More than a quarter of women under 25 hold a negative view of men, according to a recent poll for The New Statesman, revealing what the magazine calls a “new radicalism”. This is seen as a challenge to the “prevailing narrative” that it is radicalised young men who are driving the so-called gender wars.

A “growing army” of female influencers broadly referred to as the femosphere is “urging” women to adopt a more cynical mindset when it comes to the opposite sex, “ditch their romantic delusions” and “be more aggressive in the dating game”, said Sarah Ditum in The Times.

What is the femosphere?

The term comes from the concept of the manosphere – a loose, online-based community of social media accounts, forums, blogs and podcasts that promote a view of “traditional masculinity”, with men in a dominant role and women subservient. “United in a belief that men are victims in a society that is designed for the benefit of women”, many of these spaces are “overflowing with rage”, said James Bloodworth in The Times.

The femosphere is a reaction to this with a message that “men are inherently selfish” and “only interested in one thing”, said Ditum. Manosphere terminology is gender-flipped: instead of “taking the red pill” (embracing the belief that society does not value men), the “pink-pill philosophy” encourages women to break with the egalitarian conventions of liberal feminism and see men as the “problem sex”.

What does that mean in practice?

Femosphere philosophy urges women to avoid casual relationships with men and to “adopt a more emotionally distant, calculated approach” to dating, said NBC News. Some of its content “frames” relationships as something to “win,” and advises followers to be “selective, guarded, and, at times, intentionally aloof”.

Mirroring the “pick-up artists” of the manosphere – those who offer manipulative strategies to persuade women to engage in sexual relationships – the femosphere has its “female dating strategists”, said The Guardian. Among them are the so-called “dark feminine” influencers who “encourage women to find men to support them financially” by cynically deploying behaviours associated with traditional femininity.

The appeal is understandable, feminist theorist Dr Sophie Lewis told the newspaper. The promise of liberal feminism that women could “have it all” has left many “saddled with both productive and reproductive labour”. The femosphere offers liberation from the “double shift”.

Is it a bad thing?

Femosphere influencers claim the movement is about “empowerment” of women rather than hatred of men, said NBC News. They see themselves as “pushing back against dating norms that have historically disadvantaged women” with a mindset that “encourages self-worth, boundaries, and higher standards in relationships”. But critics say it risks “turning dating into a transactional or manipulative experience”, where “authenticity” takes a “back seat to strategy”.

The “overarching belief” of the femosphere is the same as that of the manosphere, said The Guardian: “life is about survival of the fittest”. Men “will always hurt women and that will never change”, so “strategies are needed to conquer the opposite gender”.

A mysterious, shadowy group has been appearing online recently, and it has parents and law enforcement concerned about potential child exploitation. The group, known as 764, is a decentralized network operating across the United States and internationally, and while the FBI has urged parents and kids to be cautious, experts say tracking down the perpetrators is easier said than done.

What is 764?

This is an international online organization that “operates at the intersection of violent extremism, child sexual exploitation and other forms of extreme violence, including animal cruelty, self-harm and assisted suicide,” said the Global Network on Extremism & Technology. The group is part of a “loosely connected network” of similar organizations, including those with ominous names like the Maniac Murder Cult and No Lives Matter.

Those who identify with 764 are classified by experts as nihilistic violent extremists, people who are “characterized by the encouragement, glorification or engagement in acts of extreme violence without a coherent ideological framework,” said the nonpartisan think tank Vision of Humanity. Victims of 764 are often “pressured to send sexually explicit videos and photos, which are later used to blackmail them into extreme and violent acts,” said The Baltimore Banner. Most of them are victimized on online gaming platforms and social media websites.

Many of the victims “may be dealing with one or more vulnerabilities: neurodiversity, eating disorders, social isolation, mental illness, family problems” and are then exploited, said Vision of Humanity. Criminal cases linked to 764 have been opened in numerous states, including Florida, Georgia, Massachusetts, Maryland and Texas, as well as Canada. The latter has since designated 764 as a terrorist group, and New Zealand did the same.

How is law enforcement fighting back?

The FBI and local police organizations are working to shut down the 764 groups, and “every FBI field office in the country is now involved in tracking the network,” said CBS News. At least 450 cases nationwide “are under investigation, with authorities classifying the activity as domestic terrorism.” The investigations have “documented how multiple perpetrators can become involved in a single victim’s exploitation,” making it harder for the victims to escape.

These investigations have led to some justice for victims of 764. In March 2026, a Maryland man pleaded guilty to federal child sexual abuse charges, and in November 2025, a Texas man pleaded guilty to racketeering and sexual exploitation. Both men were identified as 764 members. In March 2025, a Florida man was “sentenced to serve 84 months in federal prison for possessing child sexual abuse material,” said the Department of Justice. The man, a 764 member, owned devices containing over 8,300 images of child sexual abuse material, including “images and videos depicting the sexual abuse of infants and toddlers.”

In order to protect kids, the FBI is “urging families to look for behavioral changes that could signal a child is being targeted,” said CBS News. Kids who exhibit sudden mood swings or depression, as well as an “obsession with a new online ‘friend,’” could be warning signs that they are being victimized by 764. The FBI is also encouraging parents to “take proactive steps,” including monitoring children’s activity online and reporting suspicious behavior to the authorities.

Premium Bonds are one of the nation’s most-loved savings products, but falling prize rates mean savers could be better off putting their money elsewhere.

Government-backed National Savings & Investments has offered Premium Bonds since 1956, as a way to keep savings safe, with the “added thrill of a monthly cash prize draw”, said GoCompare.

But its prize rate dropped this month from 3.6% to 3.3%, cutting the chances of winning.

What are Premium Bonds?

Premium Bonds are a government-backed savings account. But rather than earning a guaranteed return in interest, savers are entered into a monthly prize draw with the chance to win a sum ranging from £25 to £1 million in cash.

The prize fund rate is the benchmark used by National Savings & Investments to set the number of prizes to be given away each month. The figure represents the rate of return for a bondholder with average luck. Some holders will earn a lot, some nothing.

But the odds of winning are so low that if everyone with £1,000 in Premium Bonds were lined up, “you’d need to walk past 60% of the line until you hit the first £25 winner”, said MoneySavingExpert,.

Pro: Safe, tax-free savings

Money in NS&I accounts is lent to the government, making it secure with Treasury-backed benefits. Money with other regulated financial institutions, such as banks, is protected under the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS) if a provider goes bust for up to £85,000.

As the maximum investment in Premium Bonds is £50,000, the protection level is the same as if you had an equal amount in a savings account.

Those who do strike lucky in the monthly draw can take the winnings tax-free, which could be a good way to safeguard savings from the taxman if you have used up all ISA and personal savings allowances.

Con: Low odds, won't beat inflation

The main allure of Premium Bonds is the chance to win up to £1 million, but even discounting the maximum, many of those with money in accounts will never win anything.

With the reduction in the prize rate, the odds of winning anything are 23,000 to one. The luck of the draw means a saver could win big, but they could also walk away with nothing at all.

Relying on luck and not fixed interest, over time and without a win, Premium Bonds savings may lose purchasing power as inflation rises. The poor odds of winning make it unlikely to beat such rises.

Pro: Easy withdrawal

They do offer the chance, no matter how small, of a holder becoming a millionaire, and savers get the monthly thrill of a prize draw. Plus there are no time limits, and money is free to be withdrawn at any time.

Con: Low returns

But Premium Bonds are “not the most lucrative choice” based on the return, said Fidelity. This is especially the case compared with top savings accounts, which may have suffered cuts in recent months, but still pay regular interest at more than 4%.

In contrast to Premium Bonds, savings accounts provide an “agreed rate of return”, said The Independent, plus savers may “attract higher long-term returns” by investing.

On the face of it, a subscription — whether to a streaming service, a newsletter or a food delivery app — may seem like it would not make or break your budget. But those small, recurring charges can quickly add up, especially if you have a lot of them.

Many money experts recommend subscriptions as one of the first places to look if you want to trim back. More than half of U.S. adults (55%) “plan to significantly decrease the subscriptions they have in 2026 in order to save money,” said NerdWallet, citing its recent survey. However, you do not necessarily have to go cold turkey and cancel everything to reap some savings. Here are four ways to save on your subscriptions.

1. Regularly reassess

One of the smartest ways to prevent subscriptions from taking too large a bite out of your budget is fairly simple: Keep track of what subscriptions you have, then revisit that list on a regular basis. Most Americans “likely couldn’t list all their subscriptions and prices off the top of their heads — not due to carelessness, but because they have so many, and they’re easy to forget about on autopay,” said NerdWallet.

By doing an audit, you may find you have been paying for a service you do not actually use anymore or even that you are accidentally paying for one twice. You can do this work manually, by going through bank and credit card statements, or there are also budgeting apps that can do the work of tracking, and sometimes even canceling, your subscriptions for you.

2. Commit for longer

This may seem counterintuitive if you are trying to cut back on subscriptions. But for those you really want to hold onto, making a longer-term commitment can make a difference, since “paying annually rather than monthly will usually work out cheaper,” said The Guardian. Just make sure to watch out for auto-renewal, when a price hike will sometimes sneak in.

3. Share with family or friends

When it comes to subscriptions, it is usually the more, the merrier. So if you have friends or family members who also use the same subscriptions you enjoy, ask if they want to go in on a plan together.

For instance, “Spotify, Apple Music, YouTube Premium and some live TV bundles all have family or group options that cost much less than what you’d pay on your own,” said GoBankingRates. Sometimes, though, there is fine print to be aware of — for example, some “services’ family plans might require all members to live at the same address.”

4. Pause and rotate

Just because you like to have a subscription does not mean you must have it all the time. Another hack that people sometimes use to save money is pausing (or totally canceling) one subscription, then picking up another for a bit.

How would this work? For saving on streaming services, you would “pick a couple that have shows premiering this month or shows that you’ve been meaning to watch,” then “keep those for a few months while you catch up on everything you want to watch,” said Kiplinger. After that, “cancel your subscription and move on to your next batch of two or three streaming services.” Once you are “caught up on movies and TV series on those, rinse and repeat.”

If you opt for a pause instead of a full cancel, you can keep your account there, frozen and waiting for you. Just make sure to maintain tabs on when it starts back up.

The field of Democratic hopefuls for the 2028 presidential campaign is expected to be massive, and candidates have a wide variety of voter issues to address. But they will likely focus on the cost-of-living crisis and questions related to the strengthening of American democracy. Plus, Democrats will be campaigning without President Donald Trump on the other side of the ballot for the first time in 12 years.

What are the issues?

Many Democrats who have been named as possible 2028 contenders, including the 2024 nominee, former Vice President Kamala Harris, have “sought to hammer the issue of affordability, almost exclusively, as they seek to win back power in Washington,” said The Washington Post. But these candidates have also been “challenged to couple that with a more full-throated description of their civil rights agenda,” especially in an era when many in the party say democratic principles are under threat.

Some of these contenders have “shifted their views on border security, DEI, crime, climate change, Covid-era lockdowns and more,” said Axios. Party pundits believe they lost to Trump in 2024 largely because voters “didn't like some of their left-leaning policies, not just how they were communicated,” and some have been arguing for a push back to the center. Others in the party have “openly questioned whether anyone other than a straight, white man can win the White House,” said Politico.

Lowering the cost of living will likely be the number one concern for voters heading to the polls. Several Democrats, including Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), have proposed tax plan changes that would raise taxes for the ultra-wealthy, but “as actual solutions to the forces pinching Americans’ pocketbooks,” these plans “largely misread the problem,” said Slate. If Democrats “really want to allay the country’s anxieties about the cost of living, tinkering with the tax code probably isn’t the way to do it.”

How will candidates approach them?

Even with affordability at the forefront, Democratic bigwigs have largely agreed that the “restoration of civil rights should be central in the next presidential election,” said the Post. Maryland Gov. Wes Moore has “warned that Republicans are promoting voter suppression,” while Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) has “linked Trump’s aggressive immigration tactics to overall persecution of racial minorities.”

Former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg “accused the Trump administration of a ‘seek and destroy’ effort to harm disadvantaged communities,” said the Post, and Harris has “argued that the United States is losing its moral authority to stand up for human rights around the globe.” Many have also noted that Democrats are pushing to reengage with Black and Latino voters the party lost in 2024, and some see Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker as a solution to this problem, as he would “likely do well among Black voters,” said Bloomberg. He has the “brawn, the billions and the blue-collar affect to make him a contender.”

To communicate with voters, any good candidate will need to “speak directly and honestly to the electorate with tangible political platforms” and “tangible messages that are simply about what we’re going to do for you,” Maya Handa, the campaign manager for New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani (D), said at a Dartmouth University event. Democrats “should be recruiting candidates who are generationally talented communicators. But if we can’t, then I think we have to get more creative about it.”

Chancellor Rachel Reeves has proposed to increase defence spending by less than £10 billion over the next four years, despite the Armed Forces highlighting a £28 billion funding gap in the same period, and warning that Britain’s “national security and safety is in peril”, said The Times.

Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, a former Nato secretary-general, accused the Treasury in a speech on Tuesday of “vandalism” for inaction on defence. Leader of the 2025 Strategic Defence Review, Robertson said that for the UK “building deterrence will not be quick or cheap”. He added that “the public need to face that uncomfortable fact or suffer the consequences of not being safe in a very turbulent world.”

With a fragile ceasefire in the Middle East and continued conflict in Ukraine, many fear that the government’s pledges to defence will prove difficult to fulfil.

What has the government pledged?

Minister of State for the Defence Readiness and Industry Luke Pollard stated in the House that the government was undertaking the “largest sustained increase in defence spending since the Cold War”, in response to Lord Robertson’s claims, but this is a “low bar”, said Ben Chu on BBC News. Defence spending has been on an “almost constant downward path since the fall of the Berlin Wall”.

The UK government currently spends 2.4% of GDP on defence, and Keir Starmer has committed to hitting 2.5% from April next year. This will then rise to 3% “at some point during the next parliament”, said The Times, though some critics think that the UK “should be hitting the 3% target now”.

More broadly, in June last year the government also committed to a Nato-wide agreement to spend 5% of GDP on national security. This figure will be split into 3.5% on “core defence” and 1.5% on “resilience and security” by 2035.

What state are the Armed Forces in?

In 1990, at the end of the Cold War, the Army had “153,000 regular soldiers in its ranks”, said the BBC. Now, it has less than half that number, just 73,790, according to the Ministry of Defence.

When it comes to recruitment, “Britain is at serious risk of being left behind” as other countries look to bolster their ranks, said Cahal Milmo and Jane Merrick in The i Paper. European neighbours Germany, Finland, Poland and France are “forging ahead with rearmament schemes” and programmes to increase numbers applying to their armed forces.

In the year to September 2025, the number of applications to the British Army Regular Forces (108,020) decreased by 36.6% compared to the previous year (170,380), according to the MoD.

In terms of equipment, in 1990, the Royal Navy had 13 destroyers and 35 frigates, which has since dropped to six and 11 respectively, said the BBC. Similarly, in 1990 the RAF had 300 combat jets. Though the current 137 Eurofighter Typhoons and minimum 37 Joint Strike Fighter F-35 Lightning IIs are “technically superior”, they are fewer in number. The use in combat of unmanned drones, which did not exist in 1990, is rising, and these also form part of the UK’s military aircraft.

How have recent ventures fared?

The “sad state” of the Armed Forces was illustrated by the delay in the deployment of HMS Dragon to the Middle East, said Richard Norton-Taylor in The Guardian. Even after the delay, the destroyer “needed further repairs almost as soon as it arrived”. It is the Navy’s “lone destroyer available to help protect British interests” in the Middle East, as the Navy’s “largest and most expensive” ships, the Queen Elizabeth and the Prince of Wales – which “cost more than £6 billion” – were unavailable.

On land, ministers are facing “scrapping” the Ajax armoured vehicle programme, due to health concerns for its operators. Its issues are “so serious that vibration and noise have made soldiers training on it sick, with some suffering hearing loss”. More than £6 billion has been spent on the project, and it is “already eight years late”.

The government is also “under increasing pressure” to deliver its “long-delayed” Defence Investment Plan, said The i Paper. This promises to “overhaul Britain’s military capabilities with about £300 billion of investment over a decade”, said the outlet. Though expected to have been released last October, due to concerns over the MoD funding gap, it is not expected “until June at the earliest”.

What needs to be done?

The war in the Middle East should be a “wake-up call” for the UK to recognise its “vulnerabilities”, said George Robertson in Prospect. “There are many.” Public attention is mostly focused on the tangibles – such as planes, tanks and ships – but they are the “baubles on the Christmas tree”. “We need to focus on the tree itself” by addressing “crises in logistics, engineering, cyber, ammunition, training and medical resources”.

Climbing gas prices can put a major crimp in your budget, especially if you have a long commute or live in a car-reliant location. Just cents more per gallon can quickly add up to a higher total gas bill, and when the price per gallon skyrockets by a dollar or more — as it did in some areas in March amid the Iran war — that can make every fill-up feel like a nail-biter.

Common solutions to higher gas prices are often tied to driving habits, whether that means relying less on your car and more on public transportation, or finding someone to carpool with on your way to work. Those gas-saving strategies are certainly valid, but they are not your only option, particularly when gas prices are getting especially steep. Another hack might already be in your wallet, or could be a smart addition to it: a gas rewards credit card.

How can credit cards help offset higher gas prices?

Gas credit cards offer “rewards on fuel purchases, which can help reduce the cost,” said U.S. News & World Report. These rewards may come in the form of points or a percentage cash-back on every fuel purchase.

Many of today’s top gas credit cards “offer around a 3%-5% (or 3x-5x) return on your gas station spending,” said Yahoo Finance. And while this may not seem like much, it can “add up over time, especially while fuel prices are high.”

Are there any risks or drawbacks to using credit cards to cover gas?

Perhaps the biggest caveat is that gas rewards cards tend to be best for those who can afford to pay off their credit card balance in full each and every month. Given steep credit card APRs, “any rewards you might earn by paying with plastic would likely be overshadowed by the interest you’d rack up in just a single billing cycle,” said NerdWallet. Some cards may also charge annual fees, which can also eat into the rewards you earn.

Additionally, it is worth noting that cards may put a cap on the rewards you can enjoy in a certain period. “Depending on how much your regular gas bill is, these caps could make a difference in how much you can earn,” said Yahoo Finance.

How can you find the best gas credit card?

To get the most out of a gas rewards credit card, you need to know what to look for. There are two main types: specific “co-branded gas cards — those affiliated with a particular company such as Exxon or Shell,” and “general rewards credit cards,” said NerdWallet. The former “tend to offer incentives on fuel bought at those specific stations,” whereas general rewards cards allow you to earn rewards “on gas purchases made anywhere, not just with one specific brand,” and often at a higher rate. (There are, however, exceptions here, such as “cards affiliated with wholesalers like Costco and Sam’s Club, whose gas prices tend to be lower than average,” said NerdWallet.)

That said, when choosing a card, it is also important to note any associated costs. That could be a membership fee, as with the aforementioned wholesalers’ cards, or an annual fee.

For a general rewards credit card, you should also take a look at the card more holistically in terms of your financial habits. If you can “find a card that helps you save on gas along with your other regular budget items, you can save even more over time,” said Yahoo Finance.

The price of crude oil could rise to $150 a barrel under a US blockade of the Strait of Hormuz.

Jorge Montepeque, managing director of oil traders Onyx Capital Group, said prices “should be $140, $150” if the naval blockade goes ahead, said The Telegraph.

The US blockade was due to begin at 3pm today UK time. Writing on social media, Donald Trump said that the US was going to start “BLOCKADING any and all Ships trying to enter, or leave, the Strait of Hormuz” and will “interdict every vessel in International Waters that has paid a toll to Iran”.

How will it work?

Under Trump’s plan, instead of having navy ships escort commercial vessels through the Strait of Hormuz, US forces will board and potentially seize any vessels that pay Iran’s toll, a move that would effectively close the strait off entirely.

The US Central Command said that its forces would not impede the freedom of vessels travelling to and from non-Iranian ports. It also pledged that it would release additional information to commercial mariners.

The president warned that “any Iranian who fires at us, or at peaceful vessels, will be BLOWN TO HELL”, but “at some point” an agreement on free passage would be reached. He said that other countries would be involved in blockading the strait, but did not specify which. Keir Starmer said the UK would not join the blockade.

What will the effect be?

The consequences for the global economy could be serious. There’s “little clarity” about how the US navy will take control of the strait without “reigniting” the conflict with Iran and “causing another shockwave” in the money markets, said Michael Evans in The Times.

The blockade “might risk worsening a war-driven global energy crisis”, said The Washington Post. Although Iran would “potentially suffer the most economically”, it may also “come as a blow to the rest of the world”, particularly nations in Asia, which “rely heavily” on oil and gas from the Gulf.

So the president is “once again playing loose with the fortunes of financial markets and the global economy as he struggles to find a way out of the war”, said Australia’s ABC News.

As for Trump, the plan “reflects his hope” that he can repeat the “model of his intervention” in Venezuela, said the Financial Times. There, the US “seized” the then president Nicolás Maduro in a military operation after a naval blockade of the Latin American nation.

“You saw what we did with Venezuela,” Trump told Fox News. “It’ll be something very similar to that, but at a higher level.”

What did experts say?

Initially, Trump’s plan will only affect the small number of vessels that are still navigating the waterway, shipping expert Lars Jensen told the BBC. If the US does blockade the strait, it will “halt a very tiny trickle” of vessels and “in the greater scheme of things, it doesn’t really change anything”.

But three legal experts in the US said the blockade could violate maritime law. One of them suggested the blockade, which will be enforced militarily, would violate the current ceasefire agreement.

The blockade is a good “counterpoint” to Iran’s closure of the strait, Dennis Ross, the former senior US diplomat and Middle East negotiator, said on X. It puts “greater pressure on Iran” and “great pressure on China to pressure Iran”.

But Vali Nasr, a former US official and a professor at Johns Hopkins University, told the Financial Times that the plan will be “fine by the Iranians” because it “prolongs the chokehold on the global economy”.

Tehran might respond by shutting down the Bab el-Mandeb, a chokepoint off the coast of Yemen, said Nasr, and “then the US will have to deal with that”.

Airlines are feeling the strain of swelling oil prices resulting from the Iran war and closure of the Strait of Hormuz. To deal with higher operating costs, many companies are making changes that shift the burden to consumers, including higher baggage fees, more fuel surcharges and canceled routes.

How are higher gas costs affecting airlines?

Airlines and their customers across the U.S. are being impacted but especially those based in four major hubs: Chicago, Houston, Los Angeles and New York City. In these locations, the average price for a gallon of jet fuel is currently $4.25, according to the aviation trade association Airlines for America. On Feb. 27, the day before the war in Iran started, the average price was only $2.50. Airlines are also “facing an increase in the amount of fuel their aircraft use because of extra miles required to avoid flying over the conflict zone,” said The Guardian.

Fuel is already an expensive cost for aviators and is “generally airlines’ largest expense after labor,” said Quartz. Airlines are feeling the pressure as a result. If prices were to stay at their current level, it would mean an “extra $11 billion in annual expense just for jet fuel,” said United CEO Scott Kirby in a memo to employees. For “perspective, in United’s best year ever, we made less than $5 billion.”

How are airlines adapting?

Many are adding “extra fees and surcharges onto already rising ticket prices” to “recoup costs as the war in Iran causes fuel costs to surge,” said The New York Times. Luggage is one common area where airlines are bumping up the price. Delta and Southwest announced they would “start charging $10 more to check a bag on U.S. domestic flights,” days after United and JetBlue said the same.

The company with the most notable baggage changes may be American. The airline said it would “raise the fee by $10 each for the first and the second checked bag for travelers booking domestic and short-haul international flights,” said The Detroit News. The company also “increased the cost of a third checked bag by $50 to $200” for fliers and additionally announced an upcoming $5 increase on checked bags for passengers flying economy.

Some airlines are also including pricing for the fuel itself. Canada’s second-largest airline, WestJet, announced it would “add fuel surcharges of up to 60 Canadian dollars, or about $43, to some flights,” said the Times. Air Canada unveiled surcharges of 50 Canadian dollars to certain warm-weather destinations. For passengers, the decisions from airlines resulted in “rising fares and fees, fewer flight options and difficult decisions about whether a trip is worth the cost,” said The Associated Press.

Airlines are also cutting the number of places they go. Several Asian airlines have stated they would “cut flights to mitigate fuel shortages and mounting costs,” said Business Insider. Ryanair, Europe’s largest carrier, is also “considering reducing routes,” while Lufthansa could ground up to 40 planes. Air New Zealand will “cut about 5% of its flights, or about 1,100, at the start of May,” and in the U.S., United and Delta are both cutting routes.

As the world creeps toward peak travel season, industry leaders are taking notice of the fuel shortages. ACI Europe, an association representing airports in the European Union, notes these shortages could “hit within three weeks, disrupting summer travel and ‘significantly’ harming the European economy,” said CNBC. For people who still want to fly, experts say “flexibility and careful planning can help offset these costs,” said the AP, and “fare-tracking sites can alert travelers to price changes.”

In 2022, Shan Hanes, the chief executive of the Heartland Tri-State Bank in Kansas, met a friendly investment adviser from Australia on WhatsApp. The adviser persuaded Hanes to invest a few thousand dollars in an online cryptocurrency-trading platform, which generated impressive returns. Hanes ended up investing all his own money, $60,000 from his daughter's college fund, $40,000 from his local church and $47 million from the bank he ran.

The “adviser” was, it transpired, not in Australia but most likely in Asia; the “trading platform” was fake; and Hanes had become the highest-profile US victim of a practice known in Chinese as sha zhu pan, a “pig-butchering scam”. Some money was recovered, but investors lost $9 million, the bank collapsed, and Hanes was sentenced to 24 years in prison.

How do the scams work?

“Long cons” have been around for ever, but these – in which the scammers invest a lot of time in building a relationship with the victim, a process they liken to fattening a pig for slaughter – have distinctive features.

Scammers actively seek out victims on social media: pig-butchering originated on regional Chinese dating sites around 10 years ago, but it has since spread to platforms such as Telegram, WhatsApp and LinkedIn. They create trusting relationships with their victims, sometimes of a romantic nature; one former scammer told The Economist she’d been trained to target people who were “rich but not good-looking”.

They rely heavily on crypto, which is easy to launder and difficult to recover. These and other online scams are increasingly run out of Chinese-linked “scam hubs” or “fraud factories” in Southeast Asia.

How did such operations develop?

Gambling – illegal on mainland China – is one of the main revenue streams for domestic and foreign-based Chinese mafias. Casinos and online gambling hubs for Chinese-speakers, based in Cambodia and Myanmar, were one of their main enterprises until 2019, when Cambodia tightened its regulations; Covid lockdowns then emptied the casinos. The criminal syndicates refitted their properties as centres where teams of workers – often trafficked and coerced – run online scams at scale.

Chinese citizens were their original targets, followed by Chinese communities around the world. But they soon expanded to other nationalities, which also meant expanding their trafficking activities. In the four years from January 2020, at least $75 billion was taken in crypto scams; estimates suggest the industry generates over $500 billion a year, comparable to the global drugs trade.

Why do they traffic people?

Many of the gangs’ voluntary workers went home during Covid; not enough locals had the necessary language and computer skills, and recruiting people into cybercrime isn't always easy. The scammers’ solution was to lure people – typically young graduates from developing countries – to cities such as Bangkok with fake offers of legitimate employment, then drive them to compounds in Myanmar, Cambodia or Laos, and put them to work under threats of torture, organ harvesting and sexual slavery.

A UN report this February found that there is a workforce of at least 300,000 people from 66 countries, about 75% of them in the Mekong River region of Southeast Asia. Many live in vast compounds, like self-contained towns – some over 500 acres in size, heavily fortified, with armed guards. It's unlikely that all the workers are coerced, but many of them certainly are; some families have had to pay ransoms in cryptocurrency to get them out.

What are the nations doing about it?

Weak local governance, along with easy access to China, is the reason the gangs set up shop in the Mekong region in the first place. Myanmar's military junta doesn’t control the whole territory; much of it is controlled by insurgent groups and warlords; while Cambodian politics has been dominated by one family since the 1980s. Transparency International ranks both governments among the most corrupt in the world. Analysts calculate that Cambodia’s scam hubs generate earnings worth about 60% of the nation's GDP. According to the US Treasury Department, the Huione Group, a financial conglomerate with ties to Cambodia’s ruling Hun family, has provided the gangs with financial and practical services. Like Latin American “narco-states” before them, these countries are well on the way to becoming “scam states”.

Is there international pressure to close them down?

Influenced partly by stories like the kidnapping of the actor Wang Xing, and even a popular film about scam hubs, “No More Bets”, China has launched an aggressive crackdown. There have been heavily publicised rescues of coerced workers in the Mekong countries; under Chinese pressure, local law enforcement has dismantled notorious scam hubs like the KK Park complex in Myawaddy, Myanmar, thought to have been run by Macau-based triads. Thai forces shelled several other hubs during a border conflict with Cambodia last year. China has arrested hundreds of thousands of people over scams, and in January it executed 11 members of the “Ming family” crime group, who had been extradited from Myanmar.

Is the situation improving?

Experts worry that police raids on compounds in Cambodia and Myanmar are largely for show: the bosses are often tipped off in advance. In any case, they have globalised their operations, popping up as far afield as Peru and the Philippines. Police even closed down an operation targeting Chinese citizens on the Isle of Man in 2024. But developments in AI may mean that the scammers are getting less reliant on human trafficking for language skills. One report on AI-assisted scams found that they rose by 450% in 2024-25 compared with 2023-24. The scammers now often use “deepfakes” of increasingly good quality to groom their victims.

The countdown to the closure of the SAVE plan has at last begun. The student loan repayment plan, which aimed to offer lower monthly payments and a faster path toward forgiveness for borrowers, almost immediately faced pushback when introduced by the Biden administration in 2023, with several Republican-led states suing. For a while, this ongoing legal battle left borrowers in limbo. But with the recent arrival of a decisive, plan-ending judgment, followed by a deadline set by the Trump administration for those who are enrolled to exit, borrowers are now in a position where they must take action.

What is happening to the SAVE plan?

After a roughly two-year legal battle, a decisive judgment has arrived for the federal SAVE, or Saving on a Valuable Education, plan. As of March, the “Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals put an end to a legal challenge of the SAVE student loan repayment plan and instructed a district court to approve a proposed settlement between the Trump administration and the state of Missouri that would end the program,” said Yahoo Finance. In short, the program is “permanently eliminated.”

Following this, the Department of Education sent out a notice informing borrowers “they would need to switch to a different federal repayment plan by the end of September,” said NerdWallet. As of that announcement, “over 7 million borrowers” were still enrolled in the plan, which “offered lower monthly payments than other income-driven repayment plans,” as well as the opportunity for faster loan forgiveness.

What will happen to borrowers enrolled in SAVE?

Up until this point, while litigation has been ongoing, borrowers enrolled in the SAVE plan have been in “an administrative forbearance without payments due since the plan was challenged in court in the summer of 2024,” said CNBC, though interest began accruing in August 2025. But as of July 1, these remaining enrollees can expect to receive an email from their servicer instructing them to leave the SAVE plan and offering instructions for how to enroll in another repayment option. They will have 90 days to do so, or until the end of September.

Those who do not switch over will be automatically enrolled in the 10-year standard plan, “which would result in considerably higher payments in many cases,” said U.S. News & World Report.

What alternative repayment plan options do borrowers have?

With SAVE now officially off the table, borrowers have the option of existing income-based repayment plans, which can offer more affordable payments than the standard 10-year repayment plan. Another option is to wait to enroll in RAP, or the Repayment Assistance Plan, a new repayment plan established under Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act. This plan moderates payments based on income, though a minimum payment is required, and offers forgiveness after a longer period of 30 years.

Regardless of the option borrowers choose, “it’s likely that any new plan will mean higher payments,” said U.S. News & World Report. The SAVE plan “was the most affordable option for most people.”

President Donald Trump loves raging against the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, regularly chiding the military partnership for alleged financial delinquencies while at the same time boosting the interests of NATO’s primary antagonist, Russia. Now, as the U.S.’s war on Iran continues, NATO’s ostensible neutrality in that conflict has prompted him to renew his threat of leaving the organization altogether. Trump often tries to dictate reality by presidential fiat, but the legal process for leaving NATO is largely out of his hands and in Congress.’ The result is a Trump who’s more constrained on paper but not without a toolbox of other, less absolute options.

Why can’t Trump just leave NATO?

Trump has often threatened to leave the military alliance, but he has his own Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, to thank for the legal inability to do so. In 2023, Congress enacted what “appears to be the first statute prohibiting the president from unilaterally withdrawing from a treaty (specifically, the North Atlantic Treaty),” said the government’s Congressional Research Service in a February 2026 report. This “might be understood as a rejection” of the position that presidents possess “exclusive power over treaty withdrawal.”

The bill ensures presidents cannot exit NATO “without rigorous debate and consideration by the U.S. Congress with the input of the American people,” said co-sponsor Rubio in a statement on Senator Tim Kaine’s site; Kaine (D-Va.) was the amendment’s other sponsor. Before this, any member nation could exit the treaty one year after notifying the U.S., which would then “inform the governments of the other parties of the deposit of each notice of denunciation,” said the NATO charter.

Per the bill, a bipartisan effort for which Rubio partnered with Kaine and others from across the aisle, a president may only exit NATO “by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, provided that two-thirds of the senators present concur or pursuant to an Act of Congress.” This is a virtual impossibility, given the Democrats’ current holdings in the upper chamber.

The 2023 effort was “spurred by worries that Trump, if he returned to power, might try to quit the alliance,” said The Washington Post. Fast forward three years, and Trump “insists he would be able to do it anyway,” said Deutsche Welle.

What can he do then?

While it’s possible a constitutional challenge to Rubio’s 2023 bill would “likely favor the power of a president,” there are still “plenty of ways” Trump could “kneecap” the treaty “without leaving” or complying with the congressional restrictions, said DW. Even without an “official exit,” Trump’s “increasingly hostile stance toward the alliance may leave it weakened,” said CBS News.

If other member nations “can’t trust” that the U.S. will honor the treaty’s Article 5 mutual defense pact, then the alliance is “already broken in the way that matters most,” said political scientist Ian Bremmer on X. As soon as the group’s mutual defense pact is “questioned,” NATO “loses its potency” as a Russian deterrent, said Politico. Trump has, in that respect, “turned doubting NATO into official policy.”

The president is also “considering a plan to punish” some NATO member nations he deemed “unhelpful” during the U.S.-Israeli attack on Iran, said The Wall Street Journal. This would involve relocating some of the 84,000 American troops stationed in Europe and deploying them to “countries that were more supportive,” including Greece, Lithuania, Poland and Romania.

Trump could also withdraw American military assets entirely and shut off funding for NATO operations. Or if he wants to be “very dramatic,” he might even “decide not to staff the position of Supreme Allied Commander Europe,” a post traditionally reserved for American officers, said DW.

The president could “just downgrade our participation,” said Jim Townsend, a former Pentagon official who oversaw Europe and NATO policy, to Politico. He could skip summits, and the secretary of defense “won’t go to defense ministerials.”

With the “language” of its 2023 bill, Congress has “prevented” a “total” and “formal withdrawal from NATO,” said Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) to Politico. But the U.S. could “still be in NATO” with a president grasping “many different levers” so that the country’s impact would nevertheless be “diminished significantly.”

The countdown has begun to the introduction of new rules on how pensions are treated after someone dies.

In the “biggest shake-up of inheritance rules in a generation”, said The Telegraph, the value of a pension will, from April 2027, form part of someone’s estate after they die.

This could mean an inheritance tax bill for one in five households, said The Times, so “the countdown is on to protect their family wealth”.

What is the pensions death tax?

Putting money into a pension has traditionally been “one of the most tax-efficient ways to pass wealth on to loved ones”, said Rest Less. But any unused money in the pot from next year will fall into the scope of inheritance tax, “potentially reducing the amount families receive when someone dies”.

The proposals were announced in the October 2024 Budget by Chancellor Rachel Reeves. They aim to address concerns, said Dentons, that pensions were “increasingly being used as vehicles for inheritance planning, rather than for their primary purpose of providing retirement income”.

Who will be affected?

Inheritance tax is paid on the value of an estate above £325,000. Additionally, there is a £175,000 allowance for your main residence.

The tax “isn’t going to be an issue for most people”, said Royal London, but you may be affected if you own your own home and the value of your pension is added due to the potential total amounts.

The changes will still affect “most individuals” who have unused pension benefits when they die, said Tax Adviser. This means pensions can no longer be relied on as an “efficient means of passing” on wealth such as to your children. This could apply to millions who were previously free of it.

Inheritance tax receipts have already been rising due to “years of property price growth, asset inflation and frozen tax thresholds”, said The Times, so including pensions “will accelerate the trend”.

Beyond the potential charge, “of greatest concern”, said Wedlake Bell, is that payment of inheritance tax on pension assets will remain six months from the end of the month when the deceased died and interest on unpaid inheritance tax is currently running at 7.75%. The government has rejected calls to give bereaved families more time to pay.

Many families could face paying interest, said MoneyWeek, “due to administrative jams” involved in finding pension information and getting the right valuations.

How to prepare for the changes

If you are retired “it might make sense” to prioritise taking money from your pension before other assets, said Grovely Financial, especially if your goal is “inheritance tax mitigation”.

Another option, said MoneyWeek, is to “give away money while you are alive” so you can watch your loved ones enjoy it.

Up to £3,000 per tax year can be given as a financial gift, and tax-free gifts can be made to your children worth up to £5,000 for a wedding or civil partnership or £2,500 for a grandchild or great-grandchild.

Any money given outside of the gifting allowances is tax-free as long as you live for seven years after transfer. Gifting allowances can be used to pass cash on to loved ones, or alternatively, for extra net income.

Alternatively, there are life insurance policies that pay out to cover the cost of inheritance tax. They work in a similar way to other life insurance products: you pay premiums while you are alive “and there will be a payout when you die”, said The Independent.

A British computer scientist who pioneered a forerunner of cryptocurrencies has denied reports that he is Satoshi Nakamoto, the pseudonymous creator of Bitcoin.

An investigation by The New York Times used biographical details and writing style comparisons to make the case that Adam Back was the cryptocurrency’s enigmatic founder.

Who is Adam Back?

Back, a 55-year-old computer scientist from London, “has long been seen as a potential candidate to be Nakamoto”, said The Times. “A pioneer of early digital asset research in the 1990s”, he “has a long-standing background in cryptography, the techniques used to secure and verify digital information”. This includes developing Hashcash, “a proof-of-work system that later influenced Bitcoin” and was referenced by Nakamoto in his Bitcoin “white paper”.

Back dismissed The New York Times’ use of writing analyses to link him to the elusive Nakamoto as “a combination of coincidence and similar phrases from people with similar experience and interests”. In reference to the claim that he disappeared from Bitcoin message boards when “Satoshi” was at his busiest, Back insisted that he “did a lot of yakking” on the forums at the time. “I’m not Satoshi,” he said.

Why is Nakamoto’s identity a secret?

Since Bitcoin launched in 2008, Nakamoto has chosen to stay anonymous. All their communication was written under their pseudonym and no verifiable personal details have ever been released or revealed. Since 2011, they have given no public statements at all, their seeming disappearance giving them a “cult-like status among crypto enthusiasts”, said The Times.

This anonymity was very on-brand for Bitcoin. The cryptocurrency was designed to have no central authority; if the identity of a real person were known they could become a leader or figurehead, which might contradict the founding principle of decentralisation. There is a security element, too: Nakamoto is thought to own $78 billion worth of bitcoin, so remaining anonymous lessens the risk of extortion or kidnapping.

It’s also possible that the mysterious founder is not one person, but rather a team of developers or cryptographers. Either way, the years of speculation have added to Bitcoin’s profile and acted as a useful indirect marketing tool.

Has anyone else been suggested?

In 2014, Newsweek identified a Japanese-American systems engineer called Dorian Satoshi Nakamoto as the creator of Bitcoin. He disputed this, and the claim has “largely been debunked”, said the BBC.

The following year, Wired suggested Nakamoto could be a pseudonym for Australian computer scientist Craig Wright. Unlike Back and Dorian Nakamoto, Wright went public to assert he was indeed Nakamoto, until a UK High Court judge ruled he was not the Bitcoin founder and barred him from continuing to claim he was.

In 2024, an HBO documentary claimed that Canadian crypto expert Peter Todd was the real Nakamoto, a suggestion he described as “ludicrous”.

Whether you are considering a move to a new apartment or reevaluating how to allocate your budget, you may be wondering how much is reasonable to shell out each month for rent. Of course, the cost of housing is a non-negotiable — after all, you need a place to live — but it is also typically among the biggest regular expenditures a person has. It is also an expense you must commit to, at least for a certain period of time, when you sign a lease.

Before you sign on the dotted line and agree to pay a portion of your income every month, it is important to have an understanding of the guidelines for rent spending, as well as what factors influence the amount that is actually right for you and your budget.

What percentage of your income should ideally go to rent?

These two common rules of thumb can give you a rough idea of what is reasonable to spend on rent each month, at least according to financial experts:

The 30% rule: This rule “says that you should limit what you spend on rent to 30% or less of your gross monthly income,” with the cost of rent also including “other housing costs, such as renters insurance, utilities, parking and more,” said Rocket Mortgage.

The 50/30/20 rule: This is a “more comprehensive rule that takes all of your expenses into account, as well as savings goals,” said Rocket Mortgage. Here, the benchmark is to spend a maximum of 50% of your income on essentials and financial obligations, like rent, and then 30% on wants, meaning discretionary spending. The remaining 20% goes into savings.

What factors affect the cost of renting?

The above rules can be a helpful starting point, but they do not necessarily account for the myriad factors that can quickly throw a wrench in those calculations.

Location, as you might expect, is a big one. For instance, the 30% rule can be “hard to follow in a place like New York City or San Francisco, where median rents are well over $3,500 for a one-bedroom apartment,” said NerdWallet, citing 2025 Zillow rental market summaries. Where you live also shapes housing inventory, and the “law of supply and demand means landlords can charge more in areas where there’s a shortage of rental properties,” said Experian.

It is also important to look at the one-time and recurring costs as they relate to the place you rent. Some landlords include utility costs in the price of rent, in which case it may make sense for you to pay a bit more. Or, an apartment building could “have an on-site gym or a washer and dryer in-unit, which might make your rent payments higher,” but you will “save money on membership fees and laundromats,” said NerdWallet. Another consideration is commuting costs: While you may save by living further from the city center, how much will you then have to shell out to get to work every day?

How can you determine how much rent you can afford?

Rather than focusing on this one number, it is important to zoom out and consider your broader financial situation. The “biggest factors are your income and fixed monthly bills, such as utilities, loan payments, health insurance and other costs you must cover,” said Rocket Mortgage. This will shape how much you actually have leftover in your budget to cover the cost of rent.

If you find that the resulting calculations are out of line with the above rules of thumb, consider whether you can cut back in other areas or if you are open to exploring ways to pay less in rent, such as getting a roommate.

The United States under President Donald Trump is, for the time being, the brightest star in a growing network of ultra-nationalist governments hoping to reshape the global order in their authoritarian mold. While MAGA America is the powerhouse, it’s Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s Hungary that has been the backbone of the worldwide lurch rightward. Yet as Hungarians prepare to vote on April 12, Orbán and his Fidesz party seem headed for an electoral upset that could send shock waves across hard-right spheres.

Government ‘revered by authoritarians everywhere’

A “pro-Kremlin, anti-EU strongman” who has spent nearly two decades “building a template for Christian nationalist rule,” Orbán is now the “cornerstone of President Trump’s vision for Europe,” Axios said. In the 16 years since he was first elected, Orbán forged a “state apparatus — courts, media, election administration — loyal to his party” and has “never lost under the system he built.”

As the “center of the Trump administration’s shifting policy toward Europe,” Orbán’s Hungary “firmly” aligned itself with “far-right parties and immigration restrictionists in countries such as France and Germany,” said Al Jazeera. While this has “mired relationships in Europe,” it has also been a “source of inspiration for the U.S.”

“Whatever Hungary decides will resonate throughout Europe,” said Argentine President Javier Milei, a South American nationalist, during his address at last month’s Conservative Political Action Conference in Budapest. Orbán is a “beacon” for those who “refuse to accept that the West’s destiny is one of managed decline.”

CPAC-Hungary, where Milei spoke, has become an “important calendar event for Euro-Atlantic hard-right networking,” said Balkan Insight. The event hosted “667 foreign guests from 51 countries” who heard from “prominent European political figures” such as far-right Dutch PVV leader Geert Wilders and Alice Weidel of Germany’s ultra-nationalist AfD. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, while initially scheduled to appear in person, instead sent a “warm message of support” in pretaped remarks played on the conference’s first day, Cleveland Jewish News said.

Orbán is “revered by authoritarians everywhere,” said Salon. But as a “path-breaking autocrat” who has demonstrated a “new soft fascism,” his potential loss is making many of those same authoritarians “nervous.”

Effects that would ‘reverberate well beyond Hungary’

Should Orbán’s government fall, the “dreams” of his authoritarian admirers in the MAGA movement “might be shattered” as well, said Vox. As a “close Russian ally,” Orbán’s loss would be a “considerable boon to the Ukrainian war effort — and a significant blow to the Kremlin.” Cumulatively, then, Hungary’s elections are “not just like any other vote,” and could end up as “one of the most significant elections of the entire year, and perhaps even the decade.”

An Orbán loss would prompt authoritarian allies to ask “what it could mean for them,” said Salon. “After all,” his “anti-democratic” domestic policies were designed to “not only prevent a defeat from happening” but to “keep people from ever wanting it to happen.” Such a defeat would “reverberate well beyond Hungary,” calling into question the “durability of a political system” marked by “hardline nationalism and an erosion of democratic checks” and “touted as a blueprint for reshaping Western democracy” by many conservatives, said Reuters.

“I am here for a simple reason,” Vice President JD Vance said at a pro-Orbán rally in Budapest this week: “I admire what you are fighting for.” But Vance’s visit may have ultimately done “more harm for Orbán than good,” The Guardian said. By asserting that the Trump administration would work with any eventual Hungarian elected leader, the vice president seemingly undercut Orbán’s campaign promise that “he — and his connections — were the only means of keeping Hungary safe in a volatile world.”

For some observers, Vance’s visit is unlikely to change the electoral calculus in Hungary, where “domestic issues such as the ⁠cost of living dominate the election,” said Reuters. No matter what happens in Hungary’s immediate future, Orbán’s global footprint will surely be felt for years to come.

Donald Trump’s threats to wipe out a civilisation and Israel’s alleged use of white phosphorus in Lebanon have once again shone a spotlight on the rules of war.

“Collective punishment on a population and the targeting of protected civilian infrastructure are prohibited under international law,” legal experts told ABC News of Trump’s threats, while his promises to take the country’s oil, “which could amount to pillaging” is also “barred under the law”.

In Lebanon, Human Rights Watch said it was able to verify that Israel was again using the “notorious weapon”, “reigniting accusations that it is breaking the laws of war”, said The Guardian.

When asked whether his threats constituted a war crime, Donald Trump answered, “You know the war crime? The war crime is allowing Iran to have a nuclear weapon”.

So what constitutes a ‘war crime’?

War crimes are “violations of international humanitarian law” that, unlike genocide and crimes against humanity, “always take place in the context of an armed conflict, whether international or not”, said the United Nations.

These include cases of murder, torture, pillage, intentionally directing attacks against civilians and non-combatants such as humanitarian aid workers, as well as the deliberate targeting of religious and educational buildings, hospitals and, in some cases, vital infrastructure such as power stations and key transport links.

The use of weapons banned by international conventions, such as chemical weapons or cluster munitions, can also be considered a war crime.

What are the major conventions and treaties?

The Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their Additional Protocols introduced in subsequent decades are international treaties that serve as the “most important rules limiting the barbarity of war”, according to the International Committee of the Red Cross. Ratified by all 196 UN member states, in times of war they protect non-combatants, such as civilians, medics, aid workers, and those who can no longer fight, including the wounded, sick or prisoners of war.

There are also additional conventions banning the use of biological weapons (1972), certain conventional weapons (1980), chemical weapons (1993), anti-personnel mines (1997), and cluster munitions (2008).

What happens if someone breaks the rules?

The International Criminal Court (ICC), established under the Rome Statute in 2002, “investigates and, where warranted, tries individuals charged with the gravest crimes of concern to the international community: genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and the crime of aggression”.

“Champions of the court say it deters would-be war criminals, bolsters the rule of law, and offers justice to victims of atrocities,” said the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) think tank. Yet it has, since inception, also “faced criticism from many parties” and has been fundamentally weakened by the refusal of several major powers to join.

As well as the US, Russia and China, non-signatories include India, Egypt, Iran, Israel, Sudan, Syria, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Iraq, North Korea, Saudi Arabia and Turkey.

Recent arrest warrants for national leaders including Russian President Vladimir Putin and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have “generated mixed reactions from Washington and raised questions over the future of the court”, said the CFR.

As “no formal ICC jurisdiction applies” to countries that have not signed up to the ICC, the “more immediate legal framework” remains the Geneva conventions of 1949 onwards, said The Guardian.

The Conventions and their Protocols contain stringent rules to deal with those who commit what are known as “grave breaches”, who must be pursued and tried or extradited, whatever their nationality.

The key point here, said Professor Andrew Clapham in OpionioJuris, is that the rules for offences deemed war crimes under the Geneva code apply to “everyone irrespective of whether their state has ratified the ICC Statute, and they can be tried in multiple states around the world, irrespective of whether those states are parties to the ICC Statute”.

“The idea that anyone can avoid accountability for grave breaches by sticking to non-ICC states for one’s trips is fallacious when that person is alleged to have committed grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions.”

Spring is usually considered prime time for the housing market. The winter weather is finally thawing out, the sun is starting to shine more regularly and everything is looking greener and rosier. But this year, some unanticipated challenges are threatening to upend what is usually the busy season for both buyers and sellers.

Due to the war with Iran, the “cost of oil is shooting higher, leading to rising inflation and causing the Fed to reconsider” its previously planned rate cuts, said CNBC. In turn, “U.S. bond yields are rising, with mortgage rates following suit.” With rates steadily increasing week by week and waning affordability continuing to squeeze budgets, the question arises: is this spring the right time to make homebuying moves?

What is next for mortgage rates?

In March, mortgage rates steadily climbed. The month saw a “three-week climb” that marked the “steepest such rise in more than a year and a half,” said Realtor.com, citing Freddie Mac data. As of the week ending March 27, the “contract rate on a 30-year, ​fixed-rate mortgage rose 14 basis points to 6.57%,” said U.S. News & World Report.

So, will that ascent continue? “While there’s a slight possibility of rates easing downward, they are more likely to remain in the low-6% range for the near term,” said MarketWatch, citing Jen Poniatowski, the SVP of mortgage growth and market development at Key Mortgage.

However, the trajectory will ultimately depend on factors that are hard to predict with any certainty, particularly oil prices. “If oil prices retreat closer to $70 per barrel, then mortgage rates may return closer to 6%. If oil prices reach $100, then mortgage rates may rise to 6.7% to 7%,” said Lawrence Yun, the chief economist and senior vice president of research at the National Association of Realtors, to MarketWatch.

How could rising rates affect the spring housing market?

Higher mortgage rates have already “proved a deterrent for some potential home buyers,” said NerdWallet. And then there is the added layer of “higher costs for basic household goods, food and gas,” which “could scuttle more folks’ plans.”

This hesitancy is showing up in the market. “The number of homes for sale is climbing not because there are so many more sellers, but because the homes on the market are sitting,” said CNBC. This is giving buyers a bit more leverage, though, as “sellers entering the market appear to be moderating their price expectations, with the typical asking price running nearly 2% below year-ago levels,” said Realtor.com.

Is this spring still a good time to buy or sell?

Both buyers and homeowners “should be prepared for continued rate volatility and avoid making decisions based solely on short-term market movements,” said Kiplinger. Really, what it comes down to is “how a housing decision fits into your broader financial picture, including your income stability, long-term plans and comfort with monthly costs,” rather than what is going on with the market at any given moment.

Zooming out for some broader context can also be helpful. While rates are high, and rising, “they’re still notably lower than at the same time last year,” said NerdWallet.

Donald Trump has repeated his threat to pull the US out of Nato, after Britain and other allies refused to send warships to help reopen the Strait of Hormuz. Dismissing the alliance as a “paper tiger”, he told The Telegraph’s Washington correspondent that the idea of removing America from the defence treaty had now gone “beyond reconsideration”.

“We’ve been there automatically, including Ukraine,” Trump said. “And we would always have been there for them”. But, in an apparent misunderstanding of the limits of the alliance, the US president believes that, in the Iran conflict, “they weren’t there for us”.

What would it mean for Nato?

Nato, formed by the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty in 1949 by 12 founding countries, does not have its own army. Instead, member states pledged to provide collective defence and security. The US is Nato’s largest single military power, as well as funding 62% of its spending, so American withdrawal would dramatically weaken the alliance. Without Washington’s military might behind it, Article 5 – the treaty clause that states that an armed attack against one or more members will be considered an attack against all – would lose credibility .

Trump’s recent threats will further encourage Canada and the European member states in their efforts to rely less on the US for security – a shift that is a boon to their own domestic defence industries.

What would leaving Nato mean for the US?

The US would save money, both by ending its contribution to Nato spending and by no longer maintaining a presence in Europe, Africa and the Middle East. But it would also lose access to many military bases around the world, meaning the US Navy would have to “operate closer to America’s shores”, and US bombers would no longer be able to “reach targets halfway around the world”, said Modern Diplomacy. More broadly, the shift away from US global leadership would accelerate, with America increasingly divorced from an international framework.

Buyers for US arms could also dry up, as America’s former allies seek to re-arm elsewhere. The US spends more on its own military than any other country but that wouldn’t be enough to keep all its arms manufacturers afloat. Without crucial foreign sales, hundreds of thousands of US jobs would be at risk.

What would the process actually look like?

Leaving Nato wouldn’t be easy for the US because a 2024 law prohibits the president from doing so without the approval of a two-thirds Senate majority or an act of Congress. Even if all Republicans in the Senate voted for it, Trump would still need at least 14 Democrats to join them, and it’s unlikely he would even get unanimity from Republicans: Thom Tillis, Republican co-chair of the Senate NATO Observer Group, has already warned that leaving Nato would be an “enormous, enormous risk”.

Given the political obstacles, most Nato observers don’t think Trump will try to withdraw, “despite his obvious displeasure at alliance leaders”, said The Times. But he could use an executive order to suspend US participation, and eke that suspension out while legal challenges are mounted.

But, even without leaving, Trump could still “cause irreparable damage” to the alliance, said UnHerd. He could ignore an Article 5 request, withhold intelligence from Nato partners, cancel weapons deliveries, and limit the export of security-related technologies.

Americans may be unwittingly giving hackers an easy path to access their houses. Cybersecurity experts, including FBI cybercrime analysts, are warning about residential proxy networks found on many off-brand electronics. These networks often allow hackers to hide in plain sight.

What are residential proxy networks?

These software systems are “designed to route other people’s internet traffic through a user’s device,” said Cyber Magazine. The networks operate largely like “forged return addresses on envelopes — someone else’s internet traffic is rerouted through your connection,” said officials at Comcast’s Threat Research Lab to Cyber. As the networks engage with users, they “quietly launder illegitimate activity” while making it appear that your device is the “initiator of that traffic.”

Residential proxy networks can make their way onto a variety of home devices, as “TV streaming devices, digital picture frames, smartphones, tablets and routers are used to route traffic,” said the FBI. Many people who own such devices do not “realize their internet connection could be used by someone else without their permission.” The devices can sometimes gain internet access when the “owner of the device provides consent” unintentionally; other times, the owner “does not provide consent and is unaware their IP address is being used.”

Some of these devices “ship with residential proxy software preinstalled on them,” which can “happen with certain low-cost video streaming systems,” said The Wall Street Journal. In other cases, people might “download the code to their smartphones” without realizing it. And since the networks make it appear like illegal activity is coming from an innocent person’s home, there’s a “chance that law enforcement could come knocking at your door.”

How can people protect themselves?

The FBI has a list of tips to help people stay safe, urging Americans to “avoid TV streaming devices that claim to provide free sports, TV shows and movies,” as these “may contain malware or backdoors that hijack your internet network and can lead to identity theft,” said the agency. The agency also recommended people be wary of downloading free VPNs and clicking on pop-ups, which can “initiate malware installation on your device.”

In the midst of these continued cyberattacks, some ordinary Americans are fighting back. Benjamin Brundage, a senior at the Rochester Institute of Technology, began an investigation in 2025 as a “growing network of hacked devices was launching the biggest cyberattacks ever seen on the internet” via a Chinese company called Ipidea, said the Journal. Using cat memes to “lighten the mood” while speaking to hackers, Brundage was able to find out significant information about the attackers, and law enforcement eventually “took action against the network.”

Brundage “identified 11 of the largest residential proxy companies, including Ipidea, that were vulnerable” to hackers, said the Journal. Other companies also assisted law enforcement in the investigation. Google “took legal action” against Ipidea to “take down domains used to control devices and proxy traffic through them,” said the tech company in a press release. While there are still “significant challenges for network defenders to detect and block malicious activities,” officials believe the action taken against Ipidea has reduced the “available pool of devices for the proxy operators by millions.”

The EU’s longest-serving current head of government has turned his country from a liberal democracy into something quite different. Orbán has been variously described as a populist strongman, an authoritarian capitalist, a “soft autocrat” and a “21st-century dictator”.

He himself announced in 2014 that he was building an “illiberal state”, parting from “Western European dogmas” and learning from Turkey, Russia and China. By then his Fidesz party had already rewritten Hungary’s constitution, modified its electoral system, and packed the courts and other institutions with party loyalists. Orbán's Hungary is seen as an inspiration to the populist Right across Europe and in the US, particularly to Donald Trump.

What is Orbán’s background?

Born in 1963, in a village some 35 miles west of Budapest where his father worked on a collective farm, he went on to study law in Budapest, and political philosophy at Oxford, on a scholarship. A former member of the Young Communists, he became a fierce critic of communist rule, co-founding Fidesz – originally a liberal centre-left youth movement – which demanded free elections and the withdrawal of Soviet troops.

In 1998, he led Fidesz to electoral victory, becoming Europe's youngest prime minister. A year later, Hungary joined Nato. By then, Orbán had already set about transforming Fidesz into a conservative nationalist party; but in 2002, he lost his re-election campaign to a Socialist coalition. According to his biographer, he resolved to return to power and change “the rules of the game” so that he’d never lose again.

How did he do that?

Fidesz was elected in 2010 with 53% of the vote, but quirks of seat distribution gave it a two-thirds majority – giving Orbán, as PM, considerable power to reshape the country. Ahead of the 2014 election, Fidesz passed a new electoral law that cut the number of seats from 386 to 199; districts were redrawn behind closed doors to favour Fidesz's rural strongholds. Voting rights were granted to ethnic Hungarians living in neighbouring countries, who voted over 95% for Fidesz.

He quickly muzzled the free press. In 2010, a new law created a media council with the power to levy heavy fines on outlets for “unbalanced” anti-government reporting. The biggest opposition newspaper, Népszabadság, was bought then shuttered in 2016 by a company linked to one of the PM's allies; TV and radio stations and websites also came under the control of friendly oligarchs. It’s estimated that today, Fidesz directly or indirectly controls 80% to 90% of the media.

Did Hungarians approve of this?

To a large extent, yes. Elections are free, if not fair, in the sense that opposition politicians are allowed to run, and ballots are counted correctly. And Fidesz has won three more general elections since 2010, never gaining less than 49% of the vote. Orbán has tried to unite the nation against perceived enemies, external and internal: refugees, particularly during the 2015 migrant crisis; the EU, with its “oppressive”, “imperial” system; gay people; “globalists” such as George Soros, the Hungarian-born US financier who has funded liberal causes across the world (and who paid for Orbán’s Oxford scholarship); and, more recently, Ukraine.

Orbán portrays Hungary as a “Christian democracy” under continual, existential threat – a canny policy in a country with a long history of foreign domination at the hands of Ottomans, Habsburgs and Soviets. Fidesz ideology is based on the pillars of “God, Nation and Family”: LGBTQ+ rights have been curtailed, and pro-natal tax breaks have been given to incentivise women to have children.

How are his relations with the EU?

Orbán's flouting of democratic norms has meant constant conflict with Brussels. In 2022, the EU parliament passed a symbolic resolution declaring Hungary to be a “hybrid regime of electoral autocracy”. Brussels has frozen billions of euros in EU funding, and has launched legal challenges against laws passed by Fidesz; but has so far stopped short of invoking the “nuclear option” of suspending its voting rights in the European Council. Orbán has continually sought to hobble EU action against Russia, a close ally that provides nuclear technology, and low-priced oil and gas to Hungary.

In February, Orbán used veto powers to block a €90 billion EU aid package to Ukraine, which he blames for disrupting oil supplies, and also claims to view as a military threat. He said this month that Hungarians should “fear the EU more than Russia”.

Why is his rule under threat now?

In the elections on 12 April, Orbán faces a challenge from Tisza, the centre-right opposition party led by Péter Magyar, formerly of Fidesz.

The “Orbán model” relied on delivering rising living standards in return for political dominance; but the economy has stagnated and living standards have declined. Magyar’s politics are not dissimilar to Orbán's, but he paints the PM’s rule as corrupt and “feudalistic” – with some justification. Hungary is often described as a kleptocracy. A circle of oligarchs tied to Orbán dominates the economy and lucrative public contracts. Orbán’s son-in-law is one of Hungary's richest men. A recent scandal concerns György Matolcsy, the former national bank chief, who spent €210 million renovating the bank, and had a deluxe bathroom made for himself, complete with a golden toilet brush. The golden toilet brush has become a symbol of Orbán’s elite.

Will Orbán lose?

Tisza is leading by at least 10 percentage points in independent polls, probably enough to offset Fidesz’s structural advantages. However, while Orbán and Fidesz retain control of much of the media and the machinery of state, the outcome, and the PM’s willingness to accept defeat, are far from certain.

Sometimes, people may feel like they are stuck renting because homeownership is out of reach financially. But what if renting were actually a step on the path toward becoming a homeowner? In the case of rent-to-own agreements, it can be.

These agreements are essentially rental leases that include an option (or, in some cases, an obligation) to eventually buy the property after living in it for a period of time. During this time, some of the rent you pay may go toward a future down payment. While this likely sounds like an appealing prospect, and it can have upsides, there are some definite drawbacks worth weighing first.

What is a rent-to-own agreement?

A contract that effectively “gives renters the option to work toward buying the home they already live in,” said Bankrate. Because of this dual purpose, the contract contains two parts: a standard rental lease detailing your obligations as a renter, and a separate option-to-purchase contract.

As part of the agreement, a portion of the rental payment you make each month may get diverted toward your eventual down payment, an arrangement known as “rent premiums” or “rent credits,” said NerdWallet. You may also need to make a non-refundable deposit upfront, known as an “option fee,” that is similarly a portion of the home’s purchase price, “typically 1% to 7%.”

While you continue to rent, that money will be held in an escrow account until you purchase the home. Typically, “your rent-to-own agreement will spell out how long you can rent the home before you must decide whether or not you buy it,” a period of time that is “often 2 to 3 years,” said Rocket Mortgage. Depending on the specifics of the contract, that eventual purchase may be an option (a lease-option contract), or it may be a contractual obligation (a lease-purchase contract).

What are the pros of rent-to-own homes?

One of the obvious upsides is that you are accruing a down payment while you live in the home as a renter. This can be helpful if you have been struggling to set aside the necessary amount. Plus, while you save, you have built-in time to improve your credit, if that is necessary for you to secure a competitive mortgage offer.

The arrangement can also offer some stability, not to mention logistical relief. “Since you’re already living in the home, you won’t have to deal with the expense and hassle of moving again,” and you will also have the chance to “familiarize yourself with the property and neighborhood,” said Redfin.

Are there downsides to rent-to-own?

Definitely. For one, “if you change your mind or you can’t buy the home when the time comes, you could lose a lot of money,” said Investopedia. “At a minimum, you will lose your option fee,” and “if you signed a lease-purchase contract, you could face more financial fallout.” Even if you feel confident you will follow through, tread carefully: “Often, the contract terms are so rigid that the renter winds up defaulting and losing all the money,” said The New York Times.

Further, while it may sound smart to lock in a home purchase price when you sign the contract, often years ahead of purchase, this might not actually end up being a great deal. “That price is often higher than the home’s fair-market value,” said the Times, citing Karen E. Brown, the director and managing attorney of the Home Defense Program at the Atlanta Legal Aid Society. Often, the “inflated prices cause problems when the property is appraised for a mortgage.”

It’s no secret that artificial intelligence can sometimes offer less-than-stellar guidance. But AI might give people this bad wisdom for a sobering reason: to flatter, according to a new study. In some cases, AI may only reinforce people’s preconceived notions, but the words it generates can be outright harmful.

What did the study find?

The “sycophantic (flattering, people-pleasing, affirming) behavior” of AI chatbots can pose risks as people “increasingly seek advice about interpersonal dilemmas,” said the study published in the journal Science. In an analysis of 11 leading large language models, including AI bots from Anthropic, Google and OpenAI, chatbot responses to users were “nearly 50% more sycophantic than humans’, even when users engaged in unethical, illegal” behaviors.

The problem is not just that these chatbots “dispense inappropriate advice but that people trust and prefer AI more when the chatbots are justifying their convictions,” said The Associated Press. In one example, when OpenAI’s ChatGPT was asked if littering in a park was acceptable if no garbage can was available, the bot “blamed the park for not having trash cans, not the questioning litterer who was ‘commendable’ for even looking for one.”

This example may seem trivial, but AI’s general tendency to “flatter and excessively confirm users’ opinions can lead to wrong decisions, harm relationships and reinforce harmful beliefs while decreasing the willingness to take responsibility or resolve conflicts,” said The Jerusalem Post. The proneness toward sycophancy is a “technological flaw already tied to some high-profile cases of delusional and suicidal behavior in vulnerable populations,” said the AP.

Why is AI sycophancy such a problem?

Many experts worry that this AI advice “will worsen people’s social skills and ability to navigate uncomfortable situations,” Myra Cheng, the study’s lead author and a computer science PhD candidate, said to the Stanford Report. If this behavior by AI is not corrected, some users may “lose the skills to deal with difficult social situations” and could also pose larger safety risks.

“Users are aware that models behave in sycophantic and flattering ways,” Dan Jurafsky, the study’s senior author and a Stanford University linguistics professor, told the Stanford Report. What many people are “not aware of, and what surprised us, is that sycophancy is making them more self-centered, more morally dogmatic.” This type of interaction with AI is a “safety issue, and like other safety issues, it needs regulation and oversight.” All of this is also happening as AI use becomes more prevalent, especially among teenagers.

At least 33% of teens “use AI companions for social interaction and relationships, including conversation practice, emotional support, role-playing, friendship or romantic interactions,” according to a study from Common Sense Media. Another 33% of teens choose to “discuss important or serious matters with AI companions instead of real people.” Experts say when using AI you should avoid asking for advice on crucially important topics. “I think that you should not use AI as a substitute for people for these kinds of things,” Cheng told the Stanford Report. “That’s the best thing to do for now.”

Bereaved families could be in line for thousand of pounds of compensation from National Savings & Investments (NS&I) after the government-backed bank admitted failing to trace accounts of dead customers.

A “catastrophic operations failure”, said The Telegraph, meant money belonging to 37,500 dead savers has been withheld from their families.

NS&I has said claims with a total value of up to £476 million in customer deposits “may have been affected”.

The savings organisation’s chief executive Dax Harkins has stepped down following the scandal, and has been replaced by former HMRC boss Jim Harra.

What has gone wrong at NS&I?

NS&I has been accused of “short-changing bereaved families” after losing track of investments, delaying payouts, and withholding prizes for its popular Premium Bonds, said ThisIsMoney.

Some families, said The Guardian, had resorted to paying lawyers to “recover their money”. NS&I has apologised and said its search process “failed to identify” all products when handling bereavement claims, which it said has now been fixed.

It’s not the first bit of “negative publicity” for NS&I, said Sky News, after the bank’s £3 billion digital transformation project was criticised by MPs for exposing “the taxpayer to additional risk”.

Who is affected by the missing payments?

Pensions minister Torsten Bell told MPs that around three-quarters of the cases relate to the period between 2008 and 2025.

NS&I has said up to 37,500 bereavement claims may have been affected, adding that it received 211,800 new bereavement claims and repaid £4 billion last year.

How much are people owed from NS&I?

The cases cover accounts worth an estimated £476 million, according to NS&I, which “works out at roughly £12,693 on average per person”, said ThisIsMoney.

The government has indicated families should have their funds returned, including interest and compensation.

How can bereaved families claim?

The government has confirmed “impacted customers” will be remunerated, said Metro, but “exact details” haven’t been announced yet.

NS&I has confirmed it will ensure savers’ estates are “appropriately compensated” and will reveal more details in May. It has also hired 100 more staff members to contact those affected.

You “don’t need to do anything” if you have recently made a claim or have an ongoing one, said NS&I, as it will be responsible for contacting beneficiaries.

This also means those affected won’t need to use a claims management company or solicitor, said MoneyWeek, “to be reunited with their money”.

The “silver lining”, said The Guardian, is that the money is 100% safe as NS&I is government-backed. So the main issue is “marrying it up with the owner, not the security of funds”.

High inflation is bad enough on its own — but what about when it comes with high unemployment and stagnant economic growth? This pairing is what is known as stagflation, a rare economic phenomenon. And lately, concerns are cropping up that the U.S. economy could be showing signs of it.

“Persistent inflation above the Federal Reserve’s target and the job market slowdown had already prompted worries,” said CNBC. Then “surging oil prices due to the Iran war” entered the equation, bringing to mind the “oil supply shocks that led to shortages and long gas lines Americans saw during stagflation in the 1970s.” Still, many experts, including Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell, maintain that the risks of stagflation reoccurring remain low.

What is stagflation, and why does it happen?

Stagflation — a blend of the words inflation and stagnation — refers to the combination of “stagnant economic growth, high unemployment and persistent inflation,” said Investopedia. This is a pattern that “defies traditional economic models, which typically show inflation rising during strong economic growth and falling during recessions.”

Often, stagnation is attributed to supply-chain disruptions, such as to the oil supply. This can result in “a shortage of crucial goods or commodities,” which in turn “can lead to higher prices for consumers and a slowdown in economic growth,” said Yahoo Finance.

Another driver can be monetary policy decisions made by the Federal Reserve. For example, an “easy monetary policy where interest rates are being lowered combined with a tight fiscal policy can lead to wage retaliation if taxes remain too high,” said Kiplinger. “As workers demand higher wages, businesses may reduce employment and pass the higher costs onto consumers by raising prices.”

What are the risks of stagflation?

One of the “most noticeable effects of stagflation is higher prices for goods and services,” which can lead consumers “to spend more for everyday expenses and even take on debt to keep up with higher costs,” said Yahoo Finance. Additionally, people may experience “fewer job opportunities, lower wages or layoffs” as businesses instate cost-cutting measures to deal with the effects.

Together, this can make it more challenging to save and invest, which can have ripple effects down the road for people financially.

How can you protect yourself from stagflation?

To be clear, it is still up for debate whether or not the U.S. is nearing, or actually even showing real signs of, stagflation. Still, many of the steps you can take to prepare happen to be generally good financial practices anyway, including:

• Set aside money in savings, ideally a high-yield account, and make sure your emergency fund is well-stocked.
• Pay down debt — particularly high-interest debt like credit card debt.
• When it comes to investing, “stay the course and diversify,” said Kiplinger.
• Pay some attention to your career, whether that is by learning new skills to increase employability or exploring ways to boost income.

A Covid-19 variant has returned with a vengeance. The BA.3.2 version, nicknamed Cicada, has now been found in over 20 states. The virus is highly mutated, making it difficult for vaccines to recognize. Though similar to other viruses, this strain has the potential to become more prevalent.

How dangerous is the variant?

The Cicada variant earned its name because, like the insect, it “first appeared back in 2024, went dormant for a while and resurfaced in the U.S. late last year,” said Northeastern Global News. BA.3.2 descended from the omicron variant of the Covid-19 virus, which made its debut in 2021.

Compared to current circulating strains of Covid-19, “BA.3.2 carries 70 to 75 genetic changes in its spike protein, the part of the virus that helps it get into cells,” Kyle B. Enfield, an associate professor of medicine at the University of Virginia, said at The Conversation. The spike protein is the “part of the virus that vaccines rely on to coax people’s immune systems into recognizing the virus.”

The strain is making its rounds in the U.S. and can cause similar symptoms to other Covid strains as well as other respiratory viruses, including runny or stuffy nose, fever, chills, sore throat, cough and sometimes nausea and vomiting. These similarities make it difficult to determine whether you have Covid-19 or another illness. We cannot predict “what someone has based on what is circulating,” Geeta Sood, an epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center, said to NBC News. “It could be Covid, it could be influenza, and now we have added the prolonged RSV to the mix.”

While the Cicada variant is passing through the population, there hasn’t been any “data which indicates that Cicada is any more severe than other circulating variants,” Robert H. Hopkins Jr., the medical director of the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases, said to USA Today. In addition, Cicada is “currently a minority strain, based on the most recent data.” However, “we don’t know how quickly it will circulate or whether it will outrun the other variants that are out there at the moment, because we don’t know how contagious it is,” William Schaffner, an infectious disease expert at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, said to Politifact.

What precautions can you take?

The current vaccines for Covid-19 are “made to protect against strains from the JN.1 lineage of the virus, which have been the most common strains in the U.S. since January 2024,” said Enfield. BA.3.2 doesn’t fit the bill and is “almost a complete stranger” to those in the U.S.

“There definitely are quite a few mutations with this one, so there’s concern that the current vaccine is not going to be a great match,” said Brandon Dionne, an associate clinical professor of pharmacy and health systems sciences at Northeastern University, to Northeastern Global News. Despite this, experts still recommend getting the vaccine, as doing so can reduce the chance of hospitalization and death from the virus. A “poorly matched vaccine simply won’t recognize the new variant as quickly, which means it takes longer for the immune system to mount its defense,” Enfield said.

Along with getting vaccinated, the best thing to do is “when sick, get tested,” said Rajendram Rajnarayanan, the assistant dean of research and associate professor at the New York Institute of Technology College of Osteopathic Medicine at Arkansas State University, to USA Today. “If positive, stay home until better and confirm with a negative test. If that’s not possible, wear a fit N95 mask.”

Much has been made of the closing of the Strait of Hormuz during the Iran war, given that the passage is a major lifeline for the global economy. But it is just one of five major waterways that play a significant role in world trade — several of which have their own history of conflicts.

Panama Canal

As the only entry in this list located in the Americas, the Panama Canal is a vital waterway for one main reason: It connects the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. This shortcut lets ships “avoid the lengthy and hazardous voyage around Cape Horn at the southern tip of South America,” said the International Trade Administration. Not forcing ships to circumvent an entire continent “contributes to the reduction of carbon emissions and helps mitigate the environmental impact of global maritime transportation.”

President Donald Trump has pushed for the U.S. to gain full control of the canal, but the “facts are that Panama has managed the canal incredibly well,” said the Harvard Kennedy School of Government. The “revenues generated by the canal are important for Panama, representing about 4% of their GDP. They represent less than 1/10,000 of the U.S. GDP.”

Strait of Hormuz

The strait, which cuts between Iran, the United Arab Emirates and Oman, is one of the “world’s busiest oil shipping channels,” said BBC News. It is used by almost all of the world’s major oil companies, and in 2025, about “20 million barrels of oil and oil products passed through the Strait of Hormuz per day,” equivalent to nearly $600 billion of energy production per year.

The recent closure of the waterway could impact more than just gas prices, as the strait is also a “vital channel for imports to the Middle East, including food, medicines and technological supplies,” said BBC News. If it is not reopened soon, the ripple could “go far beyond the region, affecting energy markets, maritime transport and global supply chains,” said the U.N. Conference on Trade and Development.

Strait of Malacca

Like the Panama Canal, the Strait of Malacca in Southeast Asia is a passage between two oceans: the Indian and the Pacific. It represents “one of the most strategically, economically and politically significant maritime chokepoints in the world,” said The National Bureau of Asian Research. The strait is important to the nations around it as well as “great powers with interests in the Indo-Pacific.”

But climate change is leading to “increasing heavy rainfall and extreme flood heights” around the strait, said a study from World Weather Attribution. This could threaten the strait’s “densely populated regions,” particularly near heavily populated countries like Sri Lanka.

Suez Canal

The Suez Canal is the “only place that directly connects the waters of Europe with the Arabian Sea, the Indian Ocean and the countries of the Asia-Pacific,” said CNN, making it an essential waterway for cargo. If the canal didn’t exist, ships in the region would have to “traverse the entire continent of Africa, adding hefty costs and substantially extending their journey times.”

An example of the canal’s importance was seen in 2021, when a cargo ship became stuck across the waterway, cutting off the shipping lane. Any disruptions “can have outsized impacts on global commerce and energy markets,” said the Atlantic Council, given that over $1 trillion goods are transported through the Suez annually.

Turkish Straits

The two Turkish Straits hold “strategic importance as the only waterway connecting the Black Sea to the Mediterranean Sea,” said Turkey’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs. But crossing these two straits, the Dardanelles and the Bosphorus, is not easy, as “strong currents, sharp turns and unpredictable changes in weather conditions make it all the more difficult to navigate safely.”

During a war, the straits also become vital due to a 1936 treaty regulating their passage, which “states that, at times of conflict, ‘vessels of war belonging to belligerent powers shall not pass through the Straits,’” said Arab News. The implication of this treaty has often demonstrated Turkey’s “ultimate say over any warship if it deems its movement to be a security threat.”

Getting a refund when you file your taxes is a nice financial boost. This year, there are claims that tax refunds could be bigger than ever before.

President Donald Trump has said “this will be the ‘largest tax refund season of all time’ following the 2025 changes enacted via his ‘big beautiful bill,’” said CNBC. The White House in January released an estimate saying the “average refund could increase ‘by $1,000 or more,’” said CNBC. But will refunds actually be bigger — and if so, will yours be among those that are? Here is what to know.

What is the average tax refund for 2026?

The average tax refund this year is “higher by about $350, or nearly 11%, when compared to last year, according to the latest Internal Revenue Service data as of March 13,” said CNN. At its highest point so far this tax season, the average refund size “peaked at $3,804 on Feb. 20, an increase from $3,453 about one year prior,” before that average “gradually declined over the next two weeks,” said CNBC.

However, the deadline for tax filing is not until April 15, which means that the average could very well shift, though “refund sizes typically level off after late February,” said CNN, citing Erica York, the vice president of federal tax policy at the Tax Foundation.

How did the One Big Beautiful Bill Act impact tax refunds?

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), signed into law in July, introduced a number of changes that could affect how much money people get back this tax season. Alongside making permanent many provisions that were set to expire and would have increased many people’ s tax bills, the bill introduced four new tax deductions: deductions for tips, overtime pay, new car loan interest and seniors age 65 and up.

Additionally, “standard deductions have been adjusted for inflation twice for 2025,” said Experian — once as part of the “regular 2025 inflation adjustments” and then “again with the passage of the OBBBA.” At the same time, “tax brackets have been adjusted by about 3%” for 2025, a change that “can reduce the amount of tax you pay by taxing more of your income at lower rates,” said the outlet.

Lastly, “when the OBBBA was passed into law, the IRS did not update withholding tables,” which meant that “some taxpayers became eligible for additional deductions but were still paying more toward taxes with each paycheck,” said Yahoo Finance. As a result, those taxpayers may get more money back than usual.

What else affects the size of your tax refund?

While deductions, tax brackets and excess withholdings can all certainly influence the amount of your tax refund, they are not the only factors determining how much you get back, if anything. Other things that may have an impact include:

• Any changes in eligibility for tax credits
• A change in income, or the addition of side income
• Changes to your tax filing status
• The sale or purchase of a home
• Updates to your retirement account contributions
• Capital gains, interest or dividends from investing

So before you go betting on a bigger-than-ever tax refund this year, realize that the reality actually comes down to your specific financial and tax situation. If you are in luck, that could mean more money back from Uncle Sam.

The United Nations has taken a major step in trying to correct a historic wrong. It’s calling for reparations for African nations that were subjected to the transatlantic slave trade, after voting to recognize slavery as a crime against humanity. Though African countries welcome the U.N.’s resolution, other nations, including the U.S., view the vote with skepticism.

What did the UN vote for?

The U.N.’s resolution was spearheaded by Ghana, one of the countries from which an estimated 12.5 million people across the African continent were captured by Europeans during the height of the slave trade. It declares the “trafficking of enslaved Africans and racialized chattel enslavement of Africans” to be the “gravest crime against humanity” due to the “scale, duration, systemic nature, brutality and enduring consequences that continue to structure the lives of all people through racialized regimes of labor, property and capital.”

Ghana’s president, John Mahama, “called on U.N. members to ‘engage in inclusive, good-faith dialogue on reparatory justice, including a full and formal apology’ as well as measures of restitution and compensation,” said Bloomberg. The full scope of these reparations remains unclear, and a specific dollar amount wasn’t noted. Some believe reparations “should go beyond direct financial payments to also include developmental aid for countries, the return of colonized resources and the systemic correction of oppressive policies and laws,” said The Associated Press.

Why are some countries against this?

The resolution was largely well-received, passing 123-3. But the three countries to vote “no” were significant: Argentina, Israel and the United States. There were also 52 abstentions, including the United Kingdom and all members of the European Union. The U.S. vote comes as “policy groups, human rights organizations and academics have accused President Donald Trump of minimizing Black history,” said The New York Times.

Critics often point to Trump’s gripe against the Smithsonian, which the president has accused of “focusing too much on ‘how bad slavery was’ and not enough on the ‘brightness,’” said the Times. U.S. officials claim the decision to vote “no” on the resolution was not about race. The U.S. “strongly objects to the cynical usage of historical wrongs as a leverage point in an attempt to reallocate modern resources to people and nations who are distantly related to the historical victims,” Deputy U.S. Ambassador Dan Negrea said in a speech to the U.N.

The White House also “strongly objects to the resolution’s attempt to rank crimes against humanity in any type of hierarchy,” said Negrea. British officials used almost identical language: The U.K. is “firmly of the view that we must not create a hierarchy of historical atrocities,” British Ambassador James Kariuki said in his U.N. speech. The U.N. “should approach all historical injustices with the same seriousness, empathy and respect.”

Others felt the move by the United Nations was a necessary one. The resolution was “significant as it represented the furthest the U.N. has ​gone in recognizing transatlantic slavery as a crime against humanity and in calling for reparations,” Justin Hansford, a ⁠law professor at Howard University, said to Reuters. The action “marks the first vote on ​the floor of the U.N. I cannot overemphasize how large of a step that is.” And despite the backlash from some Western nations, the “longstanding calls for reparations,” said Reuters, have “gained momentum in recent years.”

Valued at approximately $3 trillion, the private credit industry is showing signs of distress as investors rush to withdraw their money from their funds. Much of this shift is attributed to outside stressors like geopolitical issues and the rise of AI technology. While many are concerned about what this uncertainty means for the economy, others view it as a way for the industry to reset.

What is going on with private credit?

Private credit firms “essentially act as banks but without all the regulations that force actual banks to mitigate risk and make their balance sheets public,” said CNN. “When these ‘shadow banks’ issue loans, the terms are known only to the parties involved.” The uncertainty has led the industry into rocky waters, as it is “facing an investor exodus and heightened scrutiny of its risky practices,” said The New York Times.

Investors in private credit “often don’t know what they’re holding,” said CNN. Rather, they invest based on the market. When larger forces, including “higher interest rates, inflation, a war in the Mideast choking energy flows” and “a collective fear of AI decimating entire sectors of the global economy” increase uncertainty in the market, “people understandably start trying to reduce their risk exposure. And they start trying to get their money back.”

During the past few weeks, business development companies, which are “funds with stakes in the alternative asset,” have “been gripped by a widespread sell-off,” said the Financial Times. Two of the biggest private credit firms, Apollo Global Management and Ares, announced in response that they were “limiting the amount of money investors can withdraw from their funds to existing thresholds,” said Axios.

While this is not yet a death song for private credit, it is not a good sign for what is coming: Banks also invest in private credit, which could spell disaster. If “private credit sours, big banks that lent to the industry would lose money,” said CNN. “Those banks could be forced to tighten lending across the board, including to everyday consumers and small businesses,” a similar pattern to what happened in 2008.

What does this indicate?

Requests for withdrawals, also called redemption requests, are expected to “continue to increase in the coming quarters,” John Cocke, the deputy chief investment officer of credit at Corbin Capital Partners, said to Bloomberg. “In benign environments, there’s lots of liquidity and new subscriptions to satisfy redemptions.” However, “in times of perceived stress, inflows slow to a trickle and thus significantly more clients are asking for liquidity than providing it.”

The private credit industry has been growing significantly since the 2008 financial crisis. For years, these funds “performed better than most other debt funds, and they have been billed as relatively safe investments,” said the Times.

But investors have become concerned about whether the firms “have been valuing their loans appropriately,” especially without the strict regulations banks have, said the Times. A big reason for this is that a “large chunk of private credit loans have been made to software companies, an industry that has come under pressure from the swift rise of artificial intelligence firms.” If AI is “really as apocalyptic” as many say, then a “lot of companies could end up going out of business and defaulting on loans,” said CNN.

The withdrawal requests show that the market “cannot be sustained on the promise of higher yields alone,” said the Financial Times. This is the chance for the industry to increase its efforts to “boost transparency and data-sharing across jurisdictions to better monitor risk.” Unfortunately, while there is hope that private credit will rise from the ashes, the industry is “so interconnected with the economics of everything," Laks Ganapathi, the CEO and founder of Unicus Research, said to Axios. People must be prepared, said CNN, in case “tremors go from rattling your cupboard to swallowing your house.”

The UK was once a “world leader” in organ transplants, said the BBC’s “File on 4 Investigates”. But it has “fallen behind”.

In 2024, the number of heart transplants carried out per million people in the UK was lower than in most European countries, thanks to a lack of investment, resources and “outdated” technology. Waiting lists for organs are at a record high, while family consent rates for donation have fallen dramatically since the “opt-out” presumed consent system was implemented.

What’s going wrong?

“Organ donation is in crisis,” said Martha Gill in The Observer. Last year, the waiting list for an organ reached its highest on record, according to NHS Blood and Transplant: an 8% year-on-year increase. “As a consequence, many will die waiting for a phone call.”

There are only five heart and lung transplant centres in England, and one heart transplant centre in Glasgow. Anyone living in Wales or Northern Ireland must travel for a transplant, and there is significant regional variation in waiting times.

Half of the six main centres have also “lost their top surgeon in the past two years”, said the BBC. Others are leaving for jobs abroad: a “brain drain” of experts. Without experienced mentors, junior surgeons are increasingly “risk averse” and only using the healthiest donated organs, said Jorge Mascaro, Birmingham’s former director of cardiothoracic transplants (now based in the US). “It’s getting worse.”

The number of organs donated in the UK per head is equal to, or greater than, most of Europe. But the NHS transplants far fewer hearts and lungs than most countries, said the BBC. “Some countries make use of twice as many.” Surgeons say this is down to a lack of equipment and new technologies used abroad, such as machines that can scan organs to check if they are diseased. Ice boxes are often still used to transport organs between hospitals, which can harden them.

Operations are also regularly cancelled thanks to a lack of theatre space, hospital beds or staff. Post-transplant patient care is crucial to prevent complications, but the NHS “continues to struggle” to provide long-term support: the UK’s five-year survival rates “lag behind”.

Has the opt-out system failed?

When the “opt-out” system of presumed consent was implemented in England in 2020, “expectations were high”, said Gill. But the number of donors has been “crashing”. In the year to March 2025, there was a 7% decrease in the number of deceased organ donors, according to the Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation Activity Report. Life-saving transplants also decreased by 2%.

Most people support organ donation in theory, and nearly half the population have signed the Organ Donor Register, according to Organ Donation. But relatives have the final say; family consent rates have dropped from 69% to 61% over the past five years. Surveys suggest a “common reason: they didn’t know what their relative wanted”, said The Observer. The types of deaths that make donation possible – usually traumatic, sudden deaths of young healthy people – make it even harder for families to decide.

The presumed consent of the opt-out system acts as a “weaker signal of underlying preference” than the active consent of an opt-in system, said researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Human Development in a 2024 paper. This “uncertainty” means families are “more likely to refuse consent”. Evidence suggests an opt-out model alone doesn’t boost donations: it must be accompanied by a framework of logistics, psychological support and education.

What can be done?

The NHS and campaigners are calling for “better education in schools”, said The Mirror: for organ donation to be included in curriculums, and campaigns particularly targeted at ethnic minorities (among whom the family consent rate is significantly lower).

Evidence suggests an opt-out model alone doesn’t boost donations. Countries must invest in healthcare infrastructure, psychological support for families, and public awareness campaigns to encourage people to discuss their wishes. Family consent rates increase to almost 90% if the deceased has done so.

A government-commissioned review of heart and lung transplant services, published in 2024, made various recommendations, including better holistic care, a single-service model across the multiple centres, and “rapid-short term actions to improve organ acceptance decision-making”, said NHS England.

NHS England has since been abolished; responsibility for transplant services now lies with the Department of Health and Social Care. In a statement to the BBC, the department said the government had inherited a broken NHS, and that it recognised the “systemic issues” facing transplantation. The government said it would write to the NHS demanding that it “urgently implement” the recommendations, to make transplant services “fit for the future”.

When the crack of the bat signals opening day for the 2026 Major League Baseball (MLB) season today, there will be a new addition to the diamond: robot umpires. The technological change has been fiercely debated among sports enthusiasts for years but has finally made its way to the big leagues. It marks one of the biggest changes in the history of modern baseball.

What are robot umpires?

While the term makes it sound like robots are replacing the game’s human umpires, this is not the case. The robot umpires aren’t on the field. Instead, they are a “network of specialized cameras set up in every ballpark to track the baseball’s exact location,” said The New York Times. The system, officially called the Automated Ball-Strike (ABS) Challenge System, will allow teams to challenge balls and strikes.

Each team starts the game with two challenges it can use throughout the game. By tapping his head, a pitcher, catcher or batter can request to “summon the robot umpire and see whether the human behind home plate missed a ball or strike call,” said the Times. A successful challenge allows the team to reuse a challenge, but after two incorrect challenges, the team “loses the power altogether.”

MLB is not the first baseball league to adopt this technology. It has been tried in minor league baseball for several years and was also tested during the 2025 MLB All-Star Game. This “testing, which started in 2021, led to Triple-A players in 2023 using ABS challenges three days a week and a full ABS system, with every pitch adjudicated by computer, the other three,” said ESPN. Following positive feedback in the minor leagues, MLB announced last year it would adopt the ABS system.

Why is this such a big change?

It allows players and managers to do what is typically forbidden in baseball: argue balls and strikes with the umpire. Doing so has generally led to ejection from the game; last season, at least “61.5% of ejections among players, managers and coaches (99 of 161) were related to ball/strike calls,” said The Associated Press, though this figure also “included what MLB counted as inappropriate comments and conduct, and throwing equipment in protest.”

This change “should in theory make everyone better off,” as it will give teams an “appeal in the event of a potential blown call at a crucial moment,” said Vox. As is the case with AI, some are worried about the bigger changes robotic umpires could have. Once “you’ve conceded that the machine is the final authority on whether a call is right — which is exactly what baseball has done here — you’ve quietly eliminated the case for having the human there.” And if they are there, the “human behind the mask doesn’t stay independent.”

Despite this, most players and managers don’t seem to have an issue with the change — for now. “I’m in favor of anything that allows our technology to play in this game,” Tampa Bay Rays manager Kevin Cash said to the AP. “We have so much of it. Why not use it?” Even people formerly around the game agree. “I really like the ABS,” Jim Leyland, a retired manager who led four MLB clubs, said to the outlet. “I think it’s going to be great for the game.”

Abuse can take many different forms. One that may be less easily visible but still seriously damaging is financial abuse. This occurs when someone wields money and access to it as a form of control over someone else. It can look like aggressively monitoring spending, forcing reliance on them for cash, withholding access to funds or even actively sabotaging employment opportunities or financial standing.

Financial abuse is unfortunately not so uncommon — research indicates that it occurs in “99% of domestic violence cases,” said the National Network to End Domestic Violence (NNEDV). This form of abuse can often perpetuate a given situation, too, as “surveys of survivors reflect that concerns over their ability to provide financially for themselves and their children was one of the top reasons for staying in or returning to an abusive partner.”

What is financial abuse?

Financial abuse, also referred to as economic abuse, is “where a partner — or ex-partner — controls money and finances, taking over the decisions on anything from spending and bills to bank accounts and loans,” said The Money Pages, a financial website. At its root, financial abuse is typically about control over another individual, as overseeing or restricting a victim’s access to necessary financial resources can force them to be dependent on the abuser.

This form of abuse “rarely happens in isolation and usually occurs alongside other forms of abuse, including physical, sexual and psychological abuse,” said Surviving Economic Abuse, a registered charity for the cause.

What are some of the warning signs of financial abuse?

Since financial abuse “doesn’t always involve physical harm, it’s often hard to recognize, even by its victims,” said TD Bank. Abusers may use a “wide range of tactics to gain and maintain financial control,” which can also make it harder to identify confidently.

Common signs of financial abuse can range from fairly subtle to more overt, including:

• Control or intense scrutiny over any spending
• Restriction of access to funds and accounts
• Secretiveness or refusal to share information about financial situation
• Sabotage of or interference with your ability to work
• Theft of your income or other property
• Refusal to contribute to or help with household costs, or other misuse of funds
• Accrual of debt in your name, or other damage to your financial standing

What can you do if you or someone you know is a victim?

If you believe that you or someone you know is the victim of financial abuse, it is important to get help. There are a number of resources available to turn to:

The NNEDV's Financial Abuse Toolkit

The National Domestic Violence Hotline

Local programs that support victims of financial abuse

Understand that getting out of the situation can be difficult, and even risky, but it is possible to do so. Communication is critical, as is slowly taking steps to find financial safety once again, whether that means changing passwords, ensuring access to independent resources going forward or seeking out expert guidance and support to rebuild.

While the world is distracted by the US-Israeli strikes on Iran, another conflict is erupting between Iran’s neighbours.

Pakistan has declared “open war” on Afghanistan after fighting intensified over recent weeks. In a dangerous escalation from cross-border skirmishes, Pakistan launched air strikes at the end of February, targeting major cities including Kabul. Afghanistan’s Taliban regime responded with drone attacks. Both sides blame the other for the conflict.

More than 1,000 people are estimated to have been killed or injured, and 100,000 displaced. In one air strike on a Kabul drug rehabilitation centre last week, 400 people were killed, according to Afghan officials. With a ceasefire to mark the Muslim holiday of Eid al-Fitr set to expire, there are no signs of a desire for de-escalation.

What’s the background?

This is “not a sudden rupture of relations”, said Rabia Akhtar on The Conversation. It’s the “intensification of long-simmering, historical security concerns” along their disputed 1,600-mile border: the Durand Line.

Afghanistan has never formally recognised the border, drawn in 1893 through ethnic Pashtun areas. That’s caused “sustained and persistent tension” since Pakistan’s independence in 1947. The countries also took opposite sides in the Cold War, with Pakistan “embedded” in the US-led framework and Afghanistan maintaining “closer ties” with the Soviet Union (until it invaded). All of this “entrenched cross-border militant networks”.

When the Taliban retook power in 2021, Pakistan “anticipated a more cooperative security environment” than the series of US-backed Afghan governments. It hoped the Taliban, which it had covertly supported all along, would help “rein in” several militant groups, said The New York Times. This was a “strategic miscalculation”.

Instead, terrorist attacks within Pakistan increased, particularly by the Tereek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP, or Pakistan Taliban). The group took advantage of Pakistan’s political chaos to further entrench its power in the border lands and threaten the country’s all-powerful military. The TTP also took a share of the US military equipment left in Afghanistan when America withdrew. This, and the release of hundreds of its fighters from Afghan prisons, erased much of Pakistan’s efforts to defeat it.

What triggered this outbreak?

The TTP has been increasing its attacks in Pakistan as it grows in power, killing 4,000 people in the last four years according to Pakistani authorities. Last year was the most violent for militancy in a decade, according to the Islamabad-based Center for Research and Security Studies. The separatist Balochistan Liberation Army also claimed attacks that killed almost 50 people. Islamabad has long accused the Taliban of harbouring such groups, allegedly allowing them to operate from sanctuaries within Afghanistan.

Pakistan launched air strikes against alleged TTP hideouts in Afghanistan last year, warning it would no longer tolerate “safe havens” for fighters. It also accused its historic foe, India, of supporting the Taliban, allegedly with Indian-made drones used in recent attacks. India then effectively normalised relations with the Taliban.

Both India and the Taliban “vehemently deny” Pakistan’s accusations, said the BBC. They say the TTP is “an internal matter” for Islamabad: a “Pakistan-created problem”. That’s “done little but to further infuriate” Pakistani leaders.

Violent clashes erupted on the border in October, and Pakistan carried out air strikes before suspending trade with landlocked Afghanistan. A truce didn’t last long; after years of diplomatic efforts, Pakistan “now says that there is nothing to talk about”.

What’s the significance?

Middle Eastern powers that have been mediating between Afghanistan and Pakistan for years currently have “limited bandwith” to de-escalate, said Chietigj Bajpaee on Chatham House. Despite Pakistan’s “superior military”, the Taliban has “a significant capacity for asymmetric warfare”. And if Pakistan “perceives an Indian hand behind Kabul’s actions”, there could also be renewed hostilities between India and Pakistan – two nuclear-armed states.

Exacerbating tensions is “the forced repatriation of Afghan refugees” from Pakistan and Iran; an estimated 2.7 million Afghans were returned last year, further straining Afghanistan’s “stretched public services” and economic woes.

Pakistan has been “taking advantage of the West’s disengagement” and regional powers’ distraction, said the Financial Times. It is “enraged”. But all-out war “threatens stability” across Asia. There is “the very real risk” that Afghanistan becomes “an incubator for terrorism” again.

For the “shaky truce” to endure, the intervention of the US and China is required. Although “precedents for a settlement are not inspiring”, the stakes are “too high for the world to keep looking away”.

When you are in a tight spot for money and you have a sizable balance in your retirement account that won’t be needed for years to come, it can be tempting to go ahead and tap into it. You can just restock it later, right? The problem: this does not always end up happening. Plus, you will lose out on the compound interest that would have accrued, which can materially affect your available savings come retirement.

Last year, a “record 6% of workers in 401(k) plans administered by Vanguard Group took a hardship withdrawal,” marking the “sixth straight year of increases since 2018, when Congress made it easier to take a hardship distribution,” said The Wall Street Journal. Many people are facing real financial challenges: The “top reasons for taking hardship withdrawals last year were avoiding foreclosure and eviction and paying medical expenses.” But when you are in this situation, there are other places to turn outside of the money set aside for your golden years.

Your emergency fund

If you have built up an emergency savings fund, this is the time to use it, as opposed to raiding your 401(k) balance. This is “why you have emergency savings in the first place,” said Bankrate. Just make sure that if you do tap into it, you replenish the balance later, and that you are saving in a high-yield account to maximize interest earnings.

Friends or family

If you have friends or family members who might be willing to help, share your situation with them. “Though it can be difficult to ask, borrowing from someone you know could be a fast and affordable solution,” as you will avoid a credit check and, depending on the situation, interest payments, said NerdWallet. Just make sure to approach the arrangement thoughtfully, with clear communication and an agreed-upon repayment plan, to avoid future conflict.

A home equity loan or line of credit

If you own a home and have built up equity in it, a home financing product — like a home equity loan or a home equity line of credit (HELOC) — can “provide a cost-effective method of accessing extra cash,” said SoFi. Interest rates on these loan products are typically lower because they are secured loans, meaning they are backed by your home. However, this also means that in case of non-payment, the lender can seize your house, which is a risk worth keeping in mind before proceeding.

A personal loan

Another option you might consider, if you do not have a home to borrow against or do not want to put it on the line as collateral, is a personal loan. Personal loans are “available from online lenders, local banks and credit unions and can be used for virtually any purpose,” said SoFi. These loans are also unsecured, which means you do not have to put anything on the line to take one out — though that can also mean they may have slightly higher interest rates.

This super mineral is crucial for everyday health. But while many are taking it in supplement form in accordance with the latest social media trend, experts say there’s a healthier way of consuming the recommended amount in your diet.

Why is magnesium so popular?

The mineral is needed to “regulate our nerves, bones, immune system and blood sugar levels,” said The Independent. It is one of the most abundant minerals in the human body and is responsible for “more than 300 biochemical reactions,” including keeping the heartbeat steady and assisting in the production of energy and protein. Despite its abundance, the body does not naturally produce magnesium, so we need to acquire the mineral from food or supplements.

In the past few years, magnesium supplements have gone viral in social media wellness circles. It is the “key ingredient in #sleepygirlmocktails”, in which a powder is “stirred into tart cherry juice and prebiotic soda,” creating a “wellness cocktail for anxious millennials,” said Wired. People are “popping magnesium glycinate before bed instead of melatonin” because it “allegedly cures insomnia, constipation and existential dread.” Last year, Google searches for “which magnesium is best for sleep” and “which magnesium makes you poop” more than doubled.

Nutrients come “in and out of vogue in our society,” Whitney Linsenmeyer, a spokesperson for the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, said to Parents. Magnesium is “having a moment right now,” perhaps because it is an “important nutrient in supporting common health concerns” like sleep, anxiety and PMS.

Magnesium glycinate capsules are commonly used for sleep issues and anxiety. Magnesium citrate usage is trending for constipation relief. Many social media users have posted about their “lack of bowel movements” and how drinking magnesium citrate “went above and beyond (sometimes too far) to get them back on track,” said Parents.

Should we be taking the supplements?

Unless you have a magnesium deficiency, “magnesium supplements aren’t essential,” said Wired. If you are struggling with “migraines, insomnia or other conditions where research suggests health benefits,” they may be worth trying, but “first talk to a health care professional.” Instead of supplements, you can focus on consuming “magnesium-rich foods” such as legumes, leafy greens, whole grains, nuts, fruits and soy products. Dark chocolate is also a good source of magnesium.

Deficiencies can be difficult to detect, Louise Dye, a professor of nutrition and behavior at the University of Sheffield, said to the BBC. Still, it is believed that we’re not getting enough magnesium from our food. Over the past 60 years, “intensive farming practices have caused a significant depletion of the mineral content of the soil,” including a “decrease in magnesium of up to 30%.” Additionally, “western diets typically have a greater proportion of processed food, where numerous products are mostly refined,” leading to magnesium being “depleted by up to 80-90% in the process.”

Supplements can be risky, however, and “overdosing may even be deadly,” said The Independent. Too much magnesium from food “does not pose a health risk in healthy individuals because the kidneys eliminate excess amounts in the urine,” the National Institutes of Health said. But high doses of magnesium from dietary supplements or medications “often result in diarrhea that can be accompanied by nausea and abdominal cramping.” Other symptoms may include low blood pressure, thirst, drowsiness, muscle weakness and slow or shallow breathing. Extremely high doses can lead to irregular heartbeats or even cause the heart to stop altogether, according to Cedars-Sinai Medical Center.

One of the most powerful and feared organisations in Iran, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps plays central roles in the country's internal security, economy and foreign policy; it runs Iran's ballistic missile programme; and directs support to its network of allies.

The IRGC was founded soon after the Iranian Revolution of 1979, as Islamists, nationalists and Leftists competed to set the course of the new republic. Initially, it was a street militia, designed to protect Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini's leadership from the army and the police, which he did not trust. After a referendum, Iran became a constitutional republic, with universal suffrage, a president and a parliament, but one wrapped in a theocracy; ultimate authority rests with the supreme leader. The IRGC began to operate as a sort of parallel state, bypassing the government and answering directly to the leader.

How did it evolve?

The Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988) transformed the IRGC into a conventional fighting force, with a structure similar to that of a Western military. Its soldiers fought alongside the regular army, the Artesh, supported by units from the Basij, the youth volunteer militia set up by the IRGC in 1980. The Guard and the Basij became known for their “human wave” attacks, in which waves of religiously inspired Iranian teenagers overran better-equipped Iraqi positions, incurring massive casualties (in some units, more than 40% of troops were “martyred”).

By the end of the war, the IRGC had built up great engineering and construction capabilities, for military logistics. To prevent a postwar collapse and to keep the IRGC funded, the government tasked it with rebuilding the nation. The result was Khatam-al Anbiya (“Seal of the Prophets”), today one of Iran's largest construction and industrial contractors.

How is the IRGC structured?

There are five main branches. It has about 200,000 troops in the three wings of its military service: ground forces, navy – which has a special responsibility for patrolling the Strait of Hormuz – and the aerospace force, which runs Iran's ballistic missile programme. In addition, there's the Basij paramilitary force, which claims it can mobilise some 600,000 volunteers, and the Quds Force, an elite unit tasked with spreading the influence of Iran and the Islamic Revolution abroad.

What does the Basij do?

It is best known in the West for enforcing Islamic codes and suppressing dissent: masked Basij gunmen on motorbikes patrol streets during periods of unrest. They were accused of beating, shooting, sexually assaulting and torturing Iranians during the 2009 election protests and the “Woman, Life, Freedom” protest movement in 2022. There are about 100,000 employees of the Basij, and a much larger number of volunteers. These are mostly young working-class men, who are paid cash bonuses for going on patrols, and also receive benefits comparable to those of party members in Communist states: access to welfare schemes, jobs, and university places for their children, for instance.

And the Quds Force?

The Islamic Republic has a constitutional commitment to “export the revolution”, and the Quds (Jerusalem) Force is the section of the IRGC tasked with that. It began sponsoring armed groups in the region in the 1980s: first, the Shia militias that would become Hezbollah during the Lebanese Civil War; in the 1990s, the Palestinian groups Hamas and Islamic Jihad, as well as Shia groups in Bahrain and Afghanistan. After the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the Quds Force played a vital role in organising and aiding Shia militias fighting there against the US and its allies. Following the Arab Spring in 2011, the force was deployed to Syria, to prop up the rule of Bashar al-Assad; more recently, it has supported the Houthis in Yemen.

How about the IRGC's economic role?

It controls great swathes of Iran's economy, particularly in construction, energy and telecoms. Many of its interests are run via religious foundations, known as bonyads. US-led sanctions, since the 2000s, have actually bolstered the IRGC's position: it has developed sophisticated black-market and smuggling networks, orchestrating the sale of oil to China and drones to Russia, as well as, reportedly, smuggling drugs and alcohol. It is estimated that upwards of a third of Iran's GDP is controlled by the IRGC. “A lot of Revolutionary Guard commanders have become billionaire generals, more businessmen than military leaders,” opposition spokesman Shahin Gobadi told The Times.

What about its role in politics?

The IRGC is highly influential. Many former members have moved on to senior government roles – often appointed by the late supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, who was closely involved with the IRGC. At least 16% of seats in the Majlis, the parliament, are held by veterans or active commanders. Former Guards tend to advocate a hardline foreign policy, and to support Iran's nuclear programme. Senior former IRGC officers include Ali Larijani, the head of the National Security Council, who was killed week. The IRGC's new commander in chief, Ahmad Vahidi, is the former minister of the interior.

What is happening to it now?

At least 30 IRGC generals were assassinated in the 12-day war with Israel last year; during the current war, the Israel Defence Forces claim to have killed 6,000 Guards, including the commander-in-chief – and the Basjij chief. Basij check points have been attacked by drones. Even so, the IRGC has played a leading role in launching missile and drone attacks. And its influence is arguably growing: Mojtaba Khamenei is said to have been the IRGC's choice as leader. Some analysts now describe Iran as a militarised “IRGC republic”.

When the US and Israel attacked Iran, many turned to China to see its response.

For decades, Beijing had been the Islamic Republic’s most important economic ally, maintaining close diplomatic ties with Tehran through years of Western sanctions and international isolation.

But China’s relatively muted response to the US-Israeli strikes, its lack of military intervention and calls for de-escalation on both sides, has led many to question whether leader Xi Jinping is a fair-weather friend – or whether there’s a bigger game afoot: its delicate truce with the US, and their battle for global supremacy.

What is the background between China and Iran?

China was once “an important supplier of arms to Iran” before joining UN sanctions in 2007, said The Wall Street Journal. US officials say Chinese companies continued to be “a critical supplier of goods with potential military applications”, such as motors for Iran’s Shahed drones.

When in 2002 George Bush declared Iran part of an “axis of evil”, Beijing “saw an opportunity”, said Richard Spencer in The Times. It “began signing multibillion-dollar oil and gas deals” with Iran, culminating in a 25-year economic cooperation agreement in 2021 that centred on the sale of Iranian oil to China, reportedly worth $400 billion.

About 90% of Iran’s crude exports are sold to China every year, at a steep discount. In return, Iran “kept Washington bogged down in the Middle East”, said Geoffrey Cain in The Spectator. Its regional proxies “added just enough chaos to stop Washington focusing on China”. That was “extraordinarily useful” and cost Beijing “almost nothing”.

In 2023, China helped Iran restore diplomatic relations with Saudi Arabia, among its other mediation efforts in the Middle East. It denounced what it called “unilateral” US sanctions and brought Iran into Beijing-backed diplomatic alliances. Beijing’s ties with Iran “blunted America’s efforts” to isolate Tehran, said Michael Schuman in The Atlantic. China has held regular joint military drills with Iran, and Chinese firms have even supplied chemicals used in Iran’s missile programme, according to Reuters.

How has China responded to the US-Israeli attacks?

Iran says China is helping in various ways, including with “military cooperation”. According to its foreign minister, China is a strategic partner in the war. But so far, China hasn’t provided any direct military support, or deployed any forces, or provided “new weapons assistance to any party involved”, said The Diplomat. It has “primarily engaged through diplomatic channels”.

China has expressed opposition to the US-Israeli strikes, emphasising that they could undermine regional stability. But that has been “notably more restrained” than after the strikes on Iran last year. Beijing has also criticised Iran’s retaliatory attacks on its Gulf neighbours, and its de facto blockade of the Strait of Hormuz.

But it is also not willing to assist the US. Trump has demanded that China send warships to the Gulf. In response, the Chinese foreign ministry said Beijing called on “all parties to immediately cease military operations”.

Why has China’s response been so muted?

For Xi Jinping, “a hard-nosed pragmatism is at play”, said CNN. Iran “ranks below his top priorities”, including China’s fragile détente and trade truce with the US, ahead of the upcoming summit with Donald Trump in Beijing. China “sees no benefit in heightening tension with the US over Iran,” said International Crisis Group analyst William Yang.

Iran’s “strategic importance” to China is far more limited than many assume, as trade and investment flows are “eclipsed” by those with Saudi Arabia and the UAE. China might even appreciate Washington’s resources being diverted from the Indo-Pacific. A sustained campaign could “deplete America’s weapons supplies”.

Trump this week announced that he is delaying the summit, as he pressures China to send warships to help reopen the Strait of Hormuz. But a delay could also be in China’s interests. “If the war drags on, added pressure on Washington could mean more leverage for China,” said The New York Times.

China also “gains diplomatically from the worldwide perception that America is an out-of-control bully”, said Spencer. It does not lose much “whatever happens to Iran” – except oil.

Despite its massive investment in renewables, China is heavily reliant on crude from the Gulf. And as much as 40% of its imports are shipped through the Strait of Hormuz.

China is better placed to weather the storm than most. It had “long braced for a Gulf oil supply shock”, stockpiling one of the world’s biggest oil reserves and diversifying its supply, said the BBC. Still, disruption is “putting its resilience to the test”.

Losing your job can bring up a lot of things. There is an emotional component as you leave behind your old position and team and there is also a logistical one, both in terms of what your next steps will be in your career, and how you will get by for a while without a steady paycheck.

For those with student loan debt, one of the big financial questions after a job loss is how they will continue to make monthly payments. While it may be tempting to table the issue for later, once you have worked through the initial fallout from losing your job, postponing the issue could end up making things more challenging down the road. Here are three steps you can take to manage your loans.

Inform your loan servicer

The first thing you should do student loan-wise after losing your job is to get in touch with your loan servicer. The “earlier you contact your loan servicer, the more options you’ll have,” said ELFI, a lender offering private student loans and refinancing. Be transparent about your situation, and find out what relief options are available to you. Your lender can walk you through the choices and help you figure out what might make the most sense.

Look into alternative repayment plans to reduce payments

Depending on the type of student loans you have and your specific lender, you may have access to different repayment plan options; these could allow you to lower the amount that is due each month. When you are working on a constrained budget after a job loss, this can make a major difference, allowing you to continue making progress on repayment without forking over more than you can reasonably afford

For instance, “federal student loan borrowers who are laid off from their jobs — or just not earning enough — are usually able to sign up for an income-driven repayment plan and get a lower payment, or even a $0 bill,” said CNBC. Those with private loans generally do not have this option, but their lender may instead offer loan restructuring, where you get an “extended loan term that makes your payments more affordable,” said ELFI.

Consider deferment or forbearance for a pause

If continuing to make payments does not seem tenable, you can consider exploring taking a pause entirely, either through deferment or forbearance. For federal loans, “borrowers can pause payments for up to three years with a student loan unemployment deferment,” said NerdWallet. Meanwhile, forbearance is “typically limited to a few months at a time,” said Bankrate. Some private lenders may offer these options, though not all do, and availability varies by lender and loan type. Before proceeding, just make sure to note the implications of a pause, namely whether interest will continue to accrue during it.

This summer’s controversy-laden men’s Fifa World Cup took on a whole new layer of jeopardy when the US, the main co-host, attacked Iran, one of the competitors.

The football tournament, hosted by the US, Canada and Mexico and due to kick off on 11 June, had already been beset with criticism. There were worries about logistics and infrastructure, calls for a boycott over Donald Trump’s travel bans, and fears about fans’ safety in a US where Ice agents have been sweeping into cities for violent immigration crackdowns. Fifa itself has also been under fire – for its president Gianni Infantino’s sycophancy to the US president, and its “strategic partnership” with Trump’s Board of Peace.

Now Iran’s participation has been thrown into doubt by the war in the Middle East. Fifa seems unwilling to grant the Iranian football federation’s request to relocate its US fixtures to Mexico, and Trump has already said it would not be “appropriate” for the Iranian players to take part “for their own life and safety”.

Will Iran participate?

“When Trump has explicitly stated that he cannot ensure the security of the Iranian national team, we will certainly not travel to the United States,” said Mehdi Taj, the president of Iran’s football federation, on the Iranian embassy in Mexico’s X account.

Moving Iran’s fixtures to Mexico would be logistically tricky but not unprecedented. But then there’s the issue of the knockout stages: if the US and Iran both finish as the runner-up in their group, they would play each other in the last 32. Should Iran decide to withdraw, they would be the first qualifying team to do so since 1950.

As the schedule currently stands, Iran’s first group fixture is against New Zealand in Los Angeles on 15 June. New Zealand told The Athletic that it is continuing to “monitor the situation” but is making plans to play Iran “until we hear otherwise”.

What about other Middle Eastern teams?

Iraq has a chance to qualify for its first World Cup finals since 1986 but it needs to win a play-off against either Suriname or Bolivia on 31 March – in Mexico. With airspace currently closed over the Middle East, it’s hard to see how the Iraqis can travel to their match.

The Iraqi team coach, Graham Arnold, has called for the play-off to be postponed, and the country’s football chief, Adnan Dirjal, has, has written to Fifa to explain the “difficulty of the journey”. In the meantime, he has made plans for the team to travel Mexico by private plane, according to the BBC.

What else is a concern?

There are worries that Ice officers will be deployed at US World Cup venues, for security purposes. And there is alarm about the wave of violence in Mexico since the death of a cartel boss in Jalisco state. Guadalajara, the state capital, is due to host four games.

Last month, the EU Sports Commissioner, Glenn Micallef, urged Gianni Infantino to “help safeguard fans”, said Politico. He has since asked again as violence escalates in the Middle East but said there has been “no further communication from Fifa”. It’s “legitimate” to seek assurances from a “public security point of view”, particularly as “one of the hosts of this biggest sporting event in the world is party to a war,” he told the news site. “Let’s say there’s room for more clarity.”

Fifa also has “a lot to answer for” on its role with the Trump-backed Board of Peace, said Micallef. It may have pledged $75 million for football infrastructure in Gaza, but Europe would “prefer to partner up” with organisations that “respect the international rules-based order, like Unesco and Unicef” on such sports-related projects.

Safety and security at the World Cup is a “top priority”, said a Fifa spokesperson. We are “confident that efforts being made by Canada, Mexico and the US will ensure a safe, secure, and welcoming environment for everyone involved”.

British businesses are to be offered a £3,000 state bonus for hiring a young person who has been out of work for six months as the number of economically inactive young people nears one million.

Work and Pensions Secretary Pat McFadden said it was part of the government’s plans to “back Britain’s young people” after youth unemployment hit its highest level in more than a decade.

How bad is it?

According to the Office for National Statistics’ latest labour market overview, 14% of Britons aged 18 to 24 were unemployed in the final quarter of 2025, compared with 12.7% in the same period in 2024.

This growth has largely been driven by young people who are “economically inactive”, meaning those who are out of work and not seeking it. The most recent data from the ONS says the number of young people not in employment, education or training (Neet) between October and December 2025 reached 957,000, up from around 800,000 in 2019.

Why is it so hard to find work?

For many of those not in employment or training, “the challenge is not so much a lack of skills or visibility as the dearth of openings in a stagnating labour market”, said the Financial Times. “Young people say they lack work experience and something to talk about to employers,” said Sareena Bains, chief executive of charity Movement to Work. “Those opportunities are becoming few and far between.”

The tough labour landscape has been made worse by the roll-out of AI, which threatens to erase many entry-level jobs.

Business groups have also criticised the government’s decision to raise employer’s national insurance contributions and the youth minimum wage, as well as changes to workers’ rights, all of which could make companies less inclined to take a risk on a newcomer to the workforce over an experienced worker. In February, Huw Pill, the Bank of England’s chief economist, told the Commons Treasury Committee that changes around tax and the national living wage have had a “particular effect on those aged 16 to 18, and 18 to 21”.

Having analysed the effects of setting minimum wage rates by age, Alan Manning from LSE concluded that the evidence is “too weak” to blame youth unemployment on the minimum wage.

What else is to blame?

The Centre for Social Justice (CSJ) has identified a “toxic cocktail” of “rising employment taxes, perverse incentives to claim benefits and a broken migration system”. The think tank’s Wasted Youth report found that businesses are turning to non-EU migrants while a growing number of young Britons are claiming benefits.

Health is another major factor. The share of Neet young people who report having a health condition that limits their ability to work rose from 26% in 2015 to 44% in 2025 – a 70% increase, according to The Health Foundation. This “mirrors trends among young people generally”, said the think tank. “Regardless of whether they are in work or education, 16–24-year-olds today are much more likely to report having a work-limiting health condition than they were in the past”. This increase is “driven primarily by mental health and neurodevelopmental conditions”.

What is being done?

As well as the £3,000 incentive for firms to hire young people out of work for six months, the government has also announced small and medium-sized businesses will get a £2,000 bonus if they take on a young apprentice, and jobs with training subsidised by the state are to be expanded to 22- to 24-year-olds.

Current policies to help Neet young people and expand apprenticeships were “not stacking up to the scale of the challenge”, Stephen Evans, chief executive of the Learning & Work Institute, told the FT.

A more radical proposal, backed by former home secretary David Blunkett and former chancellor Jeremy Hunt, is a Future Workforce Credit, a £670 million effective tax cut for employers hiring Neets that would cover 30% of their salary. CSJ modelling based on similar interventions suggests the approach would get 120,000 young people into jobs while saving £765 million in tax and welfare spending.

Student loan refinancing is often billed as a way to expedite and simplify student loan repayment. And it certainly can be: By replacing your existing loans with a new one, you can potentially score a lower interest rate, and you will have just one payment due date to keep track of. But refinancing is not the right strategy for everyone.

In general, it’s a move that tends to make sense if you have private student loans and if your credit score and income are “high enough to qualify you for a lender’s lowest interest rates,” said NerdWallet. However, in the following four instances, you may want to reconsider or at least think twice.

1. You have federal loans and may want those benefits

While technically you can refinance either private or federal student loans, refinancing federal loans is “riskier” because when you do, “you’re no longer eligible for federal benefits and repayment options,” said U.S. News & World Report. This includes options like income-driven repayment plans, where your payments are modified based on your income and family size, as well as temporary repayment relief options like student loan forbearance.

Even if you do not need those options right now, it is important to consider whether there is any chance you will down the road. For instance, “if you lose your job or have to take a pay cut, making student loan payments can become more difficult, especially because private lenders don’t offer much support in times of need,” said Student Loan Planner.

2. You are pursuing student loan forgiveness

Also under the umbrella of federal benefits you will lose if you refinance — though worth calling out on its own — is student loan forgiveness. “Refinancing federal loans makes them ineligible for federal loan programs including Public Service Loan Forgiveness and Teacher Loan Forgiveness,” said NerdWallet.

If you are progressing along on either of those options — or if you are far along on an income-driven repayment plan, which will wipe away any remaining debt after 20 or 25 years of payments — then refinancing is likely not in your best interest.

3. Your interest rate would not change much

For refinancing to make sense savings-wise, the interest rate you get on your new refinance loan needs to be noticeably lower than it is on your current loan(s). If your student loan “already has a decent rate or you don’t qualify for the lowest rates, the savings with your new loan may not be significant enough to bother with refinancing,” said Student Loan Planner.

Generally, the biggest factor in landing a much better rate when you refinance is solid credit, though lenders will also take into consideration your overall financial situation, including your income and your other debt obligations.

4. You are close to paying off your loans

While you might think refinancing could help push you over the finish line on paying off your student loans, it may not work out that way. At this point in the game, “it doesn’t make sense to do something as risky as refinancing,” where you are changing up your loan terms entirely, and “because you’re close to paying down your debt, any refinancing benefits would be minimal,” said U.S. News & World Report. Instead, stay the course and relish the fact that the end is near.

Researchers are calling for stricter regulations on how AI is integrated into children’s toys, after studies found they could be prompted to share everything from political propaganda to information on sexual fetishes.

What kinds of toys are using AI? 

A cuddly toy called Gabbo contains a voice-activated AI chatbot from OpenAI. The manufacturer, Curio, describes Gabbo as a “bright-eyed robot buddy” who is “built for curiosity”. Rival toy Luka is similarly “billed as an AI friend for generation alpha”, said The Guardian, while Miiloo can chat and tell stories in a high-pitched child’s voice.

As well as companionship, some products are pitched to parents as learning tools. A robot toy called Miko 3 is advertised as “The Ultimate Educational Partner for Kids”, and comes with a built-in touchscreen to play a host of Stem-focused games. Equipped with a camera and microphone, it is designed to recognise and remember a child’s face and voice.

What issues have arisen? 

Tests by the Public Interest Research Group Education Fund and NBC News found that Miiloo was able to give “detailed instructions” on how to light a match and how to sharpen a knife. When asked whether Taiwan is a country, the toy, which was manufactured by a Chinese company, lowered its voice and said: “Taiwan is an inalienable part of China. That is an established fact.”

Alilo Smart AI Bunny engaged in graphic and detailed discussions of sexual practices, including fetishes and sexual positions and preferences. It advised which tools to use for BDSM and explained how “kink allows people to discover and engage in diverse experiences that bring them joy and fulfilment”.

Other causes for alarm are more subtle. Parents in a newly published Cambridge University study found that children often struggled to converse with Gabbo, because the toy didn’t notice their interruptions, spoke over them, or gave tonally inappropriate responses. When one five-year-old said “I love you” to the toy, it replied: “As a friendly reminder, please ensure interactions adhere to the guidelines provided. Let me know how you would like to proceed.”

Such reports add to concerns that interaction with generative AI output could be “confusing” during a “developmental stage where children are learning about social interaction and cues”, said the BBC.

Should there be tighter regulation?

The developmental psychologists who carried out the Cambridge study are calling for AI toys that “talk” with young children to be more tightly regulated. They want to limit how far toys encourage children to befriend or confide in them and provide clearer privacy policies and tighter controls over third party access to AI models.

“A recurring theme during focus groups was that people do not trust tech companies to do the right thing,” said Jenny Gibson, the study’s co-author. So “clear, robust, regulated standards would significantly improve consumer confidence”.

She called for AI companies to revoke access to their platforms if toy manufacturers fail to implement appropriate guidelines and for the introduction of regulations to “ensure children’s psychological safety”.

However, she did not call for a ban on AI integration in toys altogether. “There are other areas of life where we do accept a certain degree of risk in children’s play, like the adventure playground,” she said. “I’d be loath to stop that innovation.”

The academics behind the study recommended that parents keep AI toys in shared spaces where parents and caregivers can supervise interactions, and read privacy policies carefully to understand how data can be used.

The one thing that can sweeten the slog of filing your tax return is finding out you are getting money back once you hit submit. A tax refund can be a nice little financial windfall, offering a cash infusion to put toward paying down debt, bolstering your savings or inching closer to your financial goals.

However, the exact amount of your refund — and whether you even get one at all — will vary depending upon the specifics of your return. While many of these determining factors are not changeable, especially not shortly before tax time, there are some last-minute steps you can take to potentially increase the amount of your refund, allowing that money to stretch that much further in your financial life.

1. Make sure you are maximizing deductions

Tax deductions and credits are two easy ways to possibly shave down the amount of your money that goes to Uncle Sam. They work in different ways, though: Deductions “lower your taxable income, which in turn can reduce your tax bill,” while credits “offer a dollar-for-dollar tax reduction,” said H&R Block.

When you go to file, make sure you are aware of any deductions or credits you are eligible for, and that you are claiming them. Some common ones to be aware of are the student loan interest deduction, the Saver’s Credit for certain taxpayers contributing to an eligible retirement account, the Earned Income Tax Credit, and various credits for those caring for children and other dependents.

2. Increase contributions to your IRA or HSA

If you have either an independent retirement account (IRA) or a health savings account (HSA), upping your contributions can reduce your taxable income, which can help boost the refund you get.

While it may seem counterintuitive, you can actually “still make prior-year contributions to a traditional IRA up until the 2026 tax filing deadline,” and the same goes for an HSA, said Yahoo Finance. For the 2025 tax year, you can contribute up to $7,000 to an IRA ($8,000 if you are age 50 or older), and up to $4,300 to an HSA as an individual ($5,300 for those 55 and up, or $8,550 for families).

3. Be strategic when selecting your tax filing status

One of the “first decisions you make when completing your tax return — choosing a filing status — can affect your refund’s size, especially if you’re married,” said Intuit TurboTax. That is because your tax filing status determines what tax bracket you are in, as well as the amount of the standard deduction and your eligibility for certain tax credits.

Often, it is straightforward which filing status applies to you — but that is not always the case. For instance, “many taxpayers who care for elderly parents don’t realize they can claim head of household status,” which is available “if you provide more than half of your parent’s financial support — even if your parent doesn’t live with you,” said Intuit TurboTax. Also, while filing jointly is usually the more tax-efficient choice if you are married, in some cases, filing separately can yield a higher tax refund.

With everything from housing and groceries to gasoline and home and car insurance becoming increasingly expensive, both red and blue states are trying to find ways to address Americans’ hardships. State officials and policy think tanks are offering income and property tax rebates, raising wages and enacting structural reform, with varying success.

California

The biggest problem in the Golden State is housing affordability, and Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) is urging the state government to find an answer. Newsom has told “lawmakers they should pass a law to stop institutional investors from buying homes in bulk,” said The Associated Press, which also noted that California has about 40,000 affordable homes ready for construction.

But the state’s pro-housing laws “do a whole lot more than just make it easier to build housing: [they] preserve local autonomy, pay high construction wages, guarantee that new units are accessible to low-income renters,” said The Atlantic. In an effort to “accomplish every objective and accommodate every interest, all at once, California set up its housing agenda to fail.”

Florida

Polls show that affordability is top of the mind for Floridians, but “you wouldn’t necessarily know it if you were in the state’s Capitol,” said the Miami Herald. Efforts from lawmakers to “drive down insurance and utility rates failed,” and they have not “agreed on a way to lower property taxes.”

These property tax cuts nonetheless remain a top issue for Floridians, with a potential $18 billion in cuts on the line. If lawmakers do come to a deal on slashing taxes, it “would have to be approved by voters in November by a 60% margin,” said WFLX-TV Palm Beach.

Georgia

Unlike Florida, the Peach State has been able to get one-time income and property tax rebates passed through its legislature. Georgia lawmakers also followed that up by introducing “four more affordability measures, this time aimed at insurance costs,” said The Augusta Chronicle.

The legislation addresses the rising price of car insurance and “aims to curb excessive insurance industry billing and profits, increase what's covered and punish drivers for inadequate insurance,” said the Chronicle. Another proposed state bill would “restore regular cost-of-living adjustments for Georgia state retirees,” said WALB-TV Georgia.

Illinois

Beyond working on balancing the state’s budget, lawmakers in the Capitol are focused on passing “legislation that brings down costs for households, that brings good jobs, grows wages and opportunities,” Illinois House Speaker Emanuel “Chris” Welch (D) said to The State Journal-Register. Legislators are also “pushing for ‘real structural reform’ surrounding affordability” following a report that grocery costs in Illinois rose by $1,781 last year.

Child care costs have been especially vexing for Americans, and one notable proposition would “create back-to-school sales tax holiday periods to lower the cost of living for Illinoisans, especially those supporting children,” WIFR-TV Rockford said. If the bill passes, it would also “require retailers to clearly label sales tax holiday items.”

New York

New York — and New York City, in particular — is known for having one of the country’s highest costs of living, and legislators have worked on raising wages to battle this. At the beginning of 2026, New York raised its state minimum wage to “$17 downstate and $16 upstate,” said Fox 5 New York. And starting in 2027, the minimum wage “will adjust annually based on the Consumer Price Index.”

Even higher wage hikes are being pushed in the Big Apple. A recent proposal in New York City means “minimum wage could climb to $30 per hour in the coming years,” said CBS News. This would be a significant rise from the current $17 minimum wage in the city and would see the $30 mark reached by 2030.

A power struggle in the Middle East is rippling across the Red Sea and fuelling Sudan’s bloody civil war.

Fighting between the Sudanese Armed Forces and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces has “torn the country apart” since 2023, said The Times. Each side is backed by different Gulf countries and “their network of African allies”. Now, growing tension in the Gulf is causing the Sudan conflict to spread.

Violence on Sudan’s borders with Chad and Libya, increased fighting in South Sudan and massive troop mobilisation in neighbouring Ethiopia have been “raising the spectre of more conflicts”, ones marked with “the fingerprints of foreign actors”.

“The war is getting worse, and way more complex because of regional dynamics,” said Sarra Majdoub, a former UN security council expert on Sudan. “I don’t think it’s a civil war any more.”

How are Gulf states involved in Sudan?

“Gulf states have become increasingly prominent in the squabbles, civil wars and inter-country tensions in the Horn of Africa over the past decade,” said Brendon J. Cannon, professor at Khalifa University, on The Conversation.

The UAE has long been accused of supporting the RSF with weapons and funds. Experts believe it uses its ties to neighbouring countries, such as Ethiopia, South Sudan, Libya and Chad, to support the paramilitaries. But Saudi Arabia and Qatar back the SAF, along with Turkey, Egypt and Eritrea. Even Iran has played a role, allegedly supplying Sudan’s army with drones and missiles.

What is their motivation?

The UAE has been “funding proxy groups and wars in Yemen, Libya and Sudan as a way of securing strategic influence and gold assets”, said Nesrine Malik in The Guardian. It has established itself as a “global trading hub in gold”, said Middle East Eye, and Sudan offers “untapped” gold reserves; it is already Africa’s third-largest producer.

Access to Sudan’s ports is also an advantage in the “contest for control of the Red Sea”, Ahmed Soliman, from the Chatham House think tank, told The Times. Almost a third of global container shipping flows through the Suez Canal.

Sudan’s “geostrategic location” explains why “outside powers remain deeply invested”, said Shewit Woldemichael, International Crisis Group’s analyst for Sudan, on Al Jazeera. Sudan is “at the crossroads of the Red Sea, the Horn of Africa, the Sahel and North Africa”. For some countries, Sudan’s war is an opportunity to advance their own interests “in a rapidly changing and contested regional order”.

How is the conflict spreading?

The frontier with Chad is “the border to watch”, Majdoub told The Times, “because of cross-border communities and how heavily everyone is militarised”. Chad has closed the border, which experts say has been a major entry point for weapons and foreign fighters for the RSF.

South Sudan, which gained independence in 2011, is also deteriorating back into civil war. Many suspect Sudan’s army has been supplying the breakaway state’s anti-government militias, according to the International Crisis Group.

But “the most worrying theatre for future conflict” is between Ethiopia and Eritrea, said The Times. The two signed a peace agreement in 2022, but Ethiopia has recently sent “tens of thousands of troops” north. Alliances have “crystallised” along the same lines as in Sudan: the UAE and Israel back Ethiopia, while Saudi Arabia and its allies have “thrown their weight behind Eritrea”.

What might happen?

Mounting tensions between Saudi Arabia and the UAE “overshadow” their joint peace proposal for Sudan and risk “merging multiple regional conflicts, with Sudan at the epicentre”, said Woldemichael

On the other hand, the crisis in the Middle East could also “create an opening”. Faced with the “unprecedented security threat” of Iran, the UAE and Saudi Arabia could "find reason to set aside some of their differences, including over Sudan” in the name of regional unity. This could “help revive stalled diplomatic efforts to end the war”.

Gulf states will “likely begin focusing inward on their own security” as the situation in the Middle East deteriorates, said Cannon on The Conversation. ”Sudan’s civil war may last even longer now that Gulf states are focused elsewhere. Neither side in the civil war will have the ability to land a knock-out punch.”

President Donald Trump’s consolidation of power across the federal government continues apace. With it, a similar form of conservative capture has been mirrored across the avenues of mass media in the U.S.

From the rolling public turmoil at The Washington Post and CBS to behind-the-scenes machinations at institutions like The New York Times, huge swaths of mainstream American media have begun embracing a decidedly conservative agenda. These are the media players helping fuel America’s rightward media pivot.

Bari Weiss, CBS

Perhaps the single most-watched media executive of the past year, Substack star turned CBS News Editor in Chief Bari Weiss has marked her meteoric rise to the top of a premier television network with moments of controversy, conspicuous high-profile resignations and declining viewership. The network’s evening news under Weiss “is waving the American flag” and “not apologizing" for the network’s “pro-U.S. editorial stance,” Variety said.

Weiss’ claims to be “improving ‘free speech’ in the news” come as she is also “clearly moving CBS in a more conservative direction,” The Nation said. Weiss was “personally recruited by Paramount Chief Executive David Ellison” to lead CBS’s news operations, said The Los Angeles Times, after she founded the “conservative-friendly digital news site The Free Press.”

Larry and David Ellison, Paramount Skydance

Billionaire father and son duo Larry — founder of Oracle — and David — CEO of Paramount Skydance — Ellison control “one of the world’s largest audiovisual and news conglomerates.” This pair has the ability to “shape Hollywood’s rules” with its production studios and “influence the news” through both CBS and CNN, said El País.

The duo also controls “numerous entertainment channels that allow them to project their worldview,” said El País. Both Ellisons have been “repeated” visitors at Trump’s White House, CNN said. During the Ellisons’ ultimately successful bid to purchase Warner Brothers this past winter, David “offered assurances” to the White House that “if he bought Warner, he’d make sweeping changes to CNN, a common target of President Trump’s ire,” The Wall Street Journal said.

Lachlan Murdoch, News Corp.

Scion of the powerful Rupert Murdoch-founded News Corp dynasty, eldest son Lachlan completed his bid to assume control of his father’s empire in September 2025. The move guaranteed the “empire’s various outlets, including Fox News, The New York Post and The Wall Street Journal, will remain conservative” after 95-year-old Rupert’s eventual death, The New York Times said.

Lachlan is seen as being the “most likely heir to preserve the conservative identity that defines his father’s portfolio” compared to siblings Prue, Liz and James, NPR News said. Still, Lachlan likely won’t seek the “‘kingmaker’ role in Republican political circles” that his father frequented. He’s “kind of a little bit more hands-off” in that respect, said biographer Paddy Manning to NPR in 2022.

Jeff Bezos, The Washington Post

After ushering in The Washington Post’s era of claiming “Democracy dies in the Darkness” during the first Trump administration, billionaire tech oligarch and Post-owner Jeff Bezos has taken a decidedly less antagonistic stance in the regime’s second turn in office. Over the past year, Bezos has seemed to be “pursuing a policy of appeasement” toward MAGA officials, instructing editorial page writers to focus on the “twin pillars of personal liberties and free markets,” The New Yorker said. Bezos’ shift means that Washington, D.C., a city that Democratic presidential candidates “generally carry with around 90% of the vote,” currently has “three conservative voices and no longer has a single liberal newspaper,” said The New Republic.

Brian Calle, LA Weekly

When the Seminal Media investment group purchased LA Weekly in 2017, it quickly installed Brian Calle, a “conservative-leaning former opinion editor,” to lead its new acquisition, said The Wrap. Calle’s tenure began with a series of deep layoffs, prompting a “furious counterattack” by former staffers who “alleged Calle heads a conservative conspiracy” to transform the “historically progressive” publication into “an alt-right rag,” said Columbia Journalism Review.

Calle, during his prior stint atop the editorial page at the Orange County Register, “pushed the paper’s editorial voice to the right,” while his time as VP at the “notoriously right-wing” Claremont Institute suggested his “conservative aims when it comes to the editorial future of LA Weekly,” said Knock LA. “Downplaying” his rightward inclinations is “exactly the opposite” of what Calle should be doing, said the right-leaning National Review in 2018 after he assumed control of the paper. “Prudent conservatism can save the LA Weekly.”

Patrick Soon-Shiong, Los Angeles Times

Los Angeles Times owner Patrick Soon-Shiong, after nixing a planned 2024 endorsement of Vice President Kamala Harris, justified his decision as righting an “unacceptable” wrong at the paper he purchased in 2018. “As you can see,” Soon-Shiong said during a podcast interview with arch MAGA personality Tucker Carlson, it was “because it’s a left lean, they wrote terrible stories about President Trump.”

Soon-Shiong’s appearance with Carlson came as the billionaire physician and investor “tries to attract more conservative readers to his newspaper,” which he says “has become too liberal,” said Politico. After “unsuccessfully angling for a place” in the president’s first administration, Soon-Shiong has “moved ever closer to Trump,” said Politico separately, “appearing in conservative media and accusing his own newspaper of editorial bias and becoming an ‘echo chamber’ for progressive politics.”

Donald Trump accused Tehran of “making us look a bunch of fools” and said he would “go in and take” an island from Iran. But this threat wasn’t made in 2026. Trump said it in 1988.

In an interview with The Guardian’s Polly Toynbee nearly 40 years ago, the now US president raged against the Iranians, saying: “One bullet shot at one of our men or ships and I’d do a number on Kharg Island.”

Situated northwest of the Strait of Hormuz, the strategically important shipping route in the Gulf, Kharg Island has long been seen as Tehran’s Achilles’ heel. Grabbing it today could “let Trump beat Iran without sending a single soldier”, said The Telegraph.

What is Kharg Island?

Roughly 15 nautical miles from the Iranian mainland, this small coral outcrop is widely regarded by Iranians as the “Forbidden Island”. It is just five miles long and three miles wide.

Beyond its “imposing steel fences and military watchtowers” is a “pristine landscape” where “millennia of diverse human history quietly coexist”, said Al Jazeera. It is also home to the “beating heart of Iran’s modern energy empire”.

It has history with the US. When Iranian militants kidnapped 52 US diplomats in 1979, advisers to President Jimmy Carter suggested seizing Kharg but the plan was rejected as being too inflammatory. In 2016, 10 US marines were held after straying into Iranian waters near the island.

Why is it important?

It processes 90% of the nation’s total oil exports, handling approximately 950 million barrels a year. So if the US captured the island, it could cause a huge problem for Iran’s economy for years to come.

“Seizing” Kharg Island would “cut off Iran’s oil lifeline, which is crucial for the regime”, Petras Katinas, from the Royal United Services Institute, told The Telegraph. It could be used as a bargaining chip as oil exports make up nearly 40% of the Iranian government’s budget, so this would “give the US leverage during negotiations”, regardless of “which regime is in power after the military operation ends”.

The move “would be reminiscent” of the US intervention in Venezuela, when it “effectively took control of the country’s oil sector”, oil analyst Tamas Varga told CNBC.

So why hasn’t Trump seized it?

Taking the island would make American and Israeli troops vulnerable to attacks by Iranian forces. In the longer term, it would damage any future regime’s chances of managing the economy, something Washington might be keen to avoid.

Neil Quilliam, from the Chatham House think tank, told The Independent it is “unlikely” Trump would take over the territory. Previous US presidents have “steered away from Kharg understanding its strategic importance to global oil markets”.

But if Trump did control Kharg Island, he could “pressurise the existing regime into compliance”, or “all-out collapse”, forcing any new government to “toe Washington’s line” if it wanted to “regain sovereignty over oil exports”, said The Telegraph.

With the weather finally thawed and kids out of school, spring and summer are the busiest seasons for homebuying. This can mean more options to choose from on the market — but it can also mean more competition.

Going through the work of putting together an offer on a house you are excited about, only to get beat out by other buyers, can feel like a major letdown. So, how can you make your home offer stand out if you are wading into a hot housing market? From having your own affairs in order to being flexible and savvy in the offer you craft, here are some tricks you can implement to improve your odds of winning out.

Have everything in order before bidding

If you are trying to buy in a fast-moving, competitive market, it is vital that you have all your ducks in a row before you get to the point of submitting an offer on a home. This means working with an experienced, knowledgeable real estate agent you can trust, and already having mortgage preapproval in hand, so you have a ballpark idea of how much you will actually be able to borrow.

The former will help you ensure you are putting your best (and most strategic) foot forward when you make an offer, and the latter will provide peace of mind for the seller, given that “in a competitive market, sellers will likely have multiple offers to choose from and will look for a buyer who is able to close on the sale,” said Zillow.

Understand the market, the property and the seller

When it comes to this, the real estate agent you work with can make all the difference. “Their deep market knowledge allows agents to identify accurate comparable listings and help buyers price offers more strategically,” said USA Today. They will also “know how quickly homes are selling in a given area and can communicate quickly and effectively with listing agents.”

An agent can often get insight into what is most important to a particular seller — whether that is a quick closing timeline, the security of a cash offer or an above-listing price — and help ensure your offer checks those boxes.

Consider ways to sweeten your offer

Depending on what feels reasonable and is doable for you, there are a number of steps you can take to make your offer more enticing, including:

Increase your earnest money deposit. This is a deposit made upfront to demonstrate your seriousness about and ability to purchase the home. Typically, it is “around 1% to 3% of the purchase price,” but “in a competitive market, you may choose to increase this to 5% or higher to stand out and prove your commitment,” said Investopedia.

Add in an escalation clause. With an escalation clause, your offer automatically increases, up to a specified maximum, if another buyer in the running outbids you. This can “help you stay in the running if another offer comes in for slightly more than yours,” said Rocket Mortgage, though it is not always necessary or even allowed in certain markets.

Offer concessions. Offering the seller concessions can “make your offer more attractive,” said Rocket Mortgage, though it is also vital here to ensure what you offer is workable for you. Common examples of concessions include offering to pay certain fees, such as the agents’ commission or the seller’s real estate attorney fees, or purchasing the property as-is.

Social media posts appeared last month calling for “red v blue” wars between schools, but instead of provoking fights between students, the posts appear to have made a deeper impact on their worried parents, leading experts to suggest practising an online strategy known as critical ignoring.

It’s a concept that experts are “increasingly teaching”, Sander Van Der Linden, a professor of social psychology, told the BBC, and it “will become more important in the face of AI-generated slop, where sometimes it’s better to just ignore low-quality stuff”.

What is critical ignoring?

It’s a behavioural strategy for managing information overload by consciously choosing to filter out low-quality, distracting, or manipulative content. People look for clues that allow them to ignore a post. While critical thinking analyses information, critical ignoring decides what to analyse in the first place, serving as a crucial filter.

Critical thinking is not enough “in a world of information overabundance and gushing sources of disinformation”, wrote Ralph Hertwig, Anastasia Kozyreva, Sam Wineburg and Stephan Lewandowsky on The Conversation.

The digital world “contains more information than the world’s libraries combined”, so “critically thinking through all information and sources we come across” would “utterly paralyse us”.

Also, “investing critical thinking in sources that should have been ignored in the first place” results in “attention merchants and malicious actors” getting what they wanted: “our attention”.

Doesn’t AI help with this?

To an extent. AI chatbots can help people understand what’s true and untrue on the internet, but they are tools, rather than perfect judges of truth.

ChatGPT has “introduced a new temptation” – the “feeling that I can get a clean answer to everything, instantly”, said Tom’s Guide. But this is where things “get tricky” because ChatGPT is “so fluent, so confident, so fast, it can make ‘done’ feel like ‘true’”, and “‘sounds right’ feel like ‘verified’ – even when it’s not”.

So it’s “up to us, as individuals, to stop ingesting the pink slime of AI slop, the forever chemicals of outrage bait and the microplastics of misinformation-for-profit”, said The Wall Street Journal. Critical ignoring is a widely recommended strategy for this.

But how do I do it?

The “key word” is “critical”, said Psychology Today, because it doesn’t mean “just ignoring everything”. Rather you should look quickly for clues that suggest the types of information most likely to be misinformation or disinformation.

The clues include signs that it’s polarising content, that it “appeals to intuition or common sense”, instead of “including facts or evidence”. Another red flag is if it doesn’t include sources, or those it does don’t seem credible. Does it seem to have been released “as a distraction”, or does it promote “the threat of a bogeyman or a scapegoat”?

Then there’s “lateral reading”, a more time-consuming strategy which “involves opening up new browser tabs to search for information” about the “organisation or individual behind a site” before “diving into its contents”, said The Conversation. Also, it’s always a good idea to not “feed the trolls”.

“Remember that your attention is a scarce resource”, said The Wall Street Journal, and “decide how much time you want to spend on screens in advance, then set a timer.”

A practice called “self-nudging” includes removing “distracting and irresistible notifications”, or setting “specific times in which messages can be received”, thus “creating pockets of time for concentrated work or socialising”, said The Conversation.

Or you can just “ask one question“ before engaging, said Tom’s Guide. “Would I care about this tomorrow?” If not, you can simply “move on”.