAT or employee national insurance contributions “will stay”, said The Times, but Burnham has suggested he would raise the £12,570 tax-free personal income allowance for workers.

The former Greater Manchester mayor told the BBC’s Question Time that the personal allowance had been a topic raised “on so many doorsteps” and that, as a result, he would be willing to “have a proper look at this” to develop policy.

Inheritance tax changes “could also be a possibility”, said MoneyWeek, highlighting that, as health secretary in 2009, Burnham suggested a flat 10% charge applied to all estates, “with the money being used to fund social care for all”.

And, in a move that will “terrify middle England”, said The Sun, he has floated reintroducing the “hated” 50p top rate of tax.

Property taxes

Burnham has also “shown enthusiasm for taxing wealth more heavily”, said IFA Magazine.

Writing for The Guardian in 2010, Burnham proposed a land value tax on the market rental value of land. He argued this would “allow for the abolition of stamp duty”.

Such a move would “discourage land hoarding and encourage productive development”, said Tembo Money, but it could raise “legitimate concerns about fairness” for “asset-rich, income-poor homeowners” who might find it difficult to meet higher annual bills.

Mortgages

The credibility of Burnham in the markets, said Sky News, “will matter most for our borrowing costs”.

Burnham has sought to reassure bond investors that he will stick to the government’s existing fiscal rules. But if doubts were to emerge in markets, “mortgage borrowers could be among those to feel the consequences”, said the Financial Times.

Any massive spending plans outlined by Burnham could “trigger a bond market meltdown”, said The Sun, which would push fixed mortgage rates up.

Pensions

In good news for pensioners, Burnham has “reaffirmed the government’s commitment to the triple lock”, said Morningstar, despite “intense scrutiny” of the policy.

But he could use changes to pension tax relief or reductions in the pension tax-free lump sum as a “means of targeting wealth, and raising revenue, without deploying headline wealth taxes”.

The importance of the chancellor 

The “choice of chancellor” will also influence how bond markets react, said The Independent. Currently, Rachel Reeves is seen “as stable, consistent and predictable – all things the market likes”.

A chancellor with a “reputation for fiscal discipline” might “reassure markets”, said MoneyWeek, but a “less disciplined” candidate “could have the opposite effect”.

Credit is a decisive factor in your financial life. The three-digit number influences everything, from whether you are approved for a loan to whether you can rent an apartment or even get hired for some jobs.

With the stakes that high, it’s important to be clear-eyed about what does and does not influence your credit score. The problem: There are a number of credit-related myths floating around that commonly trip people up. Here are some big ones to watch out for.

Myth #1: It boosts your score to carry a balance.

“Nearly 6 in 10 cardholders (59%) say carrying a small balance on their cards will improve their score,” said LendingTree, based on a recent survey it conducted. But this is broadly not true. “In fact, the opposite is more likely to be true.” Carrying a balance from month to month will not only lead you to pay interest on that amount, but it can also drive up your credit utilization rate, which, when high, negatively impacts your credit score.

Myth #2: Checking your credit score can lower it.

When you check your credit score — a good financial habit to have, actually — it does not affect your score. The misunderstanding here is likely due to a lack of clarity around soft credit pulls and hard credit pulls. “Checking your credit score is considered a ‘soft pull,’ which doesn’t affect your credit score,” said CNBC Select. Instead, it is “actions, such as applying for a credit card,” that involve a hard pull, which is what “temporarily dings your credit score.”

Myth #3: Closing an account will improve your score.

Paying off an account in full and then closing it, or doing the same for an account you no longer use, may seem like good credit hygiene. But in actuality, it can have the opposite effect on your score. That is because when you do so, “your score may take a hit if your credit utilization ratio drops,” said Bankrate. Additionally, the “length of your credit history may change, which could also negatively affect your score,” especially if the account you closed was one of your older ones.

Myth #4: Your income affects your credit score.

When lenders are reviewing your application for a credit card or a loan, they will likely take into consideration your income, as that influences your ability to repay the amount borrowed. Your income does not, however, have a bearing on your credit score. Put simply, “your salary and income are considered measurements of your capacity to pay bills, not your potential credit risk,” said CNBC Select.

Factors that do influence your score include your payment history, credit utilization rate, length of credit history, mix of account types and applications for new credit.

Another prime minister resigning from office adds to the “unprecedented instability in the modern history” of Britain, said an editorial in Le Monde.

Following his announcement on Monday, Starmer will still “seek to make his final mark on the world stage as a lame-duck prime minister”, said Politico. But a planned EU-UK summit on 22 July has been postponed amid indecision over Britain’s intentions regarding the continent.

With Starmer’s imminent departure, and many of the policies of his likely successor Andy Burnham as yet unknown, Britain’s instability is having tangible consequences on the world stage.

How was Starmer viewed?

“God save the king and this desolate land of the United Kingdom,” said Antonello Guerrera in La Repubblica. Since Starmer was elected in 2024, he has appeared a “robotic and insipid leader” on the domestic front. He has “always been a Hamlet: paralysed by indecision, doubt, and sunk by tragic ineptitude”. And on Monday, “the curtain fell”.

But, aside from being “humiliated” by Donald Trump on social media, many world leaders thanked Starmer for his service, including his “staunch ally” Volodymyr Zelenskyy, his “comrade” Emmanuel Macron, and Giorgia Meloni. Ursula von der Leyen, president of the European Commission, paid tribute, saying: “It can take many leaders years to grow into the statesman you became in just two years.”

“Pragmatic, cool and rational”, Starmer embodied a strain of “anti-politics” and could get the job done without a fuss, said Enrico Franceschini in La Republicca. But these qualities were eroded by a “lack of charisma, the inability to communicate, and the limited political vision of a prime minister animated by good intentions but unable to implement them”.

Where did it go wrong?

“Beleaguered” Starmer’s tenure was “troubled” from the outset, said Euronews. From failing to declare gifts in the first few months of his premiership, to appointing Peter Mandelson as US ambassador, to numerous policy U-turns on “welfare reform, introducing digital IDs and scrapping winter fuel payments”: his time in office was “littered with controversy”.

Starmer was also “undone by economic stagnation” and “underspending on defence”, said Quentin Letts in The Washington Post. But perhaps the reason he stayed in power so long was that there was “no obvious answer” as to who could replace him.

Fundamentally, Starmer “broke his promise of stability” and “orchestrated constant changes of strategy”, said Claudi Pérez in El País. In his defence, he inherited a “poisoned chalice” of “stagnant” growth, but overall, like “bad tennis players”, he made “too many unforced errors”.

Is Britain an isolated case?

Since Britain voted to leave the EU in 2016, No. 10 has become a “hot seat”, said Deutsche Welle. Whoever succeeds Starmer will be the seventh leader in that period, and will be “grappling with profound political, economic, and social problems”.

Before Starmer, according to Der Spiegel, the UK had “gambler” David Cameron, someone who tried to “pick up the pieces” in Theresa May, the “scandals”-ridden Boris Johnson, a “zigzag” six-week tenure from Liz Truss, and a leader of “negative momentum” in Rishi Sunak. Downing Street has become a “transit station”.

But the rest of Europe is equally fractured, said Pérez in El País. Since the financial crisis in 2008, there has been a “collapse” of centrist parties in Europe. France has had seven prime ministers in the past eight years, and in Germany, Friedrich Merz’s popularity is “plummeting” and the “grand coalition is falling apart”. Further afield, the US’ “politics are a mess”.

Is the future brighter with Burnham?

The “charismatic” Burnham is a “rising star”, with “decades of experience in national and regional politics”, said DW. And he is perhaps the “last hope to counter the rising right-wing populists of Reform UK”.

The new MP for Makerfield provides a “glimmer of hope” for the UK, said Pérez in El País, not least because he is in favour of “resetting the relationship with the EU”. That is the “greatest reform this country needs”. It has been “plagued by a nauseating post-imperial nostalgia, an epidemic of fear, and a mediocre political class that has been hitting rock bottom for almost 20 years”.

Burnham “may well prove a more skilled rider”, said The Washington Post. But each of the last six prime ministers “arrived promising to be the exception to the merry-go-round of predecessors and unquenchable voter rage”. And he “won’t have much time to figure it out”.

Andy Burnham appears to be heading to No. 10 unopposed after Keir Starmer resigned on Monday and his main leadership rival rowed in behind him.

With the new PM set to be in place by the time Parliament returns from summer recess at the start of September, attention is already turning to who the key players could be in a Burnham government, and what their appointment says for its likely direction.

Ed Miliband

The energy secretary and former Labour leader has long coveted the role of chancellor and had been widely seen as the frontrunner to replace Rachel Reeves. He has been a “key champion of Burnham with the parliamentary party and shares the same desire for Labour to enact more radical change, from tax overhaul to public control of utilities”, said The Guardian.

Yet Miliband’s opposition to further North Sea oil and gas licences and strict adherence to net zero commitments, even as energy bills have rocketed, has made him increasingly unpopular with the trade unions and wider public.

Burnham “may have cooled on the idea” of appointing Miliband to the Treasury, said The i Paper, but expect him to get another big position in government even if he misses out on his dream job.

Wes Streeting

Another name being touted as a potential chancellor is one-time PM leadership rival Wes Streeting. The former health secretary, who resigned from Cabinet last month, has withdrawn from the leadership contest and decided to back Burnham, saying on X that the new MP for Makerfield is “committed to building an inclusive party that draws on the best of our political traditions”.

One of Labour’s best communicators, with a compelling personal story, but hailing from the right of the party, his appointment as chancellor or to another top Cabinet job could “align the competing wings of the party” and “show – or at least give the impression – that Labour is more united than voters think”, said Mauricio Alencar, politics and economics reporter for City A.M.

Louise Haigh

The former transport secretary was forced to quit just months after Labour took office in 2024 over a prior fraud conviction, but has now emerged as a “crucial power broker” on the backbenches for the party’s “soft left”, said BBC chief political correspondent Henry Zeffman.

She was “at the heart of the huge rebellion which scuppered the government’s welfare cuts in 2025”, led Burnham’s Makerfield by-election campaign, and is “in line for a big cabinet job”.

Miatta Fahnbulleh

The MP for Peckham has been one of Burnham’s most vocal supporters in Parliament. A former civil servant who ran the left-wing New Economics Foundation think tank, Fahnbulleh resigned as a junior minister for communities in the aftermath of the May local elections.

Hailing from the Labour left, she has “thrown her weight behind a number of highly controversial economic policies including imposing a wealth tax, nationalising several public companies across water and transport, rolling out further green financing and taxing other streams of income more”, said Alencar. Understood to be helping Burnham work on policy, she is a “rising star” in the party and has even been touted as a dark-horse bet for chancellor, in what would be a “radical break from Starmer’s premiership”.

Anneliese Midgley

Relatively unknown outside Labour circles, Midgley was elected MP for Knowsley, near Makerfield, only in 2024 but has been an “influential force in the Labour movement for much longer than that”, said Zeffman. She worked for both Keir Starmer and Jeremy Corbyn in opposition and before that at the Trades Union Congress (TUC) and Unite.

She is seen as a “plausible candidate” for chief whip or even political secretary in Downing Street, “not a job usually held by an elected politician”.

Moving into a new apartment can require putting down a lot of money up-front. One of the main costs prohibitive for many renters is the security deposit, a lump sum that the landlord will typically keep until you move out in case of any damages. But with security deposit alternative services offered by financial technology companies, renters are now getting the opportunity to bypass this requirement altogether.

While these options can be “useful in the short term because they help keep cash in your pocket,” they do carry risks, said The New York Times. And they are certainly not cost-free. Here is what to know.

How do security deposit alternatives work?

They replace the “need for a large up-front payment with other financial products or payment structures,” said Rentable, a security deposit management and assistance app. Instead of paying the traditional security deposit in a lump sum, “renters may pay a non-refundable fee or monthly fees, which are paid directly to the service provider and are typically not refunded.”

The exact model depends on the service, which the landlord will usually choose. Generally, “these alternatives tend to cluster into three categories: surety-bonds, insurance-type models and installment financing products,” said Tax Credit Adviser, an outlet covering the affordable housing industry. “The surety bond structure requires an initial payment,” while “an insurance-type model adds an additional premium to tenants’ monthly rents.” Meanwhile, the installment option involves making smaller payments over time (a personal loan is a common example of an installment debt).

Why are renters using them?

It is estimated that “millions of renters use the services,” said the Times. The reason? Many “struggle to cobble together cash for the up-front costs needed to sign a lease.” Not only does a security deposit alternative allow you to avoid that large lump sum due at the outset, that money is also not tied up for the duration of the time you rent.

Typically, a security deposit runs “about $800,” said the Times, citing a 2025 survey of renters by Zillow. And that cost is often in addition to a number of other initial expenses, such as an application fee and first and last month’s rent.

Are there any risks or drawbacks to these services?

Although it is possible a security deposit alternative could save you — or, at least, save you from forking over a large amount at once — they do still involve handing over money. For example, “if you used an alternative service with an annual fee of $130 at a property that required an $800 security deposit, and you stayed at a property for 10 years, you would have paid $1,300,” said the Times. Unlike a traditional security deposit, however, these amounts are not refundable.

There are also potential “legal and regulatory issues” involved in these alternatives, since they are “relatively new” and “some areas may limit use,” said Buildium, a property management software company. The protection offered is not necessarily the same, either. “If your landlord files a damage claim during your lease, none of the fees paid to the alternative services apply toward those costs,” said the Times, potentially putting renters in the position to pay more.

Under the terms of the US-brokered ceasefire agreed last October, the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) withdrew to a demarcation line known as the “yellow line”, and retained control of some 53% of Gaza. Nearly all of Gaza’s two million residents are living in Hamas-controlled areas, where the militant group has tightened its grip: since the turn of the year, it has extended its control over security, tax revenue and government services.

In the meantime, Israeli forces have pushed the yellow line steadily into Hamas-controlled areas. PM Benjamin Netanyahu recently confirmed that Israeli forces now control about 60% of Gaza, and that he hopes to increase that to 70% (though Israel officially denies that it wants to occupy the strip permanently).

In at least one place, Israel has moved the yellow line to intersect with Salah al-Din Road, Gaza’s main north-south artery.

What were the terms of the ceasefire?

In theory, Israel and Hamas stopped fighting on 10 October. Under Phase One of the deal, Hamas agreed to return the last 20 hostages it had taken during its attack on Israel in October 2023, while Israel agreed to release 1,950 Palestinian prisoners, mostly Gazans. Israel also allowed aid delivery to resume.

Under the second phase of the deal, announced by Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff in January, military control was to be handed over to an International Stabilisation Force, and civilian affairs to a Palestinian-led technocratic administration. The IDF was meant to withdraw further; Hamas was meant to disarm; and international funds were to be provided for Gaza’s rebuilding.

Why has progress stalled?

Israel refused to withdraw before Hamas disarmed, arguing that it would leave a security vacuum that a technocratic administration or international force could not fill. It also complains that the remains of dead hostages have not been returned. The Palestinians, and Arab mediators, regard this as a violation of the ceasefire deal. And though the intensity of fighting in Gaza – at least 70,000 Palestinians were killed in the two years to October – has slowed greatly since the ceasefire took effect, it has not stopped. According to the Gaza Health Ministry, more than 900 Palestinians have been killed there since October 2025; a substantial proportion of these deaths occurred near the yellow line. Five Israeli soldiers have also been killed in Gaza.

How are conditions in Gaza?

The vast majority of Gaza’s occupants – about 1.7 million – are still living in tents or makeshift accommodation, according to the UN. Overcrowded campsites are afflicted by raw sewage and pests such as rats and weasels.

The World Health Organisation says there have been reports of some 111,500 cases of disease or infestation due to external parasites this year. About 728,000 school-aged children have been out of formal education for almost three years. Only about half of hospitals are even partially functional. Thousands of patients needing medical treatment have been evacuated to more than 30 countries, including through the Rafah Border Crossing into Egypt, which reopened in February.

Meanwhile, aid agencies continue to have trouble making humanitarian deliveries to Gaza; they were halted last week following Iranian attacks on Israel. Food shortages continue, and one in five families are eating only once a day, the UN says.

Is any rebuilding taking place?

Ahead of the ceasefire, Donald Trump and his aides talked of turning Gaza into a gleaming hub for trade, tourism and tech. The “Board of Peace” unveiled by Trump in September was supposed to oversee the reconstruction, which the UN estimates could cost more than $70 billion. But so far, no contracts to clear the rubble and start rebuilding have been awarded, while the Board of Peace is struggling with funding shortfalls.

Meanwhile, Israel is razing buildings on its side of the yellow line (it says it is taking down uninhabitable buildings, and destroying structures that could pose a threat to Israel and the IDF).

How strong is Hamas now?

During the war, Hamas lost roughly 10,000 fighters, most of its political top echelon, and nearly the entire military command council that planned the massacres of 7 October 2023. Prior to the war, however, it had run Gaza since 2007 – and it has used the truce to rebuild. It immediately launched a crackdown on rival gangs that had taken control in parts of Gaza City and Rafah.

By February, it had largely reasserted control over the population: traders say Hamas fighters routinely extort fees and taxes from them. Israeli intelligence assessments now suggest that Hamas has rebuilt some of its infrastructure, including sections of its underground tunnel network and command-and-control systems.

Are there any signs of diplomatic progress?

Talks designed to push the ceasefire plan forward began in Cairo last week. According to a draft text, Hamas would hand its weapons over to an agreed Palestinian authority, in return for Israel announcing a timetable for its departure from Gaza. However, these proposals have not been accepted by the US or Israel, which has reportedly drawn up plans for a new round of attacks on Gaza, to begin when the war with Iran ends.

What other challenges are there?

The US is distracted by the Iran conflict. Netanyahu is seeking re-election by late October, and is unlikely to view an Israeli withdrawal from Gaza as politically expedient; ministers in his coalition have long talked of overseeing the “voluntary migration” of Gazans from the enclave. Gazans are very concerned that Israel now controls much of their territory, including around 60% of its fertile agricultural land, the majority of its water wells, and some of its wastewater facilities.

With the U.S. and Iran arriving at a “memorandum of understanding” to end hostilities, President Donald Trump seems to think petroleum prices will come down immediately. “Let the oil flow!” he wrote on social media. But while average gas prices did fall just below $4 per gallon after the deal was signed, economists say extended relief from high prices could take much longer to arrive.

When will gas prices come down?

Drivers might expect that oil prices will start to lower as soon as the deal with Iran is inked, but they will “probably have to wait weeks or longer to see meaningful improvement,” said The New York Times. Gas prices often fluctuate in an “up-like-a-rocket, down-like-a-feather” manner, meaning gasoline costs “quickly rise alongside the price of crude oil but are slow to follow its descent.” Gas stations tend to lose money when the price of gas goes up, so when oil starts to “go down, station owners are slow to bring retail prices down to make up for their poor financial performance on the way up.”

Trump is also hopeful that the reopening of the long-contested Strait of Hormuz, and the reactivation of its oil-shipping lanes will help ease the price burden. But there is a “big difference between reopening the Strait of Hormuz on paper and actually resuming the flow of oil through it,” said The Atlantic. While a small number of ships have started traversing the strait, the U.S. and Iran are “far apart on crucial issues, including Iran’s nuclear program,” which could “dissuade oil producers from resuming operations, insurance companies from reducing currently sky-high rates and ‘Ships of the World’ from starting their engines.”

Once ships do start moving again, there will be a “gradual process of resuming east-west traffic, with international actors providing additional support,” Gregory Brew, a senior analyst on Iran and oil at the Eurasia Group, told Intelligencer. But it will “take longer — probably between three and four months — for the region to return to normalcy.” Many countries in the Middle East aside from Iran have had their oil production affected. In Saudi Arabia, virtually “all oil production has been shut in” or capped, said Brew. So a “full return to prewar production and refining levels is likely to take weeks, months or even years,“ said Reuters.

What is the bigger picture?

Fas prices presumably staying high for a while could affect more than just the gas itself. Republicans are “hopeful prices will soon ease near pre-war levels” because the midterms are on the horizon, said Politico. Even if prices go down, voters may carry negative thoughts about Trump’s economy with them into the voting booth.

Other economic elements that rely on petroleum will still be affected as well, most notably airline travel. Aviation experts “have spent months warning that even if the war ended, travelers should not expect airfares to go down immediately,” said The Associated Press. Airlines often buy fuel in advance and adjust their schedules according to demand, meaning “lower oil and jet fuel prices can take weeks or months to get factored into the cost of commercial flights.”

Fuel prices remaining elevated will also affect the grocery aisle. Fuel accounts for 15% to 30% of the total price of food, according to the Independent Grocers Alliance. It “can take months for an energy shock like the one caused by the Iran war to wind through the food supply chain and raise grocery prices,” said the AP. Food, much like gas and travel, may be expensive for a long time to come.

Mortgage rates that are high, or higher than they have been in recent memory, can be a real blocker for buyers and sellers. It may feel psychologically challenging to buy at a steeper rate than you would have gotten just a few years ago. And for sellers looking to exit one house for another, the same conundrum can apply.

But what if instead of getting a new mortgage, you could simply take over the current homeowner’s existing lower-rate loan? Though not common, this is possible through what is known as an assumable mortgage.

What is an assumable mortgage?

A type of home loan that “transfers the responsibility for the mortgage to a new person without changing the mortgage's terms,” said Experian. This means the seller takes on responsibility for repaying the loan’s remaining balance according to the previously agreed-upon repayment timeline and terms, notably including the existing mortgage rate.

Usually, when someone buys a house, they will apply for and take out a mortgage of their own, with the seller using the proceeds from the sale of the house to pay off the remaining balance on their mortgage. But with an assumable mortgage, “rather than starting over with a new 30-year mortgage at current market rates, the buyer essentially steps into the seller’s loan,” said Kiplinger.

What are the benefits of assuming a mortgage?

The most apparent benefit is the potential to get a loan at a lower rate. “If the seller purchased the home when rates were lower, you can get a better rate on an assumable loan than you’d be able to get on a new one,” said Bankrate. Plus, “when you assume a mortgage, you avoid some usual mortgage closing costs, including an origination fee.” Buyers will also have a shorter loan term, which can lead to savings over time.

On the seller’s side of things, if they have “an assumable mortgage with a relatively low rate, they may be able to draw more interested buyers and a higher sale price,” said Bankrate.

Are there any drawbacks to assumable mortgages?

Perhaps the most obvious caveat is that these mortgages are not very easy to come by. “Only about 6% of listings are eligible, and in most circumstances must either be an FHA, USDA or VA loan,” said Realtor.com. Conventional mortgages, the most common type of mortgage, are generally non-assumable. Further, “unless you’re inheriting an assumable mortgage, you’ll still need to qualify for the loan you want to assume,” said Bankrate.

Even if your loan is eligible and you do qualify, the option is not always worthwhile. For example, it is possible the “loan you’re taking on may not be large enough to cover the home’s current market value, which could leave you responsible for paying the difference,” said U.S. Bank. Alternatively, maybe the seller has built up significant equity in the home, in which case you will need to make a large payment upfront.

There can be downsides for sellers, too. Namely, the seller may “remain legally responsible for the mortgage even after the sale, unless the lender specifically releases them from the obligation,” said U.S. Bank.

The upcoming release of the UK’s first weight-loss pill, Wegovy, has been described as “game-changing” by a leading pharmacy provider.

“We’ve already seen record demand ahead of the expected launch”, said James O’Loan, chief executive of Chemist4U. With the majority of people expressing interest in the new obesity treatment not being previous users of weight-loss injections, this indicated that the new pill “could widen access to millions of people across the country”.

How does it work?

Made by Danish pharmaceutical giant Novo Nordisk, the pill is an oral version of weight-loss medicine Wegovy, containing the same active ingredient, semaglutide.

Where GLP-1 injections “pass directly into the bloodstream, the pill has to first be absorbed through the stomach”. This is possible through “scientific innovation, creating a way of encapsulating semaglutide and shielding it from stomach acid”, said The Telegraph’s health and medical journalist David Cox.

As with injections, the Wegovy pill “mimics the effects of a gut hormone called GLP-1, released after eating, which regulates appetite and signals a feeling of fullness”.

The pill is taken daily, compared to the weekly injection, and comes in different doses which can be steadily increased each month.

How effective is it?

Early tests suggest it has a similar effect to injectable Wegovy. After 64 weeks, adults taking the pill lost an average of 14% to 17% of body weight, with about one in three people losing 20% or more.

Regulatory guidelines from the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency state that only people classified as clinically obese, with a Body Mass Index (BMI) of more than 30, or those who are overweight (BMI of 27-30) with at least one weight-related health condition such as high blood pressure or type 2 diabetes, will be eligible to receive the drug.

How much will it cost?

To start with, it will be available in the UK only on prescription privately and not free on the NHS. While exact prices are yet to be set, Robert Bradshaw, a superintendent pharmacist at Oxford Online Pharmacy, told The Telegraph he expects the Wegovy pill to “come in roughly at the same price as the injections”.

“I suspect the pill will be priced somewhere around about £80 to start with, progressing to £130 [for the intermediate dose], and maybe £160 for the top dose.”

With other drug companies developing their own weight-loss pills, however, “competition could also drive down the costs of treatment, as first-generation drugs, or those that offer slightly poorer top-line results, command lower prices”, said The Economist. Some government-funded health systems are likely to make “population-scale deals in the coming years, which could broaden access” further.

Are there any side-effects?

“These are similar whatever the version and related to levels of the drugs in the blood rather than how they are administered,” said Dr Mark Porter in The Times. Common side effects include “nausea and vomiting (slightly more common with the pill version), diarrhoea and/or constipation and abdominal discomfort, but these generally settle once people get used to the medicine”.

The much rarer but more serious side-effects “such as gallbladder problems (stones), inflammation of the pancreas (pancreatitis) and visual problems (optic neuropathy) probably remain the same as with injectables”.

But with the latest NHS statistics suggesting 66% of all people over 16 in England are overweight, and with obesity rates “continuing to spiral”, doctors are “optimistic that the emergence of GLP-1 tablets can serve as a major boost to public health”, said The Telegraph.

And globally, if generic semaglutide were made available to everyone with obesity and diabetes, it could save between 2.1 million and 3.1 million lives a year, according to one model, said The Economist.

Artificial intelligence has become part of our daily lives, and many younger users are turning to it for help with managing their money.

Research by Fidelity International found that more than a third of 18- to 34-year-olds use AI when making investment choices.

AI tools are useful for “opening access”, said MoneyWeek, for those who may not understand investing or just want to check financial information. But there are limits on “how good AI is at giving advice”.

Analysis by consumer watchdog Which? found that AI tools can “make mistakes, misread information and even give risky advice”. That means relying on it too much “could prove costly”.

Seek basic financial education

Many people “feel shame” about their lack of money knowledge, said Moneybox’s director of personal finance Brian Byrnes in The Independent. AI can help “remove this barrier” and assist with “translating and explaining complex finance jargon into plain English” without any judgement.

AI can also be useful for “getting a better understanding of financial topics”, said NerdWallet, such as basic information on budgeting, estate planning or insurance.

Don’t rely on AI for tailored financial advice

Despite the access to information, said Byrnes, you should “never rely on these tools for actionable financial or tax advice”.

Analysis by Which? found that AI tools can come up with “glaring errors”, such as getting the ISA allowance wrong, and they may provide “incomplete advice”.

More importantly, AI tools aren’t regulated to give advice, and won’t know your goals, your tax position, your time horizon or how you actually feel about risk. Crucially, “it can’t take responsibility if the guidance is wrong”, unlike a regulated financial adviser, said MoneyWeek.

Double-check information

AI tools can “sound confident even when they’re wrong”, said MoneyHelper, so you should always check information against “trusted sources”.

It is best to view AI as a “well-meaning but sloppy assistant”, said Fidelity International: “eager to please you but potentially happy to take shortcuts”.

Don’t give away sensitive information

There are also data and privacy risks with AI, as your information may be stored, and personal data could be misused, said MoneyHelper. As a result, it is wise to “keep anything sensitive to yourself”, including account details.

You wouldn’t hand over credit card details to a stranger, said Byrnes in The Independent, so “take the same approach when you are thinking about your personal financial information online”.

Another major data centre has been given the green light in the UK, further cementing the country’s status as Europe’s AI front-runner. The government has approved a data centre on a huge green-belt site in Slough, Berkshire, despite claims it could derail the project to build Heathrow’s third runway.

The company had appealed after the council refused to rule on the project, which it said would sit in “one of the most fragile and vulnerable parts of the green belt around London”. Since coming to power, Labour has “repeatedly bypassed local authorities to support data centre developments”, said The Telegraph. Matthew Pennycook, the housing minister, said that there was a “continuing and unprecedented demand” for such projects.

How many data centres are there in the UK?

The UK is at the forefront of Europe’s data centre roll-out; it hosts 523 out of the continent’s 2,269 data centres as of last year, said Euronews. It is “striking” that China (home to 449 centres), “despite its strength as a technology and innovation power”, ranks behind the UK, as well as Germany (529 centres).

However, all three are dwarfed by the US, which last year boasted 5,427 data centres. The only other countries with more than 300 centres are Canada, France and Australia.

What’s the latest?

A multibillion-pound AI data centre in Wales was jeopardised by “ministerial dithering”, said The Telegraph. British data centre company Era4 said it had secured permission and financing for the project at the former Liberty Steel works in Newport, but that the “project had faced months of delays” because Kanishka Narayan, the AI minister, “failed to push through permission for it to access power from a nearby battery plant”.

Era4 said the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology had given “no indication of when a decision would be made or that the project would be approved”. Tom Humphreys, Era4’s chief executive, said the company was looking at sites in Europe as an alternative.

Other tech companies have also “complained of a struggle to build AI infrastructure in Britain”, said the paper. OpenAI recently announced it was pausing work on a data centre in the north of England due to high energy costs.

What’s planned for the future?

The number of data centres in the UK is set to increase by almost a fifth over the next five years, said the BBC last year, when there were already an estimated 477. Work on the biggest, a £10 billion data centre near Newcastle for US wealth management firm Blackstone Group, is due to begin in 2031. It will involve “10 giant buildings” covering more than half a million square metres – “the size of several large shopping centres”.

The majority will be built in London and neighbouring counties, despite “concerns about the huge amount of energy and water” they’ll consume, as well as the “potential knock-on effect” on domestic energy bills.

How much environmental impact do they have?

Officials recently admitted that Britain’s data centre boom could “draw 40% more electricity than thought a few months ago”, said The Times. More than 100 data centres are seeking grid connections for 50 gigawatts of electricity capacity – “more than the whole of Britain’s peak demand on a typical day”. MPs are calling for a “national conversation on the environmental impacts”.

“The previous projections were already unfathomable,” said Oliver Hayes, head of policy and campaigns at environmental charity Global Action Plan. Adding 40% on top is absurd.”

There are also concerns about the burning of fossil fuels to meet power demand, potentially jeopardising climate goals. There has been a “marked shift over the past year in willingness of UK developers – and authorities – to consider using fossil fuels to power the UK’s AI ambitions”, said The Guardian. More than 100 new UK data centres plan to burn gas, said “some potentially doing so permanently”.

Home insurance is must-have protection for what is likely your most valuable asset, and oftentimes mandatory if you have a mortgage. Losing it unexpectedly, whether due to your insurer’s decision not to renew or a sudden cancellation of coverage, is therefore an understandably stressful situation.

The first step in sorting it out is to determine why your insurer has either cancelled or not renewed your policy and what your rights are. From there, it is important to act quickly to avoid gaps in coverage.

Why do insurers not renew or cancel policies?

There are technically two ways insurers can cut off your homeowners insurance: a non-renewal, where the “insurance company decides not to renew your policy when it expires,” and a cancellation, which “can happen during the policy term,” said NerdWallet.

“Within the first 60 days of purchasing a homeowners insurance policy, insurers may be able to cancel it for any reason,” said Experian. After that, the insurer can cancel only for certain reasons. This can include missed premium payments, insurance fraud — such as misleading statements on your application or a failure to disclose certain details about the property — or a decline in your property’s condition that significantly increases the insurance company’s risk.

Non-renewal, meanwhile, “may happen for reasons outside your control,” said Experian, though that is not always the case. For instance, you may lose coverage for making too many claims or simply because your insurer has stopped selling policies in the state, a common occurrence in high-risk areas with frequent wildfires or hurricanes. It could also happen if you get a new pet that is not eligible for coverage under your insurance.

What are your rights after a homeowners insurance cancellation?

While specifics vary from state to state, “generally, most homeowners have the right to receive written notice of a non-renewal,” said NerdWallet. This “must arrive within a specific window of time and include an explanation of why the policy is not being renewed.”

Based on that information, you can determine how to proceed. “If you disagree with the reasoning or you want more details, reach out to the insurance company to learn more” and possibly have them reconsider, said Kiplinger. “If you believe that the decision is unfair, you may choose to contact your state’s insurance department for assistance.”

What should you do if you get dropped by your home insurer?

If you get dropped from your home insurance, you generally have two options: try to get reinstated or find new coverage. In either case, being proactive — whether by making home improvements or mitigating the risk of home damage — can make a difference. For instance, if your policy was dropped because of the condition of your roof, “you may be able to address the issue that caused the policy to be cancelled and get it reinstated,” or at least “help reduce your chance of being denied by a new insurer,” said Bankrate.

And beware what happens if you do not find replacement coverage in time: In this scenario, if you have a mortgage, “your lender may purchase a policy for you and pass the cost onto you.” The bad news there is that “it can cost double what you’d pay for a standard home insurance policy,” said Kiplinger.

With many in the Trump administration pushing an anti-vaccine agenda, declining measles vaccination rates have forced scientists to reinvigorate the hunt for a drug that could fight the virus. While the FDA has not approved any measles drugs yet, researchers seem hopeful that a breakthrough is on the horizon.

Why are researchers revamping the measles drug search?

For a long time, the quest to create a measles drug was essentially dormant, as the virus “had been kept at bay in the United States for more than two decades thanks to a remarkably effective vaccine,” said The New York Times. But in 2025, amid anti-vaccine sentiment from the White House, a “series of outbreaks popped up in unvaccinated communities across the country,” marking the worst year for measles in the U.S. since 1991.

The outbreak led to a “‘very crowded’ hunt for new measles therapeutics that could prevent or treat infections,” said the Times. Currently, if an unvaccinated individual contracts the measles, doctors can “offer ways to manage symptoms, which often include fever, fatigue, cough and a hallmark blotchy rash,” said Science News. But they “can’t fight off the virus itself.”

How far away is an approved measles drug?

There have been several breakthroughs from various scientific groups, and many feel that FDA approval of a measles drug is imminent. At least one antiviral drug, GHP-88310, was recently shown to “help treat measles, croup and other related viral diseases that cause contagious and life-threatening respiratory infections,” said The Independent. The drug is the “most promising inhibitor” of this virus family that causes measles “we have encountered in years of research,” Carolin Lieber, a senior postdoctoral fellow at Georgia State University’s Center for Translational Antiviral Research, said in a statement.

GHP-88310, which is taken orally, could “offer a much-needed option to treat measles in the midst of increasing endemic transmission in the U.S. and throughout the world due to vaccine hesitancy,” said Drug Discovery News. The drug could provide an alternative to the typical measles defense mechanism, ring vaccination, in which “direct and social contacts around an infected person are vaccinated.” But with “increasing vaccine hesitancy in some population groups, ring vaccination is no longer a viable option in some communities.”

The success of the drug doesn’t necessarily mean it will become ubiquitous as a measles treatment, partially due to people’s feelings about the disease. “One of the biggest misunderstandings about measles is that it’s ‘not that bad,’” Kathryn Hastie, a structural virologist at San Diego’s La Jolla Institute for Immunology, said to Science News. The virus instead can “cause a range of complications that can severely impact people’s lives, including pneumonia and blindness.”

Another company, Saravir, is developing its own measles antibody treatment. The medication could be a “potential multi-billion dollar market opportunity,” Dr. Ronald Moss, Saravir’s CEO, told the Times. Moss estimates there are 44 million people in the U.S. and EU who are “uniquely vulnerable to measles,” and if even a small portion of that group is exposed, it’s a “pretty big population that we would want to protect.” Still, the antibody treatment and other measles drugs could be cost-prohibitive. If the “drug makes it through trials,” said the Times, Saravir “expects the infusions to cost roughly $2,500.”

Under-16s in the UK will be banned from social media under radical new plans set out by the prime minister today.

In a televised speech in Downing Street, Keir Starmer said he was “calling time on a system that’s failing our kids”. And while this was not a “cost-free decision”, governing “is always about choices, and it’s clear to me that a full ban is the right choice”.

Polling by YouGov suggests broad public support for the decision, with 77% of parents backing a ban. But parents were also split on whether a ban would work, with 45% of those surveyed saying it would be effective and 46% disagreeing.

How will it work?

The UK ban will cover the most popular social media platforms, including Snapchat, TikTok, YouTube, Instagram, Facebook and X (formerly Twitter), but not encrypted messaging apps like WhatsApp and Signal.

The government says it will “go further than any other country”, with its policy also including blocks on live-streaming and stranger communication for under-16s. Gaming sites will be impacted and the government is also looking at overnight curfews and breaks in infinite scrolling for 16- to 18-year-olds. A minimum age of 18 will be enforced on “romantic companion” AI chatbots, designed to simulate sexual relationships or roleplay with users.

As ever the devil will be in the detail. The government has said new restrictions will be enforced through “highly effective age assurance” systems, including facial age estimation using digital cameras. The media regulator Ofcom “will conduct a rapid study on what is effective age assurance for verifying whether someone is over 16”, said the government’s official announcement.

The PM said he hopes to pass the necessary legislation by Christmas, with the ban coming into effect in spring 2027.

Will it work?

The government has been accused of rushing out plans for a social media ban “without considering the knock-on effects it would have on surveillance, privacy and young people’s wellbeing”, said OpenDemocracy.

Privacy and technology experts, as well as those working with children, have warned that the plans “could lead to a surveillance creep and data breaches”. They could also cut young people “off from social media’s potential benefits, such as giving LGBTQIA+ youth a chance to access communities”.

Social media companies have argued the ban could push children into unregulated parts of the internet and on to less safe sites and platforms. But Mark Dowey, whose son Murray died after being blackmailed on Instagram, told BBC Breakfast: “If that’s the best they’ve got then I think they’re in trouble. I think they’re basically acknowledging they don’t have a reasonable position here.”

Did it work in Australia?

The “key question” is whether it will actually work, said The Times. More than 70% of parents in Australia, which last year became the first country in the world to introduce a social media ban for under-16s, told the internet regulator their children were still on these platforms, a recent survey found. But supporters argue that the “problems there are about weak enforcement, not the model itself”.

Despite the decidedly mixed results of Australia’s prohibition experiment “the politics are broader: this is a culture-change moment, and a line in the sand from governments saying to tech companies: we make the rules”.

While countries fight for victory on FIFA World Cup fields in the U.S., Canada and Mexico, an unforeseen competitor is lurking on the sidelines: climate change. Increased heat and humidity could make playing long games outdoors a serious health hazard.

How does heat affect the tournament?

Climate change is “boosting the likelihood of performance-impairing heat during most scheduled World Cup matches (97 of 104),” said an analysis by Climate Central. Among those matches, “nearly half (49) have at least a 50% likelihood of experiencing heat that can impair performance,” and in “26 of those matches, climate change increases the likelihood by at least 10 percentage points.”

It is “pretty safe to say climate change is going to have a mark on this World Cup,” and it is “not just going to be hotter, but it’s also going to increase the humidity as well,” Kaitlyn Trudeau, a senior research associate of climate science for Climate Central, said to the Los Angeles Times. Several World Cup locations are expected to exceed 78 degrees Fahrenheit with no internal cooling systems.

Intense exertion in high levels of heat and humidity could have dire health effects. In these conditions, the “body’s normal cooling system begins to struggle,” said Reuters. “Humidity is a ​particular concern, since sweat cools the body only when it evaporates.” In addition, “75% of all the energy that we utilize during exercise gets converted to ​heat,” Chris Minson, a physiology professor and co-director of the Exercise and Environmental Physiology Labs at the University of ⁠Oregon, said to Reuters. “Only about 25% goes to actually doing the exercise.” Excessive sweating because of heat “could lead to dehydration, cramps and increased fatigue,” said Al Jazeera.

How will future World Cups be affected?

As climate change is only expected to get worse over time, there have been “discussions on moving the start of the tournament from June to March or October after 2030,” said the Los Angeles Times. For now, “early kickoffs, cooling breaks, air-conditioned stadiums and regular weather-related delays will necessarily become common features of the tournament.”

High temperatures and humidity are “likely to slow games down,” Ryan Calsbeek, a biological sciences professor at Dartmouth College, said to Reuters. “When athletes have to perform for a very long time, they’re just not going to be able to balance the explosive power of their fast-twitch efforts with the more aerobic long-term efforts of a 90-plus-minute game.”

Not only will the World Cup be affected by climate change, but it will also make climate change worse. FIFA “seems intent on fueling the fire,” said an analysis by the New Weather Institute. It is estimated that the North American World Cup “will be responsible for at least 9.0 million tons of carbon dioxide.” The increased number of participating teams, as well as the expanded geographic area of the tournament, means more people are traveling around and polluting. “Unlike in parts of Europe or Asia, there is a notable absence of low-carbon alternatives such as high-speed rail networks connecting major host cities.”

While the East Wing is being transformed into a ballroom, a less permanent, octagonal structure has appeared on the South Lawn of the White House.

It is the stage for an Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) event this weekend, which is supposed to be part of the celebrations of the 250th anniversary of the US. But the “only milestone that actually falls on 14 June is Donald Trump’s 80th birthday”, said Jérôme Viala-Gaudefroy, a US politics expert from Sciences Po university in Paris, on The Conversation. There were also suggestions that France adjusted the G7 schedule to avoid a clash, said Politico.

UFC – the “world’s leader in professional mixed martial arts”, which is led by Dana White, a close friend of the president – has become the “de facto sport of Maga”, said Esquire. Bringing the UFC to the White House “isn’t just Trump flexing whatever power he thinks he has, but overwhelming it”. It is “true UFC style”.

What is UFC Freedom 250?

The event will take place in a 26-metre-high octagonal cage – nicknamed “The Claw” – that has been constructed on the South Lawn at the White House. Though Trump promised there would be a crowd of 20,000 to 25,000, only around 4,500 will be there. Around 1,000 tickets will be distributed at the president’s discretion. Thousands more spectators will be able to watch the fights from the Ellipse, 52 acres of parkland south of the White House.

And Trump has hinted that the arena might not be temporary. “Many don’t know that in Paris, France, the Eiffel Tower… was supposed to be taken down immediately after the World’s Fair, and then they said, ‘You know, we sorta like it, let’s leave it up a little bit longer’”, he said. Since the UFC structure is “quite attractive”, “maybe we’ll never, ever take it down”.

The highlight on the Freedom 250 card is the bout between two-time interim UFC lightweight champion Justin Gaethje and the UFC lightweight champion Ilia Topuria, said The Times. There is also a “highly anticipated” bantamweight fight between Aiemann Zahabi and Sean O’Malley, alongside five other fights. No women fighters feature.

Who is Dana White?

White – the UFC CEO and president – has run the organisation for more than a quarter of a century. But the prospect of an event at the White House marks his “career capstone”, said Time.

He has managed to turn a sport “so savage” that it “wasn’t even carried on pay-per-view in many places” into a company that was bought for $4 billion (£2.9 billion) in 2016, reportedly earning White “some $360 million” (£269 million). UFC was bought by Endeavor in 2021.

Last year, Paramount, fresh from a merger with Skydance and owned by David Ellison, another close friend of Trump, bought the UFC’s media rights for $7.7 billion (£5.2 billion) over seven years.

How close are White and Trump?

At first glance, White, a “Connecticut-born amateur boxer-turned-businessman, and Trump, a New York real-estate mogul-turned-TV personality-turned-president, seem like an odd pairing”, said The Times. “But their friendship has spanned decades.”

The UFC has effectively “functioned as the sporting arm of the Maga movement”, said CBC. Fighters and the organisation itself have “pledged incredible support” to the president, and Trump has reciprocated and become a “ringside fixture at fights”.

Has it faced any difficulties?

The list of celebrities who have declined invitations to Sunday’s event at the White House is “lengthening”, said The Times. Adam Sandler, Jared Leto and Dwayne “the Rock” Johnson are all believed to have turned down offers to attend.

And two people from Virginia have filed a lawsuit seeking to stop the event. They claim the octagon was “authorised without congressional approval or environmental review”, said CNN. The UFC is also selling VIP packages for “between $1 million and $1.5 million” (£746,000 and £1.1 million) and the individuals claim White and Trump are using the opportunity for financial gain.

Has it been popular?

There is one way the “majestic” arena could be improved to get “maximum use”, said Marina Hyde in The Guardian. The various “hardmen” among Trump’s appointees “should be made to fight each other in the White House octagon”. Since he has been able to make them walk around in shoes that don’t fit, “he can surely order the likes of Hegseth and Vance to fight – or at least wrestle – in his Craposseum”.

The president could even learn something from this episode, said Bhumika Tharoor in The Atlantic. “Martial arts are practised”, “studied” and “rooted in humility”. At their core, there is “deep respect for one’s opponents, with the understanding that ego is an impediment to winning”. “Serious fighters understand the rules of the bout; they respect their opponents; they fight to win – and then they accept the outcome”.

There are a lot of ways you can save for retirement. There are 401(k) plans, provided through employers, and IRAs, which you can open on your own. Drilling down further, there are two classifications of those accounts: traditional and Roth.

While a traditional account allows you to save money pre-tax, a Roth account is funded after-tax. Paying taxes sooner rather than later may not sound beneficial, but depending on your specific situation, it absolutely can be, as many younger savers are starting to realize.

In recent years, the “youngest savers are flocking to Roth individual retirement accounts,” with Gen Z in particular embracing Roth IRAs, said The Wall Street Journal. “Overall, IRA contributions for people of all ages hit record highs in the first quarter of this year, with nearly 30% more dollars flowing into these accounts than in the same period last year.”

What benefits do Roth IRAs offer?

Because you pay taxes on the money you put into a Roth IRA, that means you do not have to pay taxes later. As a result, “your money grows tax-free, and you’ll be able to withdraw it tax-free at retirement,” said Bankrate. Plus, if you are in a lower tax bracket now than you expect to be when you are older, you will end up paying a lower rate.

Another perk is that the Roth also can do “double-duty as an emergency account,” said the Journal. This is because Roth IRAs allow withdrawals of your contributions penalty-free (there are, however, stipulations for withdrawing earnings). And if you do not end up needing the money immediately in retirement, Roth IRAs do not have required minimum distribution (RMD) requirements like traditional 401(k) and IRAs do.

When you eventually take out money in retirement, those tax-free withdrawals can help “supplement taxable income without moving into a higher tax bracket or triggering costly Medicare premium surcharges,” said the Journal.

Are there downsides to Roth IRAs?

The “most obvious disadvantage of contributing to a Roth IRA is that your contributions are made with after-tax dollars,” which “means you won’t get a tax benefit in the year you make the contribution,” said Bankrate.

There are also restrictions on who is eligible to contribute. Those whose income is above a certain level (adjusted each year for inflation) are technically not able to contribute to a Roth IRA, though there is the workaround of the backdoor Roth IRA.

Who can a Roth IRA make sense for?

“Most advice on the Roth IRA vs. traditional IRA topic begins with a question: Do you think your tax rate will be higher or lower in the future?” said NerdWallet. Generally speaking, a Roth IRA can make sense for those who are just starting out in their careers. This is because earnings are typically lower at that point, meaning a lower tax bracket, and because you are less likely to run up against income limits for contributions.

There are other advantages worth weighing as well. For instance, a Roth IRA could make sense if you want to use the funds for a “home purchase or for higher education expenses” due to “certain exceptions to Roth IRA early withdrawal penalty rules,” said Experian.

You might also consider a Roth account even if you already have a traditional account, whether a 401(k) or IRA. Since the two types of retirement plans offer different tax benefits, having both can diversify your retirement tax picture.

High oil prices mean drivers of petrol cars are now spending more to run their vehicle than those who have gone electric.

Analysis by The Electric Car Scheme showed the annual cost of fuelling the typical petrol car has risen to £1,353 in 2026. This is compared with £592 for an electric vehicle (EV) driver charging at home.

The firm identified 9 June as Electric Car Day 2026, marking when the average petrol driver has spent “the equivalent on fuel” as an EV driver does running their vehicle for the whole year.

It comes as the Iran conflict has “significantly disrupted the production and transportation of energy across the Middle East”, pushing up fuel prices such as petrol, said the BBC.

The sale of new petrol and diesel cars is to be banned in the UK in 2030, amid a push towards EVs. But as well as running costs, it is also important to look at the “total cost of ownership”, said CarWow, when weighing up a petrol car against an EV.

Upfront car costs

One of the “big sticking points” with EVs compared with “polluting petrol and diesel engines” is the higher upfront costs, , said The Guardian.

However, most private buyers of new cars tend to pay on a lease or personal contract plan, said Top Gear, or through salary sacrifice.

Prices of EVs have also come down thanks to the taxpayer-backed electric car grant, said This Is Money, and zero-emission vehicle targets, which has “intensified pressure on manufacturers and their dealers to provide more discounting”.

Running costs of electric car vs. petrol

Running an EV is “extremely cheap” compared with a petrol-driven car, said Which?, especially if you can charge it at home.

Electric cars can travel up to 300 miles on one charge depending on the weather. But it is important to keep track of your journeys as public charging is “much more expensive” and you could end up spending more per mile than with a petrol car.

There are some downsides, as the higher value of EVs can mean “higher insurance premiums”, said MoneySavingExpert. Drivers also have to take repairs into account, and these “can cost more” if a specialist mechanic is required.

Drivers will still have to pay for car tax, servicing and MOTs with an EV, plus the government is planning to introduce pay-per-mile charges from April 2028 as a replacement for shrinking fuel duty revenues.

This will “narrow the gap” between electric and petrol cars when it comes to how much drivers spend on fuel, said Auto Express.

What is the verdict?

At the moment, the “choice is clearer than you might think”, said Regit. If you don’t have a home charger, a petrol car will “likely save you money and a lot of hassle”.

But if you can charge at home, leasing an EV can be the “cleverest way to drive a new vehicle”, avoid the worst of depreciation and keep your monthly running costs down.

Another element of aviation is causing trouble for the air travel industry, and this time it’s the airplanes themselves. The companies that manufacture aircraft engines are increasingly coming under fire for alleged price gouging, which airlines say is making it harder to afford new planes. Combined with increased demand from travelers, airlines have found themselves between a rock and a hard place.

Why are aircraft engines becoming more expensive?

Aircraft engines have “emerged as an acute flashpoint for the industry, both in terms of their performance and lack of availability,” said Bloomberg. Many airplane manufacturers also increasingly rely on “less than a handful of manufacturers, creating quasi-monopolies and dependencies.” These companies are then able to drive up the price of building the engines.

Manufacturers are also turning toward a trend in energy-efficient engines, but this comes with its own problems. Continuing shortages of the “industry’s most fuel-efficient aircraft engines have sent their market values soaring,” said the Financial Times. The constraints of building these types of engines have “become one of the biggest concerns for the industry as manufacturers have struggled to keep up with booming demand for Airbus and Boeing planes.”

These factors mean that engines have become one of the most expensive elements of building new airplanes. A pair of jet engines now represents up to 80% of the total market value of a new plane, according to aviation finance company Avolon. It represents a marked change from two decades ago, when the engines would have only “accounted for 20% to 30% of an aircraft’s value,” said the Financial Times.

The continuing spike in value means the price to lease new engines has increased significantly over the past few years. In January 2025, it cost $400,000 to lease two engines from manufacturer Pratt & Whitney; in comparison, leasing an A320neo plane itself cost just $306,000, according to data from aviation consultancy Cirium cited by the Financial Times. The supply chain failures “across the industry from manufacturers cost airlines at least $11 billion in 2025,” said Bloomberg, a trend that could continue through the remainder of 2026.

How are airlines reacting?

Many airline executives are angry at the inflated cost of plane engines. Most say they are “being forced to remove engines and take them for maintenance into crowded shops earlier than expected, which is driving up costs and sucking up the fuel savings they were supposed to get from the engines,” said CNBC. The increased costs represent a “paradox: Engine makers dazzled carriers with more fuel-efficient options for new planes from Boeing and Airbus,” but now “production shortfalls and disappointing reliability with those engines are becoming costly problems.”

So far, most engines “have not reached the reliability that airlines need, though there have been improvements,” said CNBC. As airplanes “push the limits, it sometimes comes at the cost of reliability, and what we all are seeing is that those engines have to go into unscheduled maintenance far more frequently than prior engine generations,” Alexis von Hoensbroech, the CEO of Canadian carrier WestJet, told CNBC. A “lot of the fuel savings are in fact eaten up by unplanned maintenance costs.”

A needle-free universal vaccine may soon be on the horizon. Scientists have successfully run the first trial, which showed the vaccine can safely elicit an immune response to several viruses. But more research is needed before it’s approved for widespread use, so larger trials are now planned.

How was the vaccine developed?

This universal vaccine is the first human-tested inoculation to have its active component designed by computer simulations, according to a study published in the Journal of Infection. The vaccine has an AI-created “super-antigen,” a “protein that mimics shared features across multiple coronaviruses, rather than targeting a single specific strain, which can trigger the body’s immune system to fight a broad array of pathogens with those base characteristics,” said Euronews. Researchers “used all the available genetic sequence data for Sarbeco coronaviruses,” which are “zoonotic viruses that primarily circulate in bats and can jump to humans or other mammals.” They then “applied machine learning to create the super-antigen.”

“Viruses like influenza, coronaviruses and the Ebola group are evolving continuously, and by the time vaccines are rolled out, they may be poorly matched,” Saul Faust, a professor at the University of Southampton and the study’s chief investigator, said in a news release. But this “new class of universal vaccines are future-proofed,” as they “not only protect against many variants simultaneously but potentially against related viruses that haven’t yet emerged.” The universal vaccine can therefore curb outbreaks and even prevent future pandemics.

The vaccine is also needle-free. It’s administered through a microfluidic jet, which “uses a high-pressure, hair-thin stream of liquid to push vaccine blueprints directly into skin cells,” said Sky News. Without needles, it has greater “global applicability by reducing volume requirements, eliminating sharps waste and improving uptake in settings where needle-based administration is a barrier,” said Euronews. And it also doesn’t have to be kept as cold as traditional vaccines, making it “well-suited for use in low- and middle-income countries and in rapid-response scenarios.”

Is it effective on humans?

The vaccine has already shown promise in humans. The first clinical trial was conducted with 39 volunteers, and it was “well-tolerated at all four doses with no significant safety concerns elicited,” said the study. It also “triggered immune responses in the volunteers not only to SARS-CoV-2 and SARS but to related bat viruses that could potentially jump from animals to humans and cause future pandemics,” said the release.

However, the “magnitude of the response was limited and did not increase predictably with higher doses,” though this is likely influenced by prior Covid-19 exposure and vaccination history among participants, said the study. A larger Phase 2 trial will “next assess the vaccine’s ability to induce immune responses in a wider and more diverse population and confirm that it generates strong, broadly protective immune responses,” said the release.

The clinical trial proves the success of a whole new way to create vaccines. The use of AI “could protect against future emerging virus threats” and reduce the “need for frequent reformulation, which is a fundamental limitation of current vaccines,” said the release.

The old vaccine development system was like a “dog chasing its tail,” study lead Jonathan Heeney, a researcher from the University of Cambridge’s Lab of Viral Zoonotics, said in the release. “We can escape the constant cycle of chasing the virus variants circulating in humans and updating the vaccines to try to catch up.”

Moving back home after college may seem like a failure to launch, both on the part of parents who thought their work was finally done, and young adults who thought they were poised to start building a life of their own.

But increasingly, it is a decision many recent graduates are making, often out of economic necessity but also because of the practical benefits the arrangement can offer. “Nearly half — 44% — of U.S. parents with adult children ages 18 to 35 say a child has moved back home at some point,” said The Washington Post, citing a recent poll by the financial services company Thrivent.

Just because the arrangement is common does not mean it is automatically easy. Even if you all lived peacefully under the same roof for 18 years, things can — and should — be different when cohabitating again after college. Here is how to navigate things smoothly.

Communicate about financial impacts and expectations

For parents, there is a “difference between providing a safety net and enabling financial immaturity,” said the Post. The latter benefits neither party.

Instead, plan to “have regular discussions with your child to see if they need assistance in any areas and check their progress toward achieving their goals,” said Fidelity. For instance, if they are moving back in because they have student loan debt, “their budget needs to reflect that they are treating this as a priority,” said the Post.

Parents should prioritize transparency about their own financial situation as well — including how the living arrangement may be affecting their current finances and long-term planning, such as saving for retirement.

Discuss divvying up costs

Just because you are the kid (or the parent) does not mean it is set in stone who pays for what. “Once your adult offspring move back home, you and your kids will need to decide how much they’ll chip in for household expenses,” said Kiplinger.

Exactly what that division looks like will vary depending on the financial situation of everyone involved. Maybe the child “can contribute a percentage of their wages to cover the mortgage or rent, for example, or agree to pay a set amount — say, $200 to $300 a month,” said Kiplinger. Alternatively, if they “can’t help with the mortgage or rent, consider having them pay a portion of utility, phone or insurance bills.”

If your child truly has nothing to contribute monetarily (maybe they are currently job-searching), there are still ways they can contribute to the household. “Doing regular yard work or other household chores can make the relationship feel more balanced,” said Earnest, a student lending platform.

Establish a clear plan and timeline

While living together may be fine for now, most likely it will not be fine forever. “Have a conversation with your parents about your plan for moving out and finding your own place,” said Earnest, and make sure you are both clear on the steps it will take for you to get there, whether that is paying down debt within a certain period of time or saving up a certain amount for a security deposit and a few months’ rent.

The plan you come up with should include a “clear timeline, as well as some contingency plans if you don’t reach those goals as soon as expected,” said Earnest.

Filling up your tank is pricey, and the total cost is more than just the price of gas alone. Every time you fill up, a federal gas tax and a state tax gets tacked on to each gallon of gas you put into your car.

With the price of gas skyrocketing of late, in large part because of the war Donald Trump started with Iran, the president has floated the idea of suspending the federal gas tax altogether. But how much would that really save consumers?

What is the federal gas tax?

It is an “excise tax that’s paid on any fuel that’s sold in the US.,” said Intuit TurboTax. Initially, the tax “was meant to be temporary when President Herbert Hoover signed it into law in 1932 to help pay for national defense spending,” said The New York Times. “But persistent budget deficits kept it in place, and the money it raises is used for road maintenance through the Highway Trust Fund.”

How much is the federal gas tax?

The current federal gas tax costs drivers 18.4 cents, a charge that applies per gallon of gas. For those filling up with diesel fuel, the cost is a bit higher, at 24.4 cents per gallon.

Keep in mind, that is just the federal gas tax. All states and the District of Columbia also tax motor fuels, with per-gallon gas tax rates ranging “from 8.95 cents in Alaska to 62.9 cents in California,” said the Tax Policy Center. Additionally, “10 states also levy a general sales tax or gross receipts tax on purchases of motor fuel,” which can further increase the overall cost of filling up.

How much could drivers save if the gas tax is suspended?

Will nixing those cents on the gallon actually allow drivers to save on gas? Yes, but only minimally. If the federal gas tax were to drop by the full 18.4 cents, that would mean “for a 15-gallon tank, that’s $2.70 saved,” said CBS News. “When filled up weekly, that’s about $10.80 a month.”

However, “experts say the price drop would be less than 18 cents,” said CBS News. Some of that gas tax would instead “end up staying with the gas station itself, maybe the producers or anyone else in the supply side of the gas market,” added the outlet, citing tax policy expert Adam Hoffer.

Gas taxes ultimately make up just a small portion of the amount consumers are paying at the pump. Even with the suspension of both federal and state gas taxes, “prices would still average 35% more per gallon than they were at the start of the Iran war,” said NBC News. Since the war began in late February, “prices nationwide are up more than 50%.”

Developed after 9/11 and during the Iraq War, Prevent is the first of four pillars of the government’s counter-terrorism strategy for England, Scotland and Wales (together, they make up the “four Ps”: Prevent, Pursue, Protect, Prepare).

It has three main objectives: tackling the ideological causes of terrorism, intervening early to stop people becoming radicalised, and enabling those who have engaged with terrorism to “disengage and rehabilitate”. Prevent is, in theory, not about getting people “into trouble”, but about helping those “susceptible to radicalisation” with early intervention.

Even so, the programme has faced repeated criticisms, from a range of perspectives: both that it stigmatises Muslims, and is too soft on them; that it chills free speech; and that, ultimately, it fails to prevent terrorism.

How has it failed to prevent terrorism?

It has failed to stop a series of high-profile terror incidents. Ahmed Hassan detonated a bomb in Parsons Green in 2017 after Prevent officials had discussed his case for more than a year, and almost closed it days before the attack. Usman Khan, responsible for the 2019 Fishmongers’ Hall attack, was monitored by Prevent officials, while Ali Harbi Ali, who murdered David Amess MP in 2021, was later found to have manipulated Prevent through “disguised compliance”. Axel Rudakubana, the Southport killer, had been referred to Prevent three times, but his case was closed each time. The suspect in the Golders Green stabbings in April was referred to Prevent in 2020, but his case was shelved that year.

At the same time, there have been notorious cases of “false positives”, such as a 10-year-old Muslim boy referred in 2015 after writing at school that he lived in a “terrorist house”; he meant “terraced house”.

How does Prevent work?

Anyone can make a Prevent referral, to police or a local authority. In 2024-25, there were 8,778 referrals, an all-time high; in the past the figure has been closer to 6,000. The median age of a referral was 16; 36% were aged 11 to 15.

Until 2011, Prevent was aimed specifically at Islamist extremism. Today, there are 15 other categories of concern, the most common being extreme right-wing ideology (20% of 2024-25 referrals), compared to 9% in the Islamist category; but also including left-wing, environmental and incel extremism (“involuntary celibates” driven by misogyny).

Once a referral is received, police evaluate whether the individual is at real risk of radicalisation. If so, their case goes before a multi-agency panel (called a Channel), chaired by the local authority and attended by social services, education and mental-health professionals, who agree on a support package. In 2024/25, only 17% were adopted as a Channel case. Taking part is voluntary – those referred, or their parents, must give their consent.

Why is it so controversial?

By definition, it involves keeping tabs on people, mostly young people, who haven’t committed crimes: gathering detailed and often personal intelligence on them, sharing it with different agencies and retaining it for years or even decades. Campaigners argue Prevent violates the principle of “innocent until proven guilty”; it operates in what is designated, in rather Orwellian terms, as a “pre-criminal space”.

Controversy often centres on the so-called Prevent duty. Since 2015, schools, hospitals, prisons and police have had a statutory duty to identify and refer those showing signs of potential radicalisation. The National Union of Teachers voted against it in 2016, arguing it created “suspicion in the classroom”. That Prevent has been largely focused on one religious minority makes the issues more acute.

Is that criticism justified?

For many years, particularly during the peak of Islamic State influence, the great majority of Prevent referrals targeted Muslims: in 2015-16, for instance, 65% related to concerns about Islamist extremism. In 2015, the former senior Met officer Dal Babu said that many Muslims were suspicious of the scheme and saw it as a tool for spying on them; that it had become a “toxic brand”. The Muslim Council of Great Britain said that year that some parents were “training their children” not to discuss their beliefs at school.

However, in recent years, referrals for extreme right-wing terrorism have frequently equalled or surpassed those for Islamist extremism. This itself, however, has proved controversial.

Why is that controversial?

The 2023 independent review of Prevent, conducted by William Shawcross, concluded that it suffered from a “culture of timidity”, due to fear of upsetting Muslims, and neglected Islamist extremism relative to the threat level it posed to the UK: 80% of police counter-terrorism investigations focused on Islamist terror, but such cases accounted for only 22% of Prevent referrals.

What do Prevent’s defenders say?

In counter-terrorism, successes – attacks prevented – are inherently hard to prove. However, the Channel programme gives bespoke support to about 500 people every year, and officials claim that it has successfully helped more than 6,400 people to disengage from extremism since 2015. Prevent’s budget is limited: £38.7 million in 2025-26, barely 3% of the national £3 billion counter-terrorism spend; and down to a reported £25 million this year.

With regards to Muslim “mistrust”, last year’s Prevent review by David Anderson KC found that 80% of British Muslims supported Prevent, and that many of its practitioners are Muslim. However, Anderson found that it was facing a structural problem. It was set up to deal with people driven by ideologies. Yet more than half of those referred to Prevent in the past year were found not to have one. The Home Affairs Committee said last month that the programme was becoming “saturated” with such cases.

The changing landscape of extremism

When Prevent was set up in 2006, the threat it was built to address was relatively contained: young men drawn towards al-Qaida-inspired Islamism via mosques, prisons and radical preachers. While Islamist and extreme right-wing threats haven’t gone away, new forms of extremism have emerged, nurtured by social media, gaming platforms and online forums, and communicated via influencers, memes, coded messaging and AI-generated content. These new forms of extremism are a murky blend of conspiracy theories, nihilism, identity-based narratives and a fascination with violence.

Of the 2024-25 Prevent referrals, 56% (4,917) were for individuals with “no identified ideology” – the largest single category; 5% (469) were due to concerns regarding “fascination with extreme violence or mass casualty attacks”, not accompanied by an ideology. That “fascination with extreme violence” category was created in response to cases such as Axel Rudakubana’s: his lack of a clear ideology had led to Prevent dismissing his case three times. Mental health and neurodiversity also seem to be a factor: a third of Prevent referrals had mental-health conditions, and 14% had been diagnosed with autism, compared to 1% of the UK population.

Staying on budget does not have to mean staying in all the time. But going out can often be a slippery slope — especially if you are doing so with friends who have different financial situations and spending habits. Your friend might suggest another round or two of drinks or grabbing dinner at a pricey restaurant, and the next thing you know, your bank account balance is not where you would like it to be.

How can you balance having a good time with friends and feeling good about your spending? Read on for some tips and tricks.

Make a budget before going out

“Setting aside a specific line item in your budget for parties, trips or weekend brunches lets you enjoy your social life without the stress of overspending,” said Money. By doing the math on the front end, you can know exactly how much you can afford to spend in a given month. This will also give you a clear way to track how much of that allotted amount you have already gone through at any point throughout the month, which is helpful to know prior to meeting up with friends.

Come up with lower-cost activities

“Meaningful experiences with your friends don’t have to be expensive,” said Ally. If you want to spend time with a friend and are nervous about shelling out, consider suggesting something free or fairly inexpensive — who knows, they may even breathe a sigh of relief for their own budget. Some easy ideas include going on a hike, checking out a free museum or outdoor concert or attending a local book club together.

Invite people over

Having people over is an easy way to get the crew together while skipping the bar tab or the restaurant bill. Maybe you can ask everyone to bring over a dish for a potluck, or you could even cook as a group. Perhaps someone brings over a bottle of wine, and you pull out a board game or put on a movie. The bonus of this approach is that everyone can stay as long as they (or you) would like.

Be open with your friends

Maybe you have been trying to dance around your financial reality because it feels embarrassing or like a potential buzzkill. But “discussing money openly with friends can help dismantle the shame around financial struggles and is a great way to explore affordable ways to spend time together,” said Ally. It also gives you a more honest way to say no to an invitation in the future, if you need to.

Spend on what matters to you most

“Look at money as ‘a tool to enhance your values and your experiences,’” as opposed to just a default way to socialize, said Jack Howard, the head of money wellness at Ally, to CNBC Make It. Evaluate what you really enjoy spending money on, versus when you are spending just to spend, and adjust your expenditures accordingly. “If costly activities like going out to dinner or traveling with friends are important to you, you may have to make cuts in other areas of your life in order to prioritize them,” said the outlet.

With many Americans opposing the construction of giant AI data centers in their neighborhoods, some tech companies are proposing an unconventional solution: attaching mini data centers directly to people’s houses. At least one major startup backed by Nvidia is looking into the prospect, though it will likely be controversial.

How would these mini data centers work?

People typically associate data centers with big buildings churning out massive quantities of AI datasets. But the home version would be a “unit about the size of an air conditioner, mounted in the side yard,” said Scientific American. It could perform “artificial intelligence tasks, drawing power from your home’s energy supply” and theoretically “earning you discounted electricity and internet in exchange.”

Most of the attention has been focused on Span, an electrical panel startup that recently began manufacturing these types of units in partnership with Nvidia. The company said its mini data centers would be “less of a financial burden on residents” and “have a potentially lower ecological footprint than warehouse data centers,” said Fortune. Span’s units are also quiet, thereby “mitigating the problem of noise pollution that has drawn the ire of residents of areas with nearby warehouse data centers.”

Industry experts hope the home models like those proposed by Span could help alleviate the financial and energy constraints created by large buildings; a typical AI data center “consumes as much electricity as 100,000 households,” according to the International Energy Agency. Instead of “building a single large data center that requires its own substation upgrade or on-site gas turbines,” the AI “spreads compute across thousands of homes that are already connected to the grid,” said Scientific American.

What has the reaction been?

Creating more energy-friendly data centers is a “cool idea on paper, but it’s almost completely unproven in real-world use,” said Fast Company. And even if the home data centers took off, the “main point of resistance” is the fact that these centers “will result in higher electric bills for everyone in the area,” even if they are at people’s homes. Whether it’s a “new central data center or a distributed data center,” the “risk of higher costs — perhaps because of transformers and other infrastructure running hotter and degrading more quickly — could arguably be the same.”

Politically, gathering power from existing homes “may be easier than talking a city council into issuing a permit for a data center,” said Fast Company. But all of this is moot if tech companies are unable to perform the “tangled math of coordinating thousands of tiny residential energy resources to fuel the energy beast that data centers are,” said The Arizona Republic. While “distributed power generation has been around for years,” it has never “been harnessed at the scale needed for feeding data centers.”

Officials with Span remain optimistic that the home-based products will work. “There is certainly opportunity, as Span can provide homeowners with access to innovative technology and potential income generation that can help offset monthly energy costs,” a spokesperson for the company told Inc. “On a larger scale, if the technology proves out, it might also keep local infrastructure from being overburdened, which could keep land open for other uses, such as building homes.”

When is a ceasefire not a ceasefire?

Agreements have been announced in recent months “to great fanfare” in Gaza, Lebanon and Iran, said PBS News, yet fighting continues. So the term “ceasefire” is “rapidly losing its meaning”.

What is happening?

Israeli forces have captured more territory in Gaza, contravening the US-brokered truce with Hamas in October, and at least 900 Palestinians have died in strikes, according to the strip’s ministry of health. Israel has also been increasingly bombarding Lebanon and making deeper incursions across the border, while Hezbollah has kept up rocket fire into northern Israel. The US and Iran have also continued to trade fire since the agreement in April, as they try to reach a permanent truce.

Advantages of an imperfect ceasefire

Ceasefires “often seem to be just smoke and mirrors that precede another round of fighting”, but “even when they don’t hold, they still have value”, said academics Avishay Ben-Sasson-Gordis and Simon Frankel Pratt on Foreign Policy.

They can “establish new bargaining baselines that, over multiple iterations, can become a ladder to a more permanent peace agreement”. The Northern Ireland peace process was primarily driven by two ceasefires in 1994, which ultimately paved the way for the decisive Good Friday Agreement in 1998.

Even a partial decrease in fighting can save lives, reduce injuries and limit the destruction of infrastructure and homes. A ceasefire that cuts violence by 50% is often preferable for many than no ceasefire at all.

Truces can also help with humanitarian access because aid organisations can deliver food, medicine, fuel and other supplies to affected populations. Civilians may be able to evacuate dangerous areas. Even brief pauses in fighting can enable exchanges of detainees, recovery of bodies, or arrangements for missing persons. Meanwhile, observers can assess conditions on the ground.

What are the disadvantages?

Sceptics argue that imperfect ceasefires allow forces to regroup militarily. They can be exploited for propaganda, or they may create a false impression that a conflict is being resolved.

So “cynics begin to see ceasefires as jokes from the start, while the naive fall into a cycle of optimism and despair”, said Ben-Sasson-Gordis and Frankel Pratt. Diplomacy “starts to look false and pointless”.

An imperfect ceasefire can create long-term problems if policymakers do not have a clear objective. After the first Gulf War in 1991, the US stumbled into a “decade-long trap of its own making”, said academics Daniel Chardell and Samuel Helfont on Foreign Affairs.

Washington “crafted a cease-fire agreement” with Iraq that led to ongoing tensions, repeated military confrontations and a long-term containment strategy rather than a durable peace. Subsequent US presidents were unwilling to accept Saddam Hussein remaining in power or fully commit to removing him.

The US enforced no-fly zones, sanctions, military patrols and repeated air strikes, effectively becoming a policeman. Meanwhile, international support eroded and frustration grew in Washington. Ultimately, the ceasefire became a stepping stone to the larger war in 2003.

People looking to grill hamburgers this summer may not get a respite from rising beef prices anytime soon, as an ongoing cattle shortage across the United States could compound high costs at the grocery store. Farmers are now worried the beef industry could be on the fritz for a while.

How is the cattle shortage affecting the beef market?

At the beginning of 2026, American cattle producers had 86.2 million heads of cattle nationwide according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), marking the lowest number to start the year since 1951. The number of cattle that had calved (given birth to a baby) was also down 100,000 from the prior year. Several economic and geopolitical factors have “been pushing livestock numbers down, including rising costs, international competition and increased consolidation in the cattle industry,” said NPR.

“Years of severe drought in the western United States” have also “strained feed supplies and forced many ranchers to reduce their herds,” said WTHR-TV Indianapolis. With less grain comes less grass for cattle to feed on, so “farmers have cut herd sizes — a decision that can shrink the nation’s beef supply for years.” The reduced supply is becoming unsustainable for ranchers.

As cattle become more scarce, their price goes up, and these higher prices have led many ranchers to “sell their livestock and have dissuaded them from buying new animals to rebuild their herds,” said NPR. Cattle farmers say they are being forced to gamble with the industry. “We could put another 100 head out on grass, with what our grass will hopefully be this spring, but then you’re also wondering too, ‘Is that too much of a risk?’” Amanda Hall, a cattle farmer in Lexington, Kentucky, told NPR.

What does the future hold?

Even as ranchers are looking for solutions to high prices, there is “no quick fix for tight supplies, as the sticker shock in the grocery aisles didn’t happen overnight,” said Bloomberg. But Americans don’t want beef any less just because it’s more expensive, and demand has “allowed big retailers to stay on the winning side of these sales, while meatpackers lose out, as larger accounts have leverage to negotiate their pricing,” David Anderson, an agricultural economics professor at Texas A&M University, told Bloomberg.

President Donald Trump’s effort to “lower beef prices has divided top administration officials and some of his closest allies,” said Politico, potentially throwing another wrench into the problem. Trump faces a dilemma in “trying to balance consumers’ concerns about rising grocery prices with those of his supporters in the cattle industry.” The administration’s decision to import large quantities of Argentinian beef has also rubbed many ranchers the wrong way.

The government still remains optimistic that the livestock lull is temporary. While short-term lows remain, cattle inventories “are expected to rise to 91.6 million head in 2034,” said the USDA. Prices in 2026 could reach record highs “before falling back through 2031 and then starting a new climb through 2034.” Other parts of the farm are also expected to grow, as “broiler chicken production is projected to reach successive annual record highs over the next 10 years.”

With Russian and Ukrainian forces seemingly locked in stalemate on the ground, the war has increasingly become an aerial one with both sides turning to drones and “smart” missiles to try to gain an advantage.

What does that look like?

Over the past four years Ukraine has pioneered the use of both offensive and defensive drones. They have changed the face of war and helped narrow the advantage enjoyed by Russia when it comes to weapons and personnel.

These unmanned aerial vehicles, or UAVs, “hit Russian targets every day” and have played “a huge role in Ukraine’s recent improvement in fortunes, together with other innovations in the country’s drone war”, said the Financial Times.

At the same time, Ukraine has built an “increasingly sophisticated, layered air defence system”, said the BBC’s defence correspondent Jonathan Beale. Kyiv is now able to successfully intercept the vast majority of Russian long-range drones and missiles before they can hit their targets. “Embracing innovation and technology is giving Ukraine an advantage”, with “software that tracks every glide bomb, missile and drone launched by Russia” being “at the heart” of its air defences.

While the “intensity” of air attacks “continues to increase”, Russian military expert Nikolai Mitrokhine told Le Monde, both sides are using different tactics. Russia carries out occasional but massive strikes to overwhelm Ukrainian air defences. It “sometimes fires nearly 1,000 drones a day – as was the case on 24 March – while Ukraine launches almost nightly attacks, between 250 and 400 drones”.

What weapons do they have?

Ukraine has been producing long- and medium-range FP-1 and FP-2 drones – known as “Drakosha” or “little dragons” – at scale and at speed at a cost of about €50,000 each. It has been “pouring resources” into “middle strikes” that target Russian air defences and military logistics as far as 180km (112 miles) behind the front line, said Reuters. These strikes cannot “turn the tide against Russia” alone, but are “having an additional impact by facilitating longer-range drone strikes that are damaging Russian oil infrastructure”.

And while Ukraine still relies on expensive US-made Patriot missiles to take down Russian ballistic missiles, cheap interceptor drones, such as the P1-SUN, are proving most effective in defending Ukraine’s cities from aerial attack. They are 3D-printed and cost just $1,000 (£750); more than 1,000 are produced every day by Ukraine.

They can, however, do little to stop Russian glide bombs. These are Soviet-era munitions fitted with cheap guidance kits that turn so-called “dumb” bombs into precision weapons. They can be launched from well inside Russian airspace and there is no reliable way to stop them. “For three years, they have been one of the most destructive weapons” used by Kremlin forces to level entire city blocks from Kharkiv and Zaporizhzhia to Kherson, said The Telegraph.

Ukraine hit back last week, unveiling its first domestically produced glide bomb, named the Vyrivniuvach, or “Equaliser”.

How might this change the war?

The Equaliser is “one of the most significant additions to Ukraine’s home-grown arsenal since the war began”. It “could potentially accelerate the pace at which Russian forces are pushed back”, said Keir Giles, from the Chatham House think tank.

More generally, Ukraine’s long-range capabilities are “significantly changing the situation and, more broadly, the world’s perception of Russia’s war,” President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said last month.

“Fast-improving” Ukrainian drone capabilities are “hurting the invaders’ logistics behind the battlefield, and pounding oil infrastructure and military targets deeper inside Russia,” said The Wall Street Journal. “Having gained a tactical and technological edge” in the air, this summer will test whether Ukraine “can turn that slender advantage into a strategic turning point”.

For many retirees, Social Security is an essential source of income. But unfortunately, it is also one that may soon become less reliable as available funds dry up.

Per a recent projection by the Congressional Budget Office, “Social Security’s main retirement trust fund — formally known as the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund — will run out of reserves in 2032,” said Money Talks News. That would translate to “cuts starting at around 7% in 2032 and deepening to an average of about 28% per year from 2033 through 2036,” said the outlet, citing an analysis by Newsweek.

Cuts of that size would translate to a sizable difference in retirement income for many. Planning ahead by following these tips can help ensure they do not derail your retirement entirely.

1. Look for ways to cut expenses

Reviewing your spending is not the most fun exercise, but it can often reveal some opportunities to make a reduced retirement income stretch a little further. There are smaller tweaks you can make, like traveling less or canceling unused subscriptions, or you may consider more drastic moves, depending on the income gap you are facing.

For instance, “downsizing a home, eliminating a household vehicle or moving to an area with a lower cost of living can significantly reduce expenses for those willing to make larger lifestyle changes,” said U.S. News & World Report.

2. Delay claiming benefits

“Nervous retirees are already rushing to claim Social Security benefits early, convinced they should grab what they can before the system changes,” said Money Talks News. But in reality, “there’s no advantage to claiming early if cuts hit across the board,” and doing so just means the “system-wide cut applies on top of that smaller base.”

By waiting to claim Social Security, you can maximize the base amount you earn in benefits. For each year until age 70 that you wait to claim, your benefit will increase by 8%, which can go a long way toward making up for the projected shortfall.

3. Build other sources of income

This does not necessarily mean going back to work, though that is an option, whether in the form of a part-time job, gig work or consulting in your former field. Other options to close the upcoming income gap include buying a deferred income annuity “equal to the reduction,” which effectively “converts your savings into a guaranteed income stream beginning on a future date and continuing for the rest of your life,” said Kiplinger. Alternatively, you could “create a diversified bucket of mutual funds that is separate from your other investments” and intended specifically “to make up for that anticipated Social Security cut.”

Hampshire’s police and crime commissioner has called for a review of religious exemptions on the carrying of knives in public after the fatal stabbing of Henry Nowak last December.

Vickrum Digwa was jailed for life on Monday for stabbing the 18-year-old Nowak five times with what the judge called a “large Sikh dagger”. The prosecution told the jury that while Digwa was entitled to wear a small kirpan, a ceremonial sword or dagger worn by initiated Sikhs, under his clothing around his neck, he also chose to carry the much larger knife that was used to stab Nowak.

The law makes it illegal to carry most knives in public without a “good reason”, said the UK government. It is “illegal to use any knife or weapon in a threatening way”.

Are kirpans exempt from UK knife laws?

A template letter from The Council of Sikhs in Law that provides information for employers says the kirpan is “a ceremonial blade, carried by initiated Sikhs as one of the five articles of faith”. Worn by Amritdhari, or baptised Sikhs, it holds “a deep religious and symbolic significance for Sikhs, representing the duty to protect the oppressed and uphold justice”.

The Criminal Justice Act 1988 sets out “an exception in terms of carrying bladed articles in public places for particular religious and ceremonial reasons”, said Cabinet Office minister Nick Thomas-Symonds in response to Nowak’s death. The government has “been tightening up the law” in terms of buying knives online and by banning “things like terrible zombie knives”. But “the judge actually said that the minute that this perpetrator removed the blade from the sheath, you can forget any sense of there being some sort of exception to the law”.

What other uses are permitted?

As well as citing “religious reasons”, the law allows exemptions “as part of any national costume”, such as a sgian dubh, a small ornamental knife worn with Highland dress.

Matt Easton, an antique dealer and sword expert who consults with police and lawyers to navigate the law, said that under the so-called “samurai sword ban” only curved swords with blades over 50cm from hilt to point (measured in a straight line) are prohibited. Blunt blades or curved swords for the purposes of historical re-enactment or filmmaking or for sports such as fencing or martial arts are allowed (usually with proof of participation such as insurance document or club membership card). Curved swords “traditionally made by hand and/or with a hand operated machine” are also exempt as are antiques over 100 years old and most “vintage” swords made before 1954.

When else can you carry knives?

The law also states it is a defence for a person charged with carrying an illegal knife to prove that they had “good reason or lawful authority” for having the article with them in a public place. This can include travelling directly to and from a legitimate bushcraft course or woodland activity where a fixed blade is required, or for “use at work” covering farmers, conservation workers and other professions where a knife is an essential tool.

A 2019 court judgment, Garry v. Crown Prosecution Service, established that the offence of carrying an offensive weapon in a public place “imposes a strict liability burden on defendants to prove they have a reasonable excuse for carrying the weapon”, said the Magistrates’ Association. The court was also asked to consider whether any alternative non-offensive tools could be used to carry out the same work function and “whether there is a temporal connection between the time the defendant was found in possession of the weapon and their attendance at work”.

If you have ever taken out a mortgage, you’ll know there are a lot of requirements to meet. You may need to put down a certain amount and have a debt-to-income ratio below a certain threshold. You may also run into limits on how much you can borrow or what sources of income the lender will count.

These rules do not apply to all mortgages — just to conforming mortgages, which is what the majority of borrowers take out. However, mortgage lenders are increasingly offering what are known as nonconforming loans, or mortgages that do not “comply with every one of the strict standards put in place after the housing crisis,” said The Wall Street Journal. While “still a small portion,” the “share of mortgages using alternative lending practices” has “doubled in size over the past three years.”

What are nonconforming loans?

A nonconforming mortgage is a “type of home loan that doesn’t meet some or all of the guidelines that make them eligible for purchase by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac,” said Bankrate. These are the government-sponsored entities that “support much of the secondary mortgage market in the U.S.,” meaning they often purchase resold mortgages.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have “federal rules that limit the purchase of loans deemed relatively risk-free,” said Investopedia. Loans that meet these guidelines are conforming loans; loans that do not are nonconforming. To be a conforming loan, a mortgage must fall under a certain loan amount, and the borrower must meet specific criteria when it comes to their credit score, debt-to-income ratio and loan-to-value ratio.

Effectively, any home loan that does not align with these stipulations is considered nonconforming. Examples include jumbo loans, government-backed loans, bridge loans and interest-only loans.

Why do people get them?

There are a wide range of reasons people may opt for a nonconforming mortgage. For one, “you may have no choice but to choose a nonconforming jumbo loan if you want to buy an expensive property,” said Rocket Mortgage. These loans can also provide more flexibility when it comes to the type of property you purchase, your credit score and your down payment amount.

Nonconforming loans additionally “offer an opportunity for home buyers who might not otherwise qualify for traditional loans because they are self-employed or hold their wealth in assets such as real estate,” said the Journal.

What are the drawbacks?

For starters, there are fewer lenders offering them “since they pose a higher risk to the bank or mortgage lender,” said Yahoo Finance. That said, availability can vary depending on the specific type, as “some nonconforming loans (like FHA mortgages) are common, while others (like USDA loans) can be harder to find.”

Nonconforming loans also “generally carry a higher interest rate for the borrower,” said the Journal, given the increased risk to the lender. Still, this can vary by loan type. For instance, “FHA, VA and USDA loans usually have lower interest rates,” while “less common nonconforming loans, such as bridge loans, often have higher interest rates,” said Yahoo Finance. There is also the possibility that a nonconforming loan “could have an unusual repayment schedule or other features that make it harder to repay,” said Bankrate.

Colombian mercenary troops trained on United Arab Emirates (UAE) bases participated in atrocities committed by the rebel Rapid Support Forces (RSF) paramilitary group during the ongoing Sudanese civil war, according to reports from the nonprofits Human Rights Watch (HRW) and Conflict Insights Group last month. Global Security Services Group, an “Abu Dhabi-based security company,” hired “hundreds of Colombian private military contractors” who allegedly aided the RSF’s assault on the North Darfur capital of El Fasher, where rebels “took over the city and committed widespread killings and rape,” said Human Rights Watch. The UAE has denied the reports, as rights groups call for further investigations and action.

What links the UAE with Colombian mercenaries?

HRW’s report is the latest evidence that the United Arab Emirates is “financially and militarily aiding the Rapid Support Forces” that have been “widely accused of committing atrocities amounting to war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide,” said The Associated Press. The report alleges “hundreds” of Colombian mercenaries were “trained by Emirati nationals at a military base” more than a hundred miles outside the capital of Abu Dhabi. They were then given further training “at another facility in Abu Dhabi, before being deployed to Sudan to fight alongside the RSF.”

The UAE has “long denied supporting the RSF,” said the BBC. The Conflict Insights Group’s report is the “first research where we can prove UAE involvement with certainty,” said the group’s Director Justin Lynch to the outlet. The investigation, which used “data obtained from tracking the mobile phones of the Colombian fighters,” makes public “what governments have long known. There is a direct link between Abu Dhabi and the RSF.”

The deployment of Colombian mercenaries is part of a “broader pattern” for Abu Dhabi, said Human Rights Watch researcher Joey Shea in an interview with Democracy Now!. The UAE has been “intervening in neighboring conflicts for over a decade” to “project its political and economic influence abroad.”

What is the broader context?

The beleaguered Sudanese government is “protecting Africa from external plots” by “confronting foreign interference” in the ongoing civil war, said Foreign Minister Mohieldin Salem to Al Jazeera in February. Sudan’s conflict “involves a large number of mercenaries and significant external intervention through funding and advanced weaponry.”

Last year, journalists investigated a captured convoy of weaponry intended for RSF forces featuring arms “manufactured in Bulgaria and bought by an Emirati company,” said France 24. Before their confiscation by allies of the Sudanese government, the weapons had passed through an eastern Libyan zone “controlled by Field Marshal Khalifa Haftar, an ally of the UAE.”

Researchers have also found “clear evidence that sophisticated Chinese-made guided bombs and howitzers have been used in Sudan,” said Amnesty International. The presence of Chinese munitions adds to a “growing body of evidence showing extensive UAE support to the RSF, in violation of international law,” said Brian Castner, the head of crisis research at Amnesty International.

Will there be consequences?

“Evidence collected” by humanitarian groups shows “UAE-supported mercenaries from Colombia in and around El Fasher as the town fell,” said the nonprofit Refugees International. The reports suggest the UAE backed “enhanced drone capabilities that helped the RSF to carry out deadly attacks on civilians.” The organization has since called for “immediate accountability” by strengthening existing embargos and treaties, asking that “prominent companies and organizations like the NBA, Disney and Warner Bros.” stop their business with the UAE “until it has ended its armed support for the RSF.”

This week, Britain’s Sky News ended its participation in a joint TV news venture with the UAE. Network executives have grown “increasingly concerned about the editorial position Sky News Arabia has taken on news in the region,” said The Guardian. Coverage of reported atrocities committed by the RSF was “accused of whitewashing genocide.” The network “produced a report claiming the security and humanitarian situation had stabilized” in El Fasher and filed stories “suggesting there was no evidence on the ground supporting satellite imagery and testimony from survivors of the atrocities.”

Sky will cede “full strategic and operational control” of the network to its Emirati partner, International Media Investments, said Middle East Eye. IMI, which will temporarily be allowed to continue using Sky News branding, is owned by Emirati Vice President and Deputy Prime Minister Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan.

Two controversial US political commentators accused of spreading anti-Israeli rhetoric have been barred from entering the UK.

Cenk Uygur and Hasan Piker had been due to appear at the SXSW London culture and tech festival this week, but had their visas revoked by the Home Office on the grounds that their presence “may not be conducive to the public good”.

Who are they?

Turkish-American Cenk Uygur hosts the left-wing “The Young Turks” political talk show. Launched in 2002 as a satellite radio programme, since 2005 it has been hosted on YouTube, with episodes livestreamed every weekday to an audience of more than six million followers.

Uygur has repeatedly framed Israel’s actions in Gaza as “genocide”, “barbaric” and “savage” and accused Israel of using Jews as “human shields”. In 2024, he briefly campaigned to become the Democrat nominee in the 2024 US presidential election.

His nephew, Hasan Piker, runs his own stream, watched by more than 30,000 people each day. SXSW organisers described the 34-year-old as “redefining what political commentary looks like in the digital age”, but he has “faced a backlash over some of his comments”, said The Guardian, including reportedly saying in 2019 that “America deserved 9/11”.

He has stood by his characterisation of Hamas as “1,000 times better” than Israel, and his claim that he “would vote for Hamas over Israel every single time”, arguing he is not antisemitic but anti-Israel.

Why have they been banned?

According to The Times, Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood decided to ban the pair “due to fears they could fuel antisemitism”.

Home Office decisions to refuse or cancel an electronic travel authorisation, which allows foreign nationals visa-free travel to the UK for up to six months, are “based on an assessment of the potential risk an individual may pose to UK society”.

In April, Mahmood launched a taskforce to identify extremists who were planning to come to the UK, so she could ban them before they travel. In May, 11 “far-right agitators” were barred from entering the UK to join Tommy Robinson’s Unite the Kingdom rally in London. Islamist hate preachers have also been prohibited from entering the country, as has US rapper Ye, formerly known as Kanye West, due to his history of antisemitic remarks.

In the case of Uygur it was judged his presence would risk exacerbating antisemitism due to his rhetoric since the 7 October Hamas attacks in 2023, which “has included repeating classic antisemitic tropes”, such as the claim that Israel controls America, said The Times.

What has their reaction been?

In a series of posts on X, Uygur said he has been banned from the UK “for criticising Israel”, related in part to his claim that “Israel controls the American government through donations to 94% of Congress”.

“Are we free any more? This is oppression of Western citizens by our own governments on behalf of a different country!” he added.

Replying to Uygur, Piker said the UK has revoked his visa “all at the behest of Israel”. “The West is betraying ‘liberal values’ for a genocidal fascist foreign government. Soon we will all become Israel.”

Was a ban the right move?

Left-wing outlet Novara Media’s Ash Sarkar, who was due to chair a discussion with Piker at SXSW, said that the decision was evidence of an “authoritarian turn motivated by Labour’s fear of being called antisemitic, and fear of being called out for their position on the genocidal war on Gaza”.

“You don’t foster community cohesion by having the government ban people from speaking,” she said.

“We can argue about who should be allowed into the United Kingdom, and where the line between offensive opinion and public danger should fall,” said broadcaster Jonathan Sacerdoti in The Spectator. But while “we can disagree on individual cases”, there “must be a distinction between protecting open argument and importing those whose public role is to turn conspiracy into cash”.

Investigators have raided the headquarters of Spain’s governing party as part of a probe into the alleged misuse of party funds, the latest in a “blizzard of corruption scandals” to hit the reign of Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez, said Politico.

“Scandal after scandal” involving political allies and relatives of Sánchez have left him “on the ropes”, said the outlet.

What are the scandals? 

An investigating judge has accused the former PM, José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, of leading a criminal network that used his influence to arrange a €53 million Covid-era government bailout for the Spanish Plus Ultra airline. He is accused of receiving a total of €2.6 million from the network, and has been charged with criminal organisation, influence peddling and falsifying documents.

Zapatero, who denies the charges, is a close ally of Sánchez, who was in government when the airline was bailed out, so the scandal has embroiled the current PM.

Sánchez’s number three, Santos Cerdán, and another party figure, José Luis Ábalos, have been caught up in a public contract kickback scheme. To make it worse, evidence also emerged that Ábalos paid prostitutes. Both men deny involvement in the kickback scheme.

In a separate case last autumn, the attorney general, Álvaro García Ortiz, a government selection, was found guilty of revealing secrets.

And a party operative, Leire Díez, has been accused of being paid to “carry out a campaign of misinformation” with the intention of “impeding” the legal cases connected to the party, said the BBC. She has also denied any wrongdoing.

What about his family?

Last month, Sánchez’s wife Begoña Gómez was charged with embezzlement, influence peddling, corruption in business dealings and misappropriation of funds. She denies the charges and Sánchez has described this case as an “obscene farce”.

His brother, David, is on trial along with 10 other defendants, in an unrelated case, on charges of influence-peddling in his appointment to a musical director post in 2017. He denies the charges.

What does this mean for Spain?

Sánchez originally came to power on an anti-corruption ticket in 2018, after a corruption scandal brought down the conservative government of Mariano Rajoy. Although Sánchez has not been directly implicated in any of the investigations, questions over whether he knew about, tolerated, or benefited politically from the alleged actions of those around him are particularly damaging to his standing.

The tensions between the government and opposition parties on the matter are creating even deeper polarisation. With allegations that party operatives tried to undermine police officers or judicial investigations, broader questions are being raised about institutional independence and public trust in the courts, police and political parties.

Crucially, it is “increasingly awkward” for Sánchez’s allies to “stick with him” as the “scale” of the alleged corruption “comes into focus”, said Politico. Although officially Spain does not have to hold elections until next August, the prime minister “may be forced to move earlier”.

Meanwhile, he has dismissed the allegations as a right-wing plot to undermine his coalition, but the opposition conservative People’s Party said the government “stinks” of corruption.

Eagerness about artificial intelligence has led to a competitive push at tech companies to use as much AI as possible in a trend called tokenmaxxing. Employers are happily spending thousands to keep up with output, but whether the practice is sustainable is up for debate.

What is it?

At the core of the AI workplace trend are tokens. They represent small bits of text that AI models process during a prompt, tracking AI usage and calculating costs. AI companies “typically charge a monthly subscription for a fixed allotment of tokens,” with additional usage billed separately or available in higher-tier plans, Built In said.

Tokenmaxxing is about “encouraging engineers to consume as many AI tokens as possible,” said Forbes. Companies argue that “token consumption is a key indicator for measuring employee and developer productivity.” There is a growing sentiment that “teams that aren’t burning enough tokens simply aren’t automating enough and get left behind.”

Employees rack up tokens by deploying multiple agentic AI models on separate projects simultaneously or by running longer prompts. The trend came to public attention after The Information uncovered that a Meta employee had created an internal leaderboard ranking employees by token usage. Employees were incentivized to use more tokens to outperform coworkers and earn rewards such as digital badges and exclusive titles like “Cache Wizard.” The highest-ranked individual user averaged 281 billion tokens, “which could cost in the hundreds or thousands of dollars,” said The Information. The leaderboard has since been taken down.

Leaderboards are just the icing on the AI-workplace cake. Token budgets are “becoming another form of employee compensation, alongside stock options and yearly bonuses,” said Built In. While some workers go through millions of tokens a week, employers are “happily footing the bill,” believing that “more AI use means more productivity and, of course, more money for the business in the long run.”

Is it worth it?

The popularity of tokenmaxxing “reflects a desire to incentivize AI usage” and presents the assumption that “tokens are the base unit for AI usage,” meaning “greater consumption indicates higher value of AI,” Jim Rowan, the U.S. head of AI at Deloitte Consulting LLP, said to Forbes. While well-intentioned, there are “risks of turning tokens into a ‘vanity metric.’”

Still, some proponents of the competitive practice push back against such rhetoric. “We all should be tokenmaxxing,” Sonya Huang, a partner at Sequoia Capital, said to The Wall Street Journal. Artificial intelligence is an “insane new piece of technology that is fundamentally going to rewrite how we work.” What matters most for your company is: “Has my employee become insanely AI-pilled?” That requires “getting them on this tokenmaxxing mindset.”

The tokenmaxxing trend is a “crazy, rushed, temporary phase,” Michael Burry, the investor behind “The Big Short,” said in his Substack Short Thoughts. It is not “merely heavy AI use,” and it is “certainly not sustainable AI use.” It is “quota-driven, leaderboard-driven, management-mandated overconsumption.”

It’s true that the “cost of training AI models is falling, making AI tokens more affordable,” but people have started using “more tokens in their day-to-day tasks,” said The Week sister site Tom’s Hardware. Though AI is “indeed a useful tool,” some companies are “using it to replace people in a bid to cut labor costs.” If the number of tokens needed to accomplish tasks “outpaces the speed at which these tokens become cheaper, then that move might just backfire.”

Your house may have seemed just right for you when you bought it. But over the years, your situation can change. Perhaps you had a kid or started working from home full-time. Maybe one-and-a-half baths and a smaller kitchen did not feel restrictive when you made the purchase, and now it does.

In this situation, you are faced with two options: renovate your home for your current wants and needs, or move. While staying put may seem like the simpler option, it “isn’t always the easier or cheaper path,” said Realtor.com. Then again, relocating is also an undertaking in and of itself, even if it is just a few streets over.

When does renovating make sense?

The “biggest reason to put the time and effort into renovating or expanding your home is its location,” said U.S. News & World Report. If you are attached to the area where your home is, whether because of your kids’ school, nearby neighbors or favorite shops, it can make sense to commit.

For homeowners with “strong equity and a solid mortgage, remodeling can be a savvy way to level up your living space without resetting your entire financial picture,” said Realtor.com. There are improvements you can make that boost livability and enjoyment now, with some even pushing up resale value later, too.

When is moving a better choice?

It’s “easy to think that a remodel will solve everything you don’t like about your home, but in reality, it’s not a magic bullet,” said Zillow. The truth is, “there are some things that a renovation just can’t fix, like having loud neighbors, an unfavorable school district, more or less square footage or the type of home you’re living in.” In these cases, moving will likely be a better use of your time and money.

While a whole new house may sound like a much bigger-ticket item, in some scenarios, it is still the more financially sound option. “If the desired renovation project exceeds $100,000 to $150,000, it starts to make more financial sense to move, especially when factoring in time, stress and lifestyle disruption,” said real estate agent Mike Toltzis to U.S. News & World Report.

What should you take into account when making the decision?

When weighing whether to renovate or relocate, consider the following factors:

Cost: Cost is a major component of this decision. Even if a renovation looks cheaper on paper, it “isn’t always a value-adding slam dunk, especially if your home is already priced near the top of the market,” said Realtor.com. For moving, look at more than just the sale price — also factor in moving costs, realtor commissions and perhaps a larger mortgage payment if your next house is bigger.

Timeline: Buyers “often underestimate the cost and time involved in remodeling,” said realtor Ashley DeHart to NerdWallet. But a “real estate agent can help weigh these factors against the convenience and potential savings of buying a move-in-ready home.”

Current real estate market: If you’re in a “down market and can’t get the price you want or need out of your home to move to a better property or neighborhood, it might make more sense to renovate,” said U.S. News & World Report. In a competitive market, it can be smarter to “sell your home while prices are high and homes are in strong demand.”

Long-term plans: “Will this home still serve your needs in five or 10 years? Or are you stretching it to fit a life it’s already outgrown?” said Realtor.com. You will also want to ask yourself whether you are renovating “because you love your home — or because you’re avoiding a harder decision.”

With many police officers across the U.S. wearing body cameras, a cottage industry of YouTube channels streaming police interactions on bodycams has sprung up. These videos rack up thousands or even millions of views. But some law enforcement experts consider them exploitative.

How do these channels operate?

Bodycam channels all get their content “from the same basic model: Someone uses public records requests to obtain video from police arrests, lightly edits the video, adding maybe a brief AI narration or captions, and then hits ‘publish,’” said Vox. Many of the videos involve DUIs or intoxicated people “yelling, speeding, throwing things, hitting cops” and then “being arrested while crying, screaming, spitting and so on.” The channels also document “people being arrested for just about anything, from shoplifting to murder and kidnapping cases.”

Many of these channels do big numbers. One of them, Code Blue Cam, averages “over 10 million views a video and has totaled more than a billion across hundreds of videos,” while another called Midwest Safety “has totaled over 1.5 billion views,” said Vox. The channels claim to publish bodycam footage “based on their significance, the clarity of the footage and whether the interaction offers meaningful insight into how officers respond under pressure,” the owner of Code Blue Cam, who goes by LJ, told Wisconsin Public Radio (WPR).

Why are people concerned?

Many experts say the people uploading these videos “usually aren’t on a crusade for justice. They are interested in having footage of someone’s shoplifting arrest rack up millions of views for profit,” said Vox. The most viral videos “can be devastating for their subjects, damaging relationships with family and friends, frustrating job searches and scarring psyches,” said Intelligencer. And because bodycam footage is often public record, the people in the videos generally “have little legal recourse: Claims of defamation and false light,” the legal term for invasion of privacy, are “extremely difficult to prove.”

For victims, the “experience of having their worst moments broadcast to millions of strangers on the internet” can be “devastating,” said WPR, especially since they are often uncensored and include defendants’ real names. Women and people of color are most heavily featured, according to researchers. At least one bodycam channel came under scrutiny because it “only requested DWI stops involving young women, some being underage,” said WPVI-TV Philadelphia. Women are disproportionately seen, even though “some 80% of DUIs are committed by men,” said Intelligencer.

These channels also have a financial component. Code Blue Cam earns about $325,000 monthly, according to YouTube analytics tracker VidIQ. Many of the channels additionally “feature a list of affiliate links to earn commission from viewers purchasing products like security and dash cameras,” said WPR.

Some police departments are starting to fight back. Officials in Spokane County, Washington, recently passed a resolution “fee of 78 cents per minute of time it takes staff to obscure portions” of bodycam footage “that state law says should not be public,” said The Spokesman-Review. The fee is “intended to deter social media creators who make voluminous requests for footage.” The Illinois House of Representatives is also considering a bill that would “allow police to deny video requests from internet sites and social media channels,” said the Daily Herald.

The Court of Appeal is to review the sentences given to three teenage boys convicted of the rape of two girls in Hampshire. The judge’s original decision had prompted a public outcry and a rare intervention from the prime minister.

The boys, two of whom were 15 and one 14 at the time of sentencing, were given youth rehabilitation orders and walked free from court despite having 10 rape convictions between them. The judge said he wanted to “avoid criminalising these children unnecessarily” and support their reintegration into society.

But former safeguarding minister Jess Phillips said the sentences were “unduly lenient” while Keir Starmer, a former director of public prosecutions, said “there are questions about the sentence”. The case has highlighted the discretionary power the judiciary holds.

How much leeway do judges have?

Legislation sets maximum, and sometimes minimum, sentences for criminal offences based on the type, seriousness and circumstances of the crime. “But the law is written in a way that gives judges and magistrates considerable discretion when it comes to sentencing,” said the Sentencing Council for England and Wales.

Sentencing guidelines set by the Council help identify what type and length of sentence should be imposed to make sure a consistent approach is taken across all courts and crimes.

By law, judges and magistrates must sentence according to the guidelines, “unless it would be unjust to do so”, said the Council. However, they have the “discretion to depart from sentencing guidelines if they think it would be in the interest of justice to do so, given all the circumstances of a particular case”.

When deciding on a sentence, the judge or magistrate will consider things like “your age, if you have a criminal record, if you pleaded guilty or not guilty”, said Gov.uk. While they must follow sentencing guidelines, “they may also look at decisions made by the Court of Appeal in previous cases – this is called ‘case law’”.

“Judges never publicly comment on cases they oversee because to do so would potentially undermine the words they have used in court,” said the BBC, “but they always have to show in court the reasons why they have sentenced a defendant the way they did”.

How is it different for young offenders?

“While the seriousness of the offence will be the starting point,” said the Sentencing Council, when sentencing children or those aged under 18 at the date of the finding of guilt, the approach should be “individualistic and focused on the child or young person, as opposed to offence focused”.

There is an emphasis on rehabilitation “where possible”. The court should also “consider the effect the sentence is likely to have on the child or young person (both positive and negative) as well as any underlying factors contributing to the offending behaviour”.

Both domestic and international laws dictate that a custodial sentence should always be a “measure of last resort” for children and young people. Statute provides that a custodial sentence “may only be imposed when the offence is so serious that no other sanction is appropriate”.

Can a sentence be reconsidered?

The unduly lenient sentence scheme allows any member of the public to refer a sentence to the attorney general. The government’s top legal adviser then asks prosecutors to “advise whether it is in line with expectations, taking into account the discretion that judges have, or completely at odds with what would have happened in comparable cases”, said the BBC.

If the attorney general decides the sentence was “out of line, he will refer it to the Court of Appeal where three senior judges will look at what happened in a public hearing and rule on whether the sentence was right or unduly lenient”.

The right to appeal against a sentence “remains restricted to serious crimes tried in the crown court, such as murder, manslaughter, robbery, rape, stalking and most child sexual abuse offences”, excluding “hundreds of other offences, including some sexual crimes, causing death by careless driving and burglary”, said The Guardian.

The law was changed in April to extend the 28-day limit to submit a formal request for a review after an offender is sentenced to six months. It followed a campaign by relatives of murder victims who argued they were not aware of the scheme or had missed the deadline.

Nearly six years to the day after the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis sparked racial protests across the United States, something similar is happening across the pond. The death of a Congolese man in Dublin led people throughout the Irish capital to take to the streets, in what many are calling the country’s own George Floyd-like reckoning.

What happened?

The protests began over an incident on May 15, when Yves Sakila was detained by “several security guards who suspected him of shoplifting at Arnotts, Ireland’s oldest and largest department store, in the heart of Dublin” after he “allegedly stole a bottle of perfume,” said The Associated Press. Sakila, a 35-year-old native of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, was seen on video “struggling and crying out in distress as he was held down by several men for nearly five minutes.”

At least two of the guards “held his face to the ground and at one point one of ​them appeared to kneel on his head or neck for a few seconds,” said Reuters. Police eventually arrived on scene, and Sakila was taken to the hospital, where he was pronounced dead. Sakila’s death was seen by many as reminiscent of the murder of George Floyd, who died in 2020 “after being arrested by police outside a shop in Minnesota, prompting widespread protests under the Black Lives Matter banner,” said The Times.

How has Ireland reacted?

The incident has caused anger and protests in Ireland, with many demonstrators calling for racial justice. Following Sakila’s death, at least “several hundred people attended a rally” in Dublin organized by Black Coalition Ireland, said The Irish Times. The protesters are demanding “proper transparent investigation into his death,” Black Coalition Ireland spokeswoman Cllr Yemi Adenuga told The Irish Times, as well as “racial training for all gardaí,” referring to Ireland’s national police force.

The protesters additionally called for an “end to the ‘demonizing rhetoric’ used by politicians or would-be politicians against ethnic communities and equal treatment for all communities, not just on paper but in practice,” said The Irish Times. The Democratic Republic of the Congo “remains steadfastly committed to establishing the full truth” of Sakila’s death, the country’s foreign affairs ministry said in a translated post on X. Irish government officials are also getting involved, with Ebun Joseph, Ireland’s Special Rapporteur on Racism and Racial Equality, calling for an investigation.

The footage of Sakila’s death has “caused profound distress, fear and outrage across many communities, particularly among Black and minority ethnic communities who already experience heightened anxiety regarding racial profiling, excessive force, unequal treatment and over-policing in public spaces,” Joseph said in a statement, per Irish broadcaster RTÉ. His death raises “urgent and serious questions which require comprehensive examination.” Irish Taoiseach Micheál Martin, the country’s prime minister, has also called for an investigation.

The incident will likely cause tensions to grow in a country that “continues to grapple with increasing political tension around immigration, following anti-immigrant protests and riots that erupted in Dublin in 2023,” said The Grio. Many are continuing to push for changes. “We call this a George Floyd moment,” David ​Kaliba, a former high school classmate of Sakila, said to Reuters. “I can’t believe ​it happened in America in 2020 and happened in Ireland in 2026.”

If you are living on a tight budget, going on vacation may seem totally out of reach. But you may just need to adjust your sense of scale. Rather than taking a week or more off work and trying to cover lodging, food and everything else for that entire time, consider stepping away for just a few days instead.

Known as a microvacation, such smaller-scale trips can be easier both logistically and financially — and they can still be plenty of fun. “One in five Gen Zers (21%) plan to take shorter trips in 2026 than in past years,” with one of the top reasons — cited by 37% of survey respondents — being the “spontaneity,” said Bank of America’s 2026 Summer Travel Outlook, per Investopedia.

What is a microvacation (or microcation)?

The defining feature of a microvacation, also referred to as a microcation, is its length. A microvacation “usually lasts one to four days,” said Kiplinger, and it “doesn’t require long flights, complicated itineraries or a big chunk of time off work.”

Often, a microvacation does not entail traveling to a far-flung location but rather sticking closer to home, with many opting for somewhere just a short drive away, given the condensed timeframe. But some travelers view the expedited timeline as a way to tick off places on their bucket list that much faster — in essence, they are “questioning the idea of saving all pleasure for one annual holiday, instead using shorter breaks to see more of the world in manageable, repeatable doses,” said the BBC.

Why are people opting for shorter trips instead?

For starters, “compared with weeklong vacations, microvacations can be cheaper, fit into a work schedule more easily and are simpler to plan,” said Investopedia. Beyond that, “some are inspired by the idea of stretching limited paid time off; others look to game loyalty points for quick trips to, say, Barcelona and London; and some are simply drawn to the challenge,” said The New York Times, noting the trend of “microvacationers posting about their itineraries on social media.”

While you may wonder how effectively you can really experience a place in just a handful of days, some microcation proponents argue the opposite. With fewer days, “each day is more impactful — you’re really in the moment, and you have more [money] to spend on what matters,” said microvacationer Sarah Pardi to the BBC.

How can you start planning a microcation?

When planning a microvacation, one of the best places to start is by determining why you want to take one. Consider “what you actually need right now: rest, connection, fun or simply a change of scenery,” said Kiplinger.

With that in mind, you can start preparing — but make sure not to get carried away. Microvacationers should “aim to anchor their trips to a single experience,” ensuring you aren’t trying to “cover too much ground in the limited time you have” and that you “don’t overplan,” said Laurel Greatrix, the chief communications officer for Tripadvisor Group, to the Times. After all, you do not want to spend a large chunk of your short time away in transit from one place to the next.

On 28 April, the UAE, which produces about 4% of the world’s oil, thanked the Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (Opec) for “five decades of cooperation”, then resigned.

Opec is an intergovernmental group that imposes production quotas on members to keep oil prices “fair and stable”, it says; economists see it as a classic example of a cartel, a group that collaborates to reduce competition and raise prices.

Why did the UAE leave Opec?

The UAE is thought to have left because it wants to increase production, against the wishes of Saudi Arabia, Opec’s de facto leader, but it had also recently been attacked by another member, Iran. In theory, the UAE could now export more oil, lowering the commodity’s soaring price. But thanks to the continued closure of the Strait of Hormuz (through which over half of the UAE’s oil and all of its gas usually passes), and the chaotic state of the peace negotiations between the US and Iran, energy markets barely moved. Some analysts, however, called it “the beginning of the end of Opec”.

Why was Opec created?

From the 1930s until the 1970s, a group of seven Anglo-American companies known as the “Seven Sisters” – the ancestors of today’s BP, ExxonMobil, Chevron and Shell – dominated the world oil market. They had secured long-term concessions across the Middle East, as well as in Venezuela and Indonesia, which meant they controlled over 80% of world supplies.

Producer nations were initially given only modest payments in return. After the Second World War, oil-producing countries increasingly chafed under the Seven Sisters’ grip, often demanding a larger share of revenues. In 1951, Iran nationalised its oilfields, which was reversed by a US- and British-orchestrated coup.

Around the same time, Saudi Arabia negotiated a 50:50 revenue-sharing deal with Aramco, the (then) US-owned Saudi oil company; this model soon spread. Even so, the Seven Sisters retained control over prices and production, as well as refining and distribution. Opec was created in response.

How did it come into existence?

In early 1959, in response to growing Soviet oil production, the Seven Sisters cut prices by 10%, infuriating the oil ministers of Venezuela and Saudi Arabia, who started making plans that year in Cairo. In September 1960, shortly after another price cut, Opec was founded in Baghdad by Venezuela, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, in an effort to reshape the system in the producers’ interests.

The first international organisation led by what was then called the Third World, Opec worked incrementally at first, driving “participation agreements”, which gradually transferred ownership of oil companies to host governments. But it also expanded its membership: Qatar, Libya, Indonesia, Algeria and Abu Dhabi (the largest emirate) joined in the 1960s; Nigeria joined in 1971. By 1973, when an oil crisis shook the world, Opec controlled more than half of global oil production.

What happened in 1973?

In October, King Faisal of Saudi Arabia and his Arab allies – enraged by US support for Israel in the Yom Kippur War against Syria and Egypt, and Israel’s continuing occupation of East Jerusalem and the West Bank – convinced Opec to hike the price of oil from around $3.01 to $5.12 per barrel; the Arab nations also imposed an oil embargo on the US and other nations that backed Israel.

By early 1974, the price had risen above $12 per barrel – a 300% increase. Although the embargo only lasted until March 1974, it triggered a two-year global economic crisis, creating oil shortages and spiralling inflation, and bringing the West’s postwar boom to an end, with all manner of long-term consequences.

The long tail of the 1973 oil crisis

It’s hard to overstate the effects of the 1973 crisis and the “stagflation” that ensued, which exposed the great vulnerability of Western nations, raised unemployment sharply and accelerated deindustrialisation. It has been plausibly linked to everything from a great shift in the world financial order to the invention of punk rock.

In the UK, it speeded up the development of North Sea oil and gas fields (discovered in 1965), and the adoption of natural gas for home heating; France pivoted sharply to nuclear power. Energy conservation only became a priority as a result of the crisis.

In the US, it permanently changed the car industry, opening up the market for lighter, more fuel-efficient – often Japanese – vehicles. This, in the long run, helped make the Toyota Corolla the bestselling car of all time.

There were also unanticipated consequences in Saudi Arabia, where the monarchy used the great oil wealth created to promote a puritanical, fundamentalist version of Islam. (Among the beneficiaries of the ensuing construction boom around holy sites were the bin Laden family.) This was partly to counter the spread of left-wing ideas in the Arab world, though King Faisal, a pious man, was said to be sincerely horrified by “the spiritual dangers of easy affluence”.

Did the strategy work?

The embargo’s main objective was to pressure the US into making Israel leave the Palestinian territories it had occupied in 1967. This didn’t happen, but Opec kept prices high through the 1970s: the decade saw one of the largest transfers of wealth in history, as “petrodollar” infusions from industrialised nations to nationalised oil firms allowed Opec members to fund massive infrastructure projects, build up their militaries, and establish welfare states.

The Iranian Revolution of 1979 also kept prices up. At the same time, rich countries took steps to become less dependent on oil; while soaring prices encouraged new exploration, from Alaska to the North Sea, and the Soviet Union became a major producer.

What effects did this have?

The resulting “oil glut” in the 1980s meant that Opec’s power drained away. Opec decreased oil production quotas to stabilise prices, but members failed to comply, producing above their limits; while non-Opec producers pumped out more to fill the gap. Saudi Arabia, frustrated and losing market share, opened the spigots in 1986, crashing the oil price. In the years after, quotas were largely restored – but Opec’s ability to affect world prices was relatively limited, and poorer members often chafed at the restrictions.

What is the situation today?

US shale fracking technology meant that, in 2018, it overtook Saudi Arabia and Russia as the world’s largest producer. Partly in response to these changes, Opec+ had been formed in 2016. A looser group that includes big producers such as Russia and Mexico, it controls about 40% of the world’s output; but the complex, diversified global system limits its power, while smaller Opec members complain that policy is decided by the “Big Two”, Saudi Arabia and Russia. This was one reason why Qatar left Opec in 2019, damaging the image of a unified Middle Eastern bloc; Angola and Ecuador have also left.

The UAE’s departure is on a different scale: it was the cartel’s third-largest producer. The immediate effects are limited by the Iran crisis. But without its “swing” capacity to increase production fast, Opec’s ability to act as a “global central bank for oil” is diminished.

For months, the Trump administration has increased pressure on Cuba through harsher sanctions, a crippling oil blockade and threats to “take” the island.

Now Washington has sharply escalated tensions by indicting the 94-year-old former Cuban president, Raúl Castro (brother of Fidel). The US Justice Department said the charges relate to the 1996 downing of two unarmed civilian planes by the Cuban military, when Raúl was armed forces minister. The incident, which killed four people, triggered one of the worst crises in US-Cuban relations since the Cold War.

Following the US capture and ousting of Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro following a similar indictment, which deprived the Cuban Communist Party of a key ally, many fear the indictment suggests Donald Trump’s desire for regime change in Havana is intensifying.

Who is Raúl Castro?

Alongside Fidel, Raúl helped lead the guerrilla war that toppled the US-backed dictator Fulgencio Batista in 1959, and launched the Cuban communist revolution.

As Fidel’s defence minister for decades, Raúl built a “powerful base within the military and Cuban state”, said Reuters. He also helped defeat the US-organised Bay of Pigs invasion. After Fidel became ill in 2006, Raúl stepped in as acting president before formally taking over in 2008. Although he resigned as president in 2018 and leader of the Communist Party in 2021, he is widely considered one of the most powerful men in the country, and one of the fathers of the revolution.

He retains the official title of “army general” and holds “significant influence” over the Communist Party and armed forces. The current president, Miguel Díaz-Canel, is “widely seen as relying on ​Castro’s guidance for major decisions”.

What happened to the planes in 1996?

After the collapse of its main financial supporter, the Soviet Union, Cuba suffered an “extreme economic emergency” of blackouts, and shortages of food and fuel, said BBC News Mundo – much like today. Thousands fled to Florida on rafts. A Miami-based group of Cuban exiles, Brothers to the Rescue, tried to help the migrants, and dropped anti-regime leaflets over the island. Havana “began denouncing the air incursions”, branding the group “terrorists”.

In 1996, Cuban fighter jets shot down two of the group’s planes, killing all four men on board – three of whom were US citizens. The attack sparked “strong international condemnation”, including against Raúl, and the US “significantly tightened” sanctions. Most organisations say the planes were in international airspace, although Cuba has always insisted otherwise. Many analysts believe Fidel was trying to “prevent a possible rapprochement with the US”, which could “spur political and economic reforms” that would “jeopardise his absolute power”. The case still “retains enormous symbolic and political weight” for Cubans, on and off the island.

What is the significance of the indictments?

Families of the four pilots who were killed “cheered the indictments, which they had been demanding for three decades”, said NBC News. It is a “politically powerful decision”; Florida’s large, politically active population of Cuban émigrés exert “outsized leverage” on US presidents, particularly Trump. Miami’s members of Congress would have the White House “do the same to Castro” as it did to Maduro, said The Miami Herald.

And the decision to unseal the indictments on 20 May “carries particular significance”, said The New York Times. On the same date in 1902, the US formally ended its years-long military occupation of the former Spanish colony. Many in the US still celebrate it as Cuban independence day. But for others, said Michael Bustamante, director of Cuban American studies at the University of Miami, the Trump administration is “hearkening back to this moment when the US did treat Cuba as its backyard”.

Will it lead to war between the US and Cuba?

This indictment could “doom any lingering chance of a deal to avoid armed conflict”, said CNN’s Havana Bureau Chief Patrick Oppmann. Trump claims Cuba is “desperate” to make a deal, but “he said the same about Venezuela and Iran”.

The charges have “fired up” the anti-Castro Cuban exile community in Miami. Many hope Fidel’s revolution is “crumbling”, with Trump’s oil blockade pushing the island “closer to the brink”. They are arguing “against any accommodation with Havana”. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, a Cuban-American and “staunch foe of the Castros”, said the leadership “needs to go”.

The charges “lay the groundwork for a possible military operation by the US to extradite him”. But unlike in Venezuela, where Maduro’s military “quickly fell in line with Trump’s demands”, Cubans are “likely to react far more belligerently”. There is “little chance” that Raúl will be going anywhere, “much less a Miami courtroom”. Díaz-Canel has said US action would trigger a “blood bath”; the regime “may choose to go down fighting”. After all, in Cuba, every official speech “ends with the cry of ‘Fatherland or death!’”

For many people, taxes come due just once a year. But for others, it is necessary to make payments every quarter alongside the requisite filing due April 15.

Known as quarterly estimated tax payments, these are “taxes paid to the IRS throughout the year on earnings that are not subject to federal tax withholding,” said NerdWallet. Failing to make quarterly estimated tax payments when you owe them can result in a penalty, which is why it is important to know whether this applies to you. Here are the common situations in which quarterly taxes are owed.

People who do not have enough withheld

The general rule of thumb for owing quarterly estimated taxes is if “you’ll owe $1,000 or more in federal income taxes this year, even after accounting for your withholding and refundable credits,” said NerdWallet. You will also need to pay them if “your withholding and refundable credits will cover less than 90% of your tax liability for this year, or 100% of your liability last year, whichever is smaller.” That threshold increases to 110% for those with incomes over a certain amount.

This situation could apply even to those whose employers withhold a portion of their income if not enough is held back to fully cover the tax owed. The amount of money that is withheld largely depends on the information employees provide on their W-4 form.

Those who are self-employed or earn business income

Taxes “typically aren’t withheld from self-employment income, so if you do any freelance, consulting or gig work, you should either pay quarterly income taxes or increase your withholding on other types of income to cover the shortfall,” said U.S. News & World Report.

If you own a small business, you should also anticipate needing to make these payments. “Individuals, including sole proprietors, partners and shareholders of S corporations, must make estimated tax payments on business ownership earnings if the total tax on built-in gains, excess net passive income tax and investment credit recapture tax is $1,000 or more,” said Investopedia.

Investors who realize large capital gains or receive other investment income

Capital gains, which occur when you sell an investment for a profit, can result in owing quarterly tax payments. “Any realized capital gains that can’t be offset by exclusions or capital losses are generally taxable and can be a trigger for making quarterly tax payments,” said Natalie Taylor, a certified financial planner and behavioral financial advisor in Santa Barbara, California, per U.S. News & World Report.

Other types of investment income can similarly trigger estimated taxes. This may include dividend and interest income, and rental income for landlords with rental properties.

Individuals who have made taxable retirement withdrawals

If you’ve been “saving in a tax-deferred retirement account, like a traditional IRA, and you make taxable withdrawals,” you can also end up owing quarterly taxes, said U.S. News & World Report. The same applies “if you earn enough income while on Social Security.”

You can, however, avoid making quarterly estimated tax payments in this case if you request that enough to cover taxes gets withheld from either your retirement account withdrawal or Social Security benefits.

The MAHA movement, led by HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., has been pushing for healthier food for schoolchildren, but the Trump administration’s budget cuts might make this difficult. Combined with a series of changing MAHA-adjacent nutritional guidelines, some schools are reportedly finding it hard to fund kids’ lunches.

Why are schools having trouble providing lunches?

A large part of the issue lies with the new MAHA health guidelines, which encourages people to “avoid highly processed foods and prioritize ‘high-quality, nutrient-dense’ protein at every meal,” said NPR. These guidelines form the “basis of federal nutrition standards that schools participating in federal meal programs must follow.” But many school districts “rely on processed, premade foods to feed their students, and protein is already the most expensive ingredient on the cafeteria plate.”

Currently, the government’s federal reimbursement rate for a free school lunch is about $4.70, which “must cover the food and the supplies, our labor and our equipment, deliveries and utilities, and the list goes on,” Stephanie Dillard, the president of the nonprofit School Nutrition Association (SNA), said in a congressional hearing. Many have “lauded the push toward scratch-made meals and more whole food options,” said Fortune. But these healthier foods are typically more expensive, and experts worry that trying to fit them into just $4.70 will “further strain schools already concerned with the future of their school lunch programs.”

The push for healthier meals is being juxtaposed with the White House’s decision to “cut funding programs that allowed schools to buy local food from farmers,” said NPR. The USDA has reportedly ended the “Local Food for Schools Cooperative Agreement Program, erasing an estimated $660 million in funding” that was used to buy “unprocessed or minimally processed foods” for schools. The cuts come as nearly seven in 10 school administrators, 69.6%, don’t think the $4.70 reimbursement rate is “sufficient to cover the costs” of school lunches, according to an SNA survey.

Is there a solution?

Many experts are pushing for increased funding for school lunches, which could help offset the cost of their increasing expense. The “issue here is the operational reality of getting there with the current level of funding,” David Ortega, a professor of food economics and policy at Michigan State University, said to Fortune. “Not having enough staff, culinary training that comes with trying to do a lot of that more whole-food scratch cooking, the need for equipment and infrastructure — these are really operational issues that have to be addressed from a funding perspective.”

Enabling school districts to serve healthier foods is “what we’re trying to do,” Mara Fleishman, the CEO of the Chef Ann Foundation, a school-food-reform organization, told The Christian Science Monitor. But doing so “requires support. It requires the right equipment. It requires funding.” Districts should be “shown how to create varied menus, identify where they can spend more on higher-quality ingredients, reassess labor costs and acquire the proper equipment.”

Government officials deny that budget cuts are hurting school lunch programs. “Out of a multitrillion-dollar government budget, it’s not surprising the media can find examples of cuts instead of ignoring the larger issue that the Trump administration is fighting for farmers and real food more than any administration in history,” senior White House adviser Calley Means told Bloomberg. The USDA has announced a $20 million farm-to-table program grant for schools, describing it as “record-breaking,” Bloomberg said, even though this still leaves a “$640 million gap compared to what was cut last year.”

The rate of inflation slowed in April despite concerns about the impact of the Iran war and oil shortages on household bills, but this dip may be only temporary.

Data from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) shows the Consumer Prices Index (CPI) was 2.8% in April, down from 3.3% in March. The lower energy price cap introduced in April “helped soften the sharp rise in fuel costs since the start of the Iran war”, said The Guardian.

But the fall is expected to be “short-lived”, said CNBC, as the “economic implications of the Iran war materialise”.

It comes as the government announced that fuel duty will be frozen for a further four months until January 2027. Chancellor Rachel Reeves has laid out extra measures for low-income households to help mitigate the worst of the cost-of-living crisis.

What is inflation?

Inflation measures the changing price of goods and services. It is based on the CPI, which tracks a basket of goods, such as food, energy bills and transport costs, monitored by the ONS.

To see inflation in action, said MoneyHelper, “think about what you could buy with £1 over the past few decades”. A higher inflation rate means you can buy “less this year than you could last year for the same amount of money”.

At 2.8%, the inflation figure is above the Bank of England’s target of 2%, but is “well below” the 11.1% figure reached in October 2022, said the BBC.

Will inflation ever come down?

The latest drop in the rate of inflation was “more substantial than anticipated”, said The Independent, but the ongoing Middle East conflict “could soon reverse this progress”.

The reduction in the energy price cap in April was a “key driver” in the latest figures, said Financial Reporter, but “rising global energy costs” are likely to feed through into a higher Ofgem price cap from 1 July, which would push inflation higher.

It comes as Iran’s continued closure of the Strait of Hormuz means “more than half” of the normal oil supply is not getting through. Unless “something changes”, said Kiplinger, this means gas, fuel and food prices will “start rising in the future”. This can push up the rate of inflation.

Oil markets have been “heavily disrupted due to the Iran war”, said MoneyWeek. The commodity is used in the manufacturing of “a significant portion” of everyday items such as plastic, crayons, shoes, backpacks, iPhones, pillows and much more.

This “simple answer” to the question of whether inflation will come down, said Big Issue, is “probably never” and “almost certainly not by very much”.

Inflation still means prices are rising. The rate would have to be negative for prices to actually fall – known as deflation. This can “actually be a quite a bad thing”, as it means the economy is stagnant. In the past, this has been used as “political cover for austerity”.

The Bank of England has the power to “lift or lower interest rates”, said the BBC, to change how households and businesses use their money and control inflation.

But many of the “current pressures” on inflation are coming from outside the UK, meaning the cost of living is “widely expected to rise from here”.

The “vulnerability” of the civilian energy infrastructure was exposed this week when a drone strike on the United Arab Emirates cut off power to a nuclear reactor, said Bloomberg.

It’s the first time a fully operating nuclear power plant has had to rely on back-up generators because of a military attack, but reactors in Ukraine and Iran have also been threatened by recent conflicts.

Why would a nuclear site be targeted?

A country might target a nuclear power plant to cripple an enemy’s power grid, or to force a surrender through the psychological terror of threatening a radiological disaster. An attack on such facilities could also be used to delay a nation’s ability to enrich nuclear material.

Alternatively, armies may attack, or occupy, a nuclear plant to seize control of a strategic geographic corridor or to prevent defending forces from using the area.

What does international law say?

Under the Geneva Conventions, civilian structures, including nuclear power plants, “are protected against attack”, but the treaties also state that they can be hit “for such time as they are military objectives”. This is a “loophole” that “aggressor states” have “interpreted widely”, said Dan Sabbagh, The Guardian’s defence and security editor.

Attacking a nuclear power plant also breaks legal resolutions passed by the UN Security Council and the International Atomic Energy Agency’s board of governors.

What would happen if a site were hit?

An attack on a nuclear site would not necessarily lead to a mushroom cloud or an immediate release of radiation because modern plants are built with multiple safety systems that can shut down reactors and contain damage.

But the reactor’s core could continue to heat up after a strike. This could lead to a build up of hydrogen gas, which could cause further explosions and damage. If the reactor began to degrade, radioactive material could be released and that can remain in the environment for years or even decades. It could potentially spread across borders and enter water systems or settle into the soil.

There are other consequences. Attacks on nuclear installations “risk undermining the emerging nuclear renaissance” in Western economies as an alternative to fossil fuels, said Bloomberg. Politicians and the public are “highly sensitive to radiation emergencies”, so an incident in one country “tends to dampen enthusiasm” for nuclear power elsewhere.

An attack on a nuclear plant would also be a hugely symbolic moment. Although conventional power plants have been “repeatedly bombed” by Russia during the Ukraine war, said Sabbagh, Kyiv’s three functioning nuclear plants have “remained relatively unscathed” because Moscow regarded a direct attack on them to be “taboo”.

Britain’s hospitals, schools and homes will need to be fitted with air conditioning to deal with expected rises in global heating, the government’s climate advisers have said.

With temperatures forecast to exceed 40C in all parts of the UK by 2050, a major report from the Climate Change Committee has warned the country is “built for a climate that no longer exists today and will be increasingly distant in years to come”.

What’s in the report?

Julia King, chair of the CCC’s adaptation subcommittee, said that, of the many climate threats laid out in the report, “extreme heat is certainly the most deadly” and requires the “need to see cooling rolled out at scale”.

“Sometimes this will mean shading, but sometimes it will mean air conditioning. And either way, we’ve got to get serious about protecting our most vulnerable people in hospitals, in care homes, and in schools.”

The CCC recommends air conditioning be installed in all care homes and hospitals within the next 10 years, and in all schools within 25 years. Exams should be set at cooler times of year, to stop students struggling to think in the heat.

The government should also set a maximum temperature for working indoors and outdoors, it said, following countries like Spain. There, the maximum legal working temperature indoors is 27C for sedentary work and 25C for light physical work.

Failure to take the necessary steps to stop people overheating could cause deaths from heat-related illnesses to rise to 10,000 a year by 2050, the committee warned.

Anything else?

As well as the risk from more intense heatwaves, the CCC found droughts are likely to become much more frequent. Last year the Environment Agency warned that England is on track for a daily shortfall in public water supplies of five billion litres by 2055 – equivalent to more than a third of current daily usage.

“We’re facing a potential world where you could turn on the tap and nothing would come out,” said King.

Global warming will also lead to more erratic rainfall and flash flooding. Seven million UK properties are currently at risk of flooding; if nothing is done, this could rise by 40% by 2050, the CCC said. Sea levels will also rise, threatening coastal areas that would no longer be protected by natural flood defences. Higher temperatures would also put domestic food production under threat.

How much would the changes cost?

“Adapting to a changing climate comes at a price,” said the BBC. The CCC estimates its recommendations would cost roughly £11 billion per year, split between the public and private sectors.

But every £1 spent would yield about £5 in benefits, the committee claims, and “the UK invests 50 times this amount every year” already, “some of it on infrastructure that exacerbates the climate crisis or vulnerability to it”, said The Guardian. “It’s very good value compared to the cost of the impacts of the climate that we’re already seeing,” said King.

There could also be a political cost to inaction. Sam Alvis, from the left-leaning think tank IPPR, told The Times that if the government did not step up efforts to adapt to hotter temperatures, it risked “stoking support” for populist politicians.

“When increasingly severe and frequent climate impacts strike, populists are quick to exploit public anger over a lack of preparation, using it to advance their own agenda and weaken support for climate action more broadly.”

When you have questions, AI is an easy place to turn for immediate answers. People are increasingly leveraging the variety of artificial intelligence platforms available for guidance in an area that can often feel complicated and confusing to navigate alone: personal finance.

As of early 2026, “more than 55% of Americans reported using AI to help with financial management decisions,” said CBS News. This can range from asking questions around homebuying to soliciting advice on investing and retirement savings strategies. However, while this practice may be convenient and in many cases useful, it is still essential to remember the cardinal rule of sensitive financial and personal information: Be cautious about what you share and where.

What are the risks of oversharing with AI?

A Stanford study examining the “privacy policies of six major AI companies — Amazon, Anthropic, Google, Meta, Microsoft and OpenAI — found that all six use chat data by default to train their models, and some keep this information indefinitely,” said The Washington Post. Based on this finding, the researchers issued a “cryptic warning,” suggesting that “either by design or negligence, your data could be exploited.”

Not only is the information living in these systems, but a “subset of conversations are sampled and reviewed by OpenAI and Google employees for quality improvement,” said Ramayya Krishnan, a professor of management science and information systems at Carnegie Mellon University, to Money. Additionally, there is always the risk that your AI account may become compromised. If a bad actor gains access and you had shared sensitive information, that “could empty a bank account or lead to identity theft,” said the Post.

What specific financial information should you avoid sharing with AI?

Given the risks, if you are consulting AI for financial guidance, steer clear of divulging the following:

• Your name, address and date of birth
• Social Security numbers
• Bank and investment account numbers
• Usernames and passwords
• Employment information
• Exact numbers, such as for your spending, debts or account balances
• Detailed financial documents, such as tax returns, investment account statements or paychecks

What is safe to share with AI for financial help?

Just because there are certain things you should not share with AI, that does not mean you cannot effectively leverage AI for guidance in your financial life. As a rule, “always treat AI chats as public-facing logs, avoid sharing any personally identifiable or financial details and verify critical advice with human professionals,” said Investopedia.

While you may tend to think the more an AI knows, the better support it can provide, the reality is that an AI chatbot “does not need your account number to tell you how to pay down debt, nor does it need your Social Security estimated earnings statement to recommend when to start collecting your retirement benefit,” said the Post. Instead, you can plug in more general questions that you can apply back to your own situation, or even give the AI ranges for figures like your salary or debt, rather than hard numbers, and still get similarly salient tips.

Lastly, keep in mind that the “bots are far from perfect: AI models often make factual errors, stumble when processing current events and oversimplify financial processes,” said Money. So take the advice with a grain of salt.