National Handloom Day 2026: From Alia Bhatt to Samantha Ruth Prabhu; Actresses who celebrated India's textile heritage as brides

The Royals enter the Doctor Who universe: King Charles and Queen Camilla beam into Commonwealth Games in TARDIS

Unitree Robotics targets $9 billion valuation in landmark IPO backed by DeepSeek and Tencent

India names 27 sites in Arunachal Pradesh

Bharat Bhhagya Viddhaata OTT: When will Kangana Ranaut's film stream online?

How many soldiers operate one S-400 battery?

Shakib Al Hasan ready to return to Bangladesh—under one condition

‘Fake news’: MEA rejects report claiming India sought defence pact with Israel after Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey deal

Rockstar to unveil GTA 6 extended look ahead of November launch

Russia forms Ukrainian Volunteer Spetsnaz Brigade to fight Ukraine

Drug-resistant fungus that hides in hair and enters bloodstream reported in 23 US states

Technology transfer deal boosts India's defence manufacturing ambitions

Border row erupts in Europe after Ceuta crossings, Spain imposes border controls on Italy

Morale plummets on USS Abraham Lincoln: Are US sailors reaching a breaking point? | GRAVITAS

'Security can't be bought with Pakistan, Turkey deal': Iran tells Saudi Arabia

Baba Vanga's 2026 prophecy: 2 predictions 'already came true', 3 terrifying ones remain. Details inside

Colombia’s new president Abelardo de la Espriella vows to ‘defeat narco-terrorists’, signals hardline shift

New Friday OTT releases (August 7, 2026): Operation Safed Sagar, Vadhandhi, Main Vaapis Aaunga- 6 movies and TV shows on Netflix, Prime Video and more

Squadron Leader Bhawana Kanth scripts history as Indian Air Force gets its first woman ‘Top Gun’ pilot

RSS says Gen Z protests reflect genuine distress

Trump says Iranian school bombing photos could be AI-generated - 'I don’t think...'

IAF officer held for sharing sensitive information in 'honey trap' case, booked under Official Secrets Act

Stray Kids under scrutiny? Fans react to Grammy submission silence after BTS boycott

Why the Su-30MKI doesn't need external fuel tanks to fly vast distances

Jugal Hansraj reunites with Shekhar Kapur after 40 years for Masoom: The Next Generation

New speed limits, automatic challans: Big traffic change coming to Delhi-Meerut Expressway. All you need to know

India officially names 27 places in Arunachal to counter China's renaming claims

Trump calls White House ballroom ruling a 'national disgrace' as court says Congress approval needed

US sanctions Iran’s crypto network after Strait of Hormuz attacks, offers $15m bounty for intel on IRGC finance

Why the Su-30MKI is one of the heaviest fighters ever built

Uttarakhand young innovator builds India's own flying vehicle, conducts first test flight: WATCH

Chilling video shows students take cover as teen opens fire at Thai school

Reese Witherspoon's father hospitalised after poolside incident in Nashville: Report

As the Russia-Ukraine conflict continued to keep the region on edge, diplomatic tensions appeared to rise after Moscow demanded explanations from the United States and Turkey over reports of a possible transfer of a substantial stockpile of US weapons held in Turkey to Kyiv. Maria Zakharova, spokeswoman for Russia's Foreign Ministry, said Moscow had sought clarification from both Washington and Ankara regarding reports of possible plans to transfer to Kyiv a ‘substantial arsenal’ of US weapons and ammunition stored in Turkey, news agency Reuters reported.&nbsp;Zakharova warned that such a transfer could damage Russia's relations with both countries. Such a transfer would cause "serious harm ... to our bilateral relations with Washington and Ankara," the spokeswoman said.<h2>Ukraine steps up long-range strikes on Russia</h2>At the same time, the Russia-Ukraine war intensified as Kyiv reportedly increased its long-range aerial attacks against Russian military-industrial facilities and energy infrastructure. According to the Associated Press, a Russian official said Ukrainian forces carried out a large-scale strike against industrial infrastructure in Russia's southwestern Samara region. Ivan Noskov, head of Samara city, said Russian air-defense units repelled a ‘massive’ missile barrage. The attack reportedly caused localized damage to industrial facilities and left several people injured.&nbsp;Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said on social media that the attack hit the Samara Progress Center, a facility operated under Russia's state space agency Roscosmos. "In Russia’s Samara region, one of the key enterprises within Roscosmos, the Progress Center, which was involved, among other things, in electronics production, was hit. Flamingo missiles were used. A good achievement," he posted on X.&nbsp;Zelenskyy also said Russia's Savasleyka air base, located roughly 700 kilometers from the front line, had been targeted."The distance from our border is about 900 kilometers. Our long-range sanctions also reached the Savasleyka airbase, where the carriers of Russian missiles that strike our cities and villages are based – about 700 kilometers from Ukraine. We also have confirmation of the damage we were aiming to inflict at an oil facility in Ust-Luga, more than 800 kilometers from our border," he added. “Peace is needed, and this must be evident in Russia, through concrete damage to specific facilities,” Zelenskyy also noted.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/opinions/is-america-ready-for-president-aoc-the-question-democrats-can-no-longer-ignore-1786809155419">Is America ready for President AOC? The question Democrats can no longer ignore</a><h2>Ukraine's long-range strikes increase</h2>The Associated Press, citing data from independent conflict monitor ACLED, reported that Ukraine's long-range attacks, defined as strikes beyond its usual 200-kilometer range, have increased significantly. Kyiv carried out three times as many such strikes in July as it did in January.&nbsp;Russia's Ministry of Defense said on Saturday that its forces intercepted 598 Ukrainian drones across 19 Russian regions, as well as over the Black and Azov seas and Crimea. In the Moscow region, Governor Andrey Vorobyov said two people, including a nine-year-old child, were injured after a Ukrainian drone struck a private house in Shatura.<h2>Casualties and port strikes in Ukraine</h2>In southeastern Ukraine, a Russian strike on an apartment building killed an infant and injured 11 people, according to Ukrainian officials. Ukraine's Air Force said it shot down 124 of the 152 drones launched by Russia on Saturday. Meanwhile, Russia's Ministry of Defense said its forces targeted warehouses and infrastructure at Ukrainian ports.&nbsp;The latest developments underscore the continued escalation of long-range attacks, as both sides target military, industrial and energy infrastructure while diplomatic tensions surrounding potential weapons transfers add another layer of uncertainty to the conflict.

Russia-Ukraine war tensions rise as Moscow questions US and Turkey over weapons transfers while Ukraine intensifies long-range strikes across Russia

As the Russia-Ukraine conflict continued to keep the region on edge, diplomatic tensions appeared to rise after Moscow demanded explanations from the United States and Turkey over reports of a possible transfer of a substantial stockpile of US weapons held in Turkey to Kyiv. Maria Zakharova, spokeswoman for Russia's Foreign Ministry, said Moscow had sought clarification from both Washington and Ankara regarding reports of possible plans to transfer to Kyiv a ‘substantial arsenal’ of US weapons and ammunition stored in Turkey, news agency Reuters reported. Zakharova warned that such a transfer could damage Russia's relations with both countries. Such a transfer would cause "serious harm ... to our bilateral relations with Washington and Ankara," the spokeswoman said. Ukraine steps up long-range strikes on Russia At the same time, the Russia-Ukraine war intensified as Kyiv reportedly increased its long-range aerial attacks against Russian military-industrial facilities and energy infrastructure. According to the Associated Press, a Russian official said Ukrainian forces carried out a large-scale strike against industrial infrastructure in Russia's southwestern Samara region. Ivan Noskov, head of Samara city, said Russian air-defense units repelled a ‘massive’ missile barrage. The attack reportedly caused localized damage to industrial facilities and left several people injured. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said on social media that the attack hit the Samara Progress Center, a facility operated under Russia's state space agency Roscosmos. "In Russia’s Samara region, one of the key enterprises within Roscosmos, the Progress Center, which was involved, among other things, in electronics production, was hit. Flamingo missiles were used. A good achievement," he posted on X. Zelenskyy also said Russia's Savasleyka air base, located roughly 700 kilometers from the front line, had been targeted. "The distance from our border is about 900 kilometers. Our long-range sanctions also reached the Savasleyka airbase, where the carriers of Russian missiles that strike our cities and villages are based – about 700 kilometers from Ukraine. We also have confirmation of the damage we were aiming to inflict at an oil facility in Ust-Luga, more than 800 kilometers from our border," he added. “Peace is needed, and this must be evident in Russia, through concrete damage to specific facilities,” Zelenskyy also noted. Also Read: Is America ready for President AOC? The question Democrats can no longer ignore Ukraine's long-range strikes increase The Associated Press, citing data from independent conflict monitor ACLED, reported that Ukraine's long-range attacks, defined as strikes beyond its usual 200-kilometer range, have increased significantly. Kyiv carried out three times as many such strikes in July as it did in January. Russia's Ministry of Defense said on Saturday that its forces intercepted 598 Ukrainian drones across 19 Russian regions, as well as over the Black and Azov seas and Crimea. In the Moscow region, Governor Andrey Vorobyov said two people, including a nine-year-old child, were injured after a Ukrainian drone struck a private house in Shatura. Casualties and port strikes in Ukraine In southeastern Ukraine, a Russian strike on an apartment building killed an infant and injured 11 people, according to Ukrainian officials. Ukraine's Air Force said it shot down 124 of the 152 drones launched by Russia on Saturday. Meanwhile, Russia's Ministry of Defense said its forces targeted warehouses and infrastructure at Ukrainian ports. The latest developments underscore the continued escalation of long-range attacks, as both sides target military, industrial and energy infrastructure while diplomatic tensions surrounding potential weapons transfers add another layer of uncertainty to the conflict.

Russia-Ukraine tensions rise as Moscow seeks US-Turkey answers over weapons transfers while Ukraine intensifies long-range strikes on Russian targets

Russia seeks US, Turkey answers over reported Ukraine weapons transfer as Kyiv intensifies strikes

For years, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has been treated as a political phenomenon rather than a potential president. She was the young progressive who shocked the Democratic establishment in 2018, the congresswoman who could dominate a news cycle with a social-media post, and one of the most recognisable faces of the American left.Now, that assumption may be changing.&nbsp;At 36, Ocasio-Cortez is openly keeping her 2028 options alive. In an August 9 interview with ABC News, she declined to rule out either a presidential run or a challenge to Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer. Her comments came as polling and prediction markets increasingly placed her among the leading potential Democratic contenders. The question, therefore, is no longer simply whether AOC wants to be president. It is whether America is ready for her. And that is a much more complicated question.<h2>AOC is no longer the same politician</h2>The AOC who entered Congress in 2019 was easy for her critics to caricature. She was young, unapologetically progressive and closely associated with the Democratic Socialists of America. Her politics were built around Medicare for All, climate action, economic inequality, workers' rights and a fundamental challenge to the political establishment.But six years in Washington have changed her.&nbsp;Ocasio-Cortez remains firmly on the progressive side of the Democratic Party, but she has also demonstrated a greater understanding of political power and coalition-building. Her ability to communicate directly with voters, particularly younger Americans, has become one of her biggest political assets. She is no longer simply the insurgent who defeated a veteran Democrat. She is part of the Democratic Party's national conversation about what comes next.&nbsp;That distinction matters. The Democratic Party is searching for a new identity after the Biden and Harris years, while progressives are increasingly testing whether their ideas can translate into electoral victories. AOC's growing national profile comes at precisely the moment when Democrats are debating whether the answer lies in moderation or a more aggressive progressive agenda.<h2>Her biggest strength may also be her biggest weakness</h2>There is an obvious reason AOC can excite Democrats. She knows how to command attention. In an era when political communication is increasingly conducted through Instagram, TikTok, YouTube and X rather than traditional campaign rallies, Ocasio-Cortez possesses something many conventional politicians spend millions trying to manufacture: an authentic digital following. She can speak to voters without sounding like a press release.&nbsp;That is particularly valuable with younger Americans, many of whom have little emotional connection to the political establishment. But presidential elections are not won on social media. They are won in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Arizona, Georgia, Nevada and other battlegrounds where candidates must build broad coalitions that extend far beyond their ideological base.&nbsp;And this is where the AOC question becomes difficult. Can someone identified so strongly with the progressive wing of the Democratic Party appeal to moderate voters, suburban voters, working-class voters and older Americans who may not share her politics? That is the test she has yet to pass.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/iran-says-hormuz-passage-deal-reached-with-oman-reopening-tied-to-us-lifting-blockade-1786804702036">Iran says Hormuz passage deal reached with Oman, reopening tied to US lifting blockade</a><h2>America has changed, but not necessarily enough</h2>There is a temptation to look at AOC's rise and conclude that America has simply moved to the left. That would be too simplistic. America is not one electorate. It is a collection of competing political identities, economic anxieties, cultural fears and regional realities. The country is simultaneously becoming more comfortable with women in positions of power and more polarised over issues such as immigration, abortion, healthcare, race and the role of government.&nbsp;AOC represents one answer to those tensions. Her supporters see a politician prepared to challenge entrenched interests and speak openly about inequality. Her critics see a symbol of an ideological left that has moved too far from the political centre. Both perceptions matter. A presidential candidate does not get to choose which version of themselves voters see.<h2>The gender question cannot be ignored</h2>There is another uncomfortable reality. America has elected a Black president. It has elected women as vice-president. But it has never elected a woman president. Hillary Clinton came close in 2016. Kamala Harris became the Democratic nominee in 2024 but failed to defeat Donald Trump. AOC would therefore enter a presidential race carrying two identities that have historically generated intense political reactions: she would be a woman and a progressive.&nbsp;Her recent decision to publicly discuss freezing her eggs has already demonstrated how differently female politicians can be scrutinised. Ocasio-Cortez has framed the issue around women's autonomy and the difficulty of balancing career and personal choices, while the disclosure has generated both support and political criticism. That episode may seem unrelated to presidential politics. It isn't. It is a reminder that if AOC eventually runs, almost every aspect of her life will become political ammunition. The question is whether she can withstand that scrutiny, and whether voters will ultimately judge her more by her policies than by the culture-war narratives built around her.<h2>The Democratic primary may be harder than the general election</h2>Ironically, AOC's first major challenge may not be Republicans. It may be Democrats. The party is likely to have a crowded 2028 field. Gavin Newsom, Pete Buttigieg, Mark Kelly and other nationally recognised Democrats could all compete for the nomination.&nbsp;AOC would have to convince Democratic voters that she is not merely the most exciting progressive candidate, but the candidate capable of actually winning the White House. That means proving she can broaden her coalition. It also means answering difficult questions about foreign policy, national security, the economy, immigration and the country's role in the world, issues on which presidential candidates face a level of scrutiny that congressional politicians rarely experience. The early signals are encouraging for her.&nbsp;But early polls are not elections. Prediction markets can capture political momentum, but they do not put voters in polling booths. And a presidential campaign is an entirely different political ecosystem.<h2>Yet dismissing AOC could be an even bigger mistake</h2>This is where Democrats should be careful. It would be easy for party insiders to look at AOC and conclude that she is simply too progressive to win nationally. That argument may be increasingly outdated. The political environment that produced AOC in 2018 is not the same environment that exists today. Younger voters are more politically engaged, traditional media has less control over political narratives, and distrust of established institutions remains high.&nbsp;The Democratic Party cannot simply tell a new generation of voters that their preferred candidates are too radical.It has to understand why those voters are attracted to them in the first place. AOC's appeal is not solely ideological. It is also generational. She represents a generation that entered adulthood amid student debt, soaring housing costs, economic insecurity, climate anxiety and deep distrust of institutions. Whether one agrees with her solutions or not, she speaks directly to those frustrations. That is politically powerful.<h2>So, is America ready?</h2>Not yet, but perhaps that is the wrong question. America rarely announces that it is ready for a political transformation.It simply arrives at one. Barack Obama was once dismissed as too inexperienced. Donald Trump was once dismissed as too unconventional to become president. Hillary Clinton was once considered almost inevitable. Political history is full of candidates who appeared impossible until they weren't.&nbsp;AOC may or may not become president. She may decide to run for the Senate instead. She may ultimately conclude that 2028 is not her moment. She may enter the race and lose the Democratic nomination. But something important has already happened. The idea of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez as president is no longer politically absurd.&nbsp;It is now a serious question. And perhaps the bigger question for America is not whether it is ready for AOC. It is whether the Democratic Party is ready to find out. Because if Ocasio-Cortez does run in 2028, she will not simply be asking Americans to vote for another Democrat. She will be asking them to decide what kind of Democrat, and what kind of America, they want next. That is a much bigger election than AOC alone.&nbsp;Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is emerging as a potential 2028 presidential contender. Is America ready for AOC and her progressive political agenda?

For years, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has been treated as a political phenomenon rather than a potential president. She was the young progressive who shocked the Democratic establishment in 2018, the congresswoman who could dominate a news cycle with a social-media post, and one of the most recognisable faces of the American left. Now, that assumption may be changing. At 36, Ocasio-Cortez is openly keeping her 2028 options alive. In an August 9 interview with ABC News, she declined to rule out either a presidential run or a challenge to Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer. Her comments came as polling and prediction markets increasingly placed her among the leading potential Democratic contenders. The question, therefore, is no longer simply whether AOC wants to be president. It is whether America is ready for her. And that is a much more complicated question. AOC is no longer the same politician The AOC who entered Congress in 2019 was easy for her critics to caricature. She was young, unapologetically progressive and closely associated with the Democratic Socialists of America. Her politics were built around Medicare for All, climate action, economic inequality, workers' rights and a fundamental challenge to the political establishment. But six years in Washington have changed her. Ocasio-Cortez remains firmly on the progressive side of the Democratic Party, but she has also demonstrated a greater understanding of political power and coalition-building. Her ability to communicate directly with voters, particularly younger Americans, has become one of her biggest political assets. She is no longer simply the insurgent who defeated a veteran Democrat. She is part of the Democratic Party's national conversation about what comes next. That distinction matters. The Democratic Party is searching for a new identity after the Biden and Harris years, while progressives are increasingly testing whether their ideas can translate into electoral victories. AOC's growing national profile comes at precisely the moment when Democrats are debating whether the answer lies in moderation or a more aggressive progressive agenda. Her biggest strength may also be her biggest weakness There is an obvious reason AOC can excite Democrats. She knows how to command attention. In an era when political communication is increasingly conducted through Instagram, TikTok, YouTube and X rather than traditional campaign rallies, Ocasio-Cortez possesses something many conventional politicians spend millions trying to manufacture: an authentic digital following. She can speak to voters without sounding like a press release. That is particularly valuable with younger Americans, many of whom have little emotional connection to the political establishment. But presidential elections are not won on social media. They are won in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Arizona, Georgia, Nevada and other battlegrounds where candidates must build broad coalitions that extend far beyond their ideological base. And this is where the AOC question becomes difficult. Can someone identified so strongly with the progressive wing of the Democratic Party appeal to moderate voters, suburban voters, working-class voters and older Americans who may not share her politics? That is the test she has yet to pass. Also Read: Iran says Hormuz passage deal reached with Oman, reopening tied to US lifting blockade America has changed, but not necessarily enough There is a temptation to look at AOC's rise and conclude that America has simply moved to the left. That would be too simplistic. America is not one electorate. It is a collection of competing political identities, economic anxieties, cultural fears and regional realities. The country is simultaneously becoming more comfortable with women in positions of power and more polarised over issues such as immigration, abortion, healthcare, race and the role of government. AOC represents one answer to those tensions. Her supporters see a politician prepared to challenge entrenched interests and speak openly about inequality. Her critics see a symbol of an ideological left that has moved too far from the political centre. Both perceptions matter. A presidential candidate does not get to choose which version of themselves voters see. The gender question cannot be ignored There is another uncomfortable reality. America has elected a Black president. It has elected women as vice-president. But it has never elected a woman president. Hillary Clinton came close in 2016. Kamala Harris became the Democratic nominee in 2024 but failed to defeat Donald Trump. AOC would therefore enter a presidential race carrying two identities that have historically generated intense political reactions: she would be a woman and a progressive. Her recent decision to publicly discuss freezing her eggs has already demonstrated how differently female politicians can be scrutinised. Ocasio-Cortez has framed the issue around women's autonomy and the difficulty of balancing career and personal choices, while the disclosure has generated both support and political criticism. That episode may seem unrelated to presidential politics. It isn't. It is a reminder that if AOC eventually runs, almost every aspect of her life will become political ammunition. The question is whether she can withstand that scrutiny, and whether voters will ultimately judge her more by her policies than by the culture-war narratives built around her. The Democratic primary may be harder than the general election Ironically, AOC's first major challenge may not be Republicans. It may be Democrats. The party is likely to have a crowded 2028 field. Gavin Newsom, Pete Buttigieg, Mark Kelly and other nationally recognised Democrats could all compete for the nomination. AOC would have to convince Democratic voters that she is not merely the most exciting progressive candidate, but the candidate capable of actually winning the White House. That means proving she can broaden her coalition. It also means answering difficult questions about foreign policy, national security, the economy, immigration and the country's role in the world, issues on which presidential candidates face a level of scrutiny that congressional politicians rarely experience. The early signals are encouraging for her. But early polls are not elections. Prediction markets can capture political momentum, but they do not put voters in polling booths. And a presidential campaign is an entirely different political ecosystem. Yet dismissing AOC could be an even bigger mistake This is where Democrats should be careful. It would be easy for party insiders to look at AOC and conclude that she is simply too progressive to win nationally. That argument may be increasingly outdated. The political environment that produced AOC in 2018 is not the same environment that exists today. Younger voters are more politically engaged, traditional media has less control over political narratives, and distrust of established institutions remains high. The Democratic Party cannot simply tell a new generation of voters that their preferred candidates are too radical. It has to understand why those voters are attracted to them in the first place. AOC's appeal is not solely ideological. It is also generational. She represents a generation that entered adulthood amid student debt, soaring housing costs, economic insecurity, climate anxiety and deep distrust of institutions. Whether one agrees with her solutions or not, she speaks directly to those frustrations. That is politically powerful. So, is America ready? Not yet, but perhaps that is the wrong question. America rarely announces that it is ready for a political transformation. It simply arrives at one. Barack Obama was once dismissed as too inexperienced. Donald Trump was once dismissed as too unconventional to become president. Hillary Clinton was once considered almost inevitable. Political history is full of candidates who appeared impossible until they weren't. AOC may or may not become president. She may decide to run for the Senate instead. She may ultimately conclude that 2028 is not her moment. She may enter the race and lose the Democratic nomination. But something important has already happened. The idea of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez as president is no longer politically absurd. It is now a serious question. And perhaps the bigger question for America is not whether it is ready for AOC. It is whether the Democratic Party is ready to find out. Because if Ocasio-Cortez does run in 2028, she will not simply be asking Americans to vote for another Democrat. She will be asking them to decide what kind of Democrat, and what kind of America, they want next. That is a much bigger election than AOC alone. Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.

AOC's potential 2028 White House bid is gaining momentum, but can her progressive politics, youth and polarising image win over America's voters?

Is America ready for President AOC? The question Democrats can no longer ignore

Afghanistan’s Islamic Emirate government will hold its first public reception in India to mark "Victory Day" on Monday. The event at the Afghan embassy in New Delhi is scheduled for 17 August and will be hosted by Noor Ahmed Noor, the Afghan chargé d’affaires who took up his post earlier this year. Diplomats, members of the Afghan diaspora, prominent figures from Indian society and media representatives are expected to attend. There is a strong possibility that senior Indian officials will also be present.&nbsp;It will be the first major public function organised by the Islamic Emirate at its embassy in the Indian capital. The move comes amid expanding engagement between New Delhi and Kabul, even though India has stopped short of formal recognition of the Islamic Emirate administration.&nbsp;Ministry of External Affairs spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal underlined the strength of bilateral ties when asked about the relationship on Friday. “In the last few months and over a year now, we have had several engagements with Afghanistan. We had several ministerial visits from Afghanistan to India. And these have led to strengthening of partnership in several areas including development cooperation, trade, connectivity,” he said. “We have long-standing ties with Afghanistan, the Afghan people and we look forward to further strengthening these ties that we have with them.”&nbsp;Victory Day commemorates the Taliban’s return to Kabul on 15 August 2021, after the withdrawal of US-led NATO forces and the collapse of the previous Afghan government. The anniversary is marked each year with celebrations inside Afghanistan. This year’s events in Kabul included flag-decked convoys, public gatherings and official ceremonies. Afghan media reported that flags, banners and commemorative signs had been put up across the city. Officials of the Islamic Emirate and some foreign diplomats attended a marking of the fifth anniversary at the Loya Jirga Hall.&nbsp;India has not recognised the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, a position shared by much of the international community. Engagement has nevertheless increased significantly. Afghan Foreign Minister Amir Khan Muttaqi visited New Delhi in October 2025, the first such high-level trip. India later upgraded its technical mission in Kabul to a full embassy and allowed Islamic Emirate diplomats to staff the Afghan embassy in Delhi as well as consulates in Mumbai and Hyderabad.&nbsp;Further visits by Islamic Emirate&nbsp;ministers responsible for industry, health and agriculture have taken place. India allocated ₹150 crore for Afghanistan in its latest budget and has continued to provide humanitarian assistance. &nbsp;

The move comes amid expanding engagement between New Delhi and Kabul, even though India has stopped short of formal recognition of the Islamic Emirate administration.

Afghanistan’s Islamic Emirate government will hold its first public reception in India to mark "Victory Day" on Monday. The event at the Afghan embassy in New Delhi is scheduled for 17 August and will be hosted by Noor Ahmed Noor, the Afghan chargé d’affaires who took up his post earlier this year. Diplomats, members of the Afghan diaspora, prominent figures from Indian society and media representatives are expected to attend. There is a strong possibility that senior Indian officials will also be present. It will be the first major public function organised by the Islamic Emirate at its embassy in the Indian capital. The move comes amid expanding engagement between New Delhi and Kabul, even though India has stopped short of formal recognition of the Islamic Emirate administration. Ministry of External Affairs spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal underlined the strength of bilateral ties when asked about the relationship on Friday. “In the last few months and over a year now, we have had several engagements with Afghanistan. We had several ministerial visits from Afghanistan to India. And these have led to strengthening of partnership in several areas including development cooperation, trade, connectivity,” he said. “We have long-standing ties with Afghanistan, the Afghan people and we look forward to further strengthening these ties that we have with them.” Victory Day commemorates the Taliban’s return to Kabul on 15 August 2021, after the withdrawal of US-led NATO forces and the collapse of the previous Afghan government. The anniversary is marked each year with celebrations inside Afghanistan. This year’s events in Kabul included flag-decked convoys, public gatherings and official ceremonies. Afghan media reported that flags, banners and commemorative signs had been put up across the city. Officials of the Islamic Emirate and some foreign diplomats attended a marking of the fifth anniversary at the Loya Jirga Hall. India has not recognised the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, a position shared by much of the international community. Engagement has nevertheless increased significantly. Afghan Foreign Minister Amir Khan Muttaqi visited New Delhi in October 2025, the first such high-level trip. India later upgraded its technical mission in Kabul to a full embassy and allowed Islamic Emirate diplomats to staff the Afghan embassy in Delhi as well as consulates in Mumbai and Hyderabad. Further visits by Islamic Emirate ministers responsible for industry, health and agriculture have taken place. India allocated ₹150 crore for Afghanistan in its latest budget and has continued to provide humanitarian assistance.

The move comes amid expanding engagement between New Delhi and Kabul, even though India has stopped short of formal recognition of the Islamic Emirate administration.

Islamic Emirate plans first Victory Day event at Afghan mission in Delhi as India highlights growing engagement

Iran and Oman have agreed on a safe route for ships passing through the Strait of Hormuz after three weeks of talks, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei said on Saturday, according to Iran International.&nbsp;Baghaei said talks with Muscat were continuing on other issues, but the agreement on safe shipping was reached separately.&nbsp;He also said full security in the Strait of Hormuz could not return as long as US maritime sanctions, military movements and a naval blockade remained in place.&nbsp;The development came as Iran and Oman negotiated arrangements for the safe passage of ships through the Strait of Hormuz. Tehran closed the key waterway in retaliation for the US-Israeli attack on Iran on February 28.&nbsp;The move came after a series of attacks in the strait, which handled around one-fifth of the world's oil and gas shipments before the war. The United States was not involved in the negotiations between Iran and Oman. Washington is also unlikely to accept arrangements that do not restore free passage through the waterway.&nbsp;The Strait of Hormuz links the Persian Gulf with the Gulf of Oman and the Arabian Sea and remains central to the movement of oil and gas supplies.

Iran and Oman have agreed on a safe shipping route through the Strait of Hormuz, but Tehran says full reopening depends on the US lifting its naval blockade.

Iran and Oman have agreed on a safe route for ships passing through the Strait of Hormuz after three weeks of talks, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei said on Saturday, according to Iran International. Baghaei said talks with Muscat were continuing on other issues, but the agreement on safe shipping was reached separately. He also said full security in the Strait of Hormuz could not return as long as US maritime sanctions, military movements and a naval blockade remained in place. The development came as Iran and Oman negotiated arrangements for the safe passage of ships through the Strait of Hormuz. Tehran closed the key waterway in retaliation for the US-Israeli attack on Iran on February 28. The move came after a series of attacks in the strait, which handled around one-fifth of the world's oil and gas shipments before the war. The United States was not involved in the negotiations between Iran and Oman. Washington is also unlikely to accept arrangements that do not restore free passage through the waterway. The Strait of Hormuz links the Persian Gulf with the Gulf of Oman and the Arabian Sea and remains central to the movement of oil and gas supplies.

Iran and Oman have agreed on a safe shipping route through the Strait of Hormuz, but Tehran says full reopening depends on the US lifting its naval blockade.

Iran says Hormuz passage deal reached with Oman, reopening tied to US lifting blockade

At least 11 people, including three children and two women were killed in Israeli strikes in southern Lebanon on Saturday (Aug 15). This is one of the deadliest days of attacks since an agreement was reached in June with the motive of reducing hostilities.&nbsp;Later on Saturday, another round of strikes hit the town of Deir al-Zahrani, &nbsp;north of Nabatieh, killing four and wounding five others, according to Lebanon’s Health Ministry and state news media.&nbsp;The IDF confirmed the airstrikes in southern Lebanon overnight, saying it struck Hezbollah infrastructure in response to an attack by the terror group on Israeli troops. However, there is no statement on Deir al-Zahrani strike.&nbsp;The Lebanon's Prime Minister Nawaf Salam condemned the attacks saying the civilians killed were not "military infrastructure".&nbsp;ALSO READ: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/accept-the-reality-iran-rejects-trump-s-hormuz-claim-says-waterway-will-remain-under-its-command-1786796468224">'Accept the reality': Iran rejects Trump's Hormuz claim, says waterway will remain under its command</a>&nbsp;“The seven martyrs of the Israeli airstrike on the town of Ansar are not military infrastructure and the children and women killed were not military targets,” Salam wrote on X.&nbsp;He further said that “Israel must halt this escalation,” and added that the security of the Lebanese people and their right to life on their land “are not subject to negotiation or bargaining.”&nbsp;<h2>Will get "appropriate" response</h2>&nbsp;Meanwhile, Hezbollah said that Israeli attacks on Lebanon would be met with an "appropriate" response.&nbsp;Israel "must clearly understand that its attacks, violations and attempts to impose a fait accompli cannot continue, and will be met with an appropriate response", said the Iran-backed group.&nbsp;It also urged the Lebanese authorities to halt "humiliating" negotiations with Israel.&nbsp;Lebanese authorities "must not insist on continuing along the humiliating path of direct negotiations and providing the enemy with free concessions", said Hezbollah in a statement. &nbsp;

The Lebanese Prime Minister Nawaf Salam condemned the attacks and said that Israel must halt this escalation.

At least 11 people, including three children and two women were killed in Israeli strikes in southern Lebanon on Saturday (Aug 15). This is one of the deadliest days of attacks since an agreement was reached in June with the motive of reducing hostilities. Later on Saturday, another round of strikes hit the town of Deir al-Zahrani, north of Nabatieh, killing four and wounding five others, according to Lebanon’s Health Ministry and state news media. The IDF confirmed the airstrikes in southern Lebanon overnight, saying it struck Hezbollah infrastructure in response to an attack by the terror group on Israeli troops. However, there is no statement on Deir al-Zahrani strike. The Lebanon's Prime Minister Nawaf Salam condemned the attacks saying the civilians killed were not "military infrastructure". ALSO READ: 'Accept the reality': Iran rejects Trump's Hormuz claim, says waterway will remain under its command “The seven martyrs of the Israeli airstrike on the town of Ansar are not military infrastructure and the children and women killed were not military targets,” Salam wrote on X. He further said that “Israel must halt this escalation,” and added that the security of the Lebanese people and their right to life on their land “are not subject to negotiation or bargaining.” Will get "appropriate" response Meanwhile, Hezbollah said that Israeli attacks on Lebanon would be met with an "appropriate" response. Israel "must clearly understand that its attacks, violations and attempts to impose a fait accompli cannot continue, and will be met with an appropriate response", said the Iran-backed group. It also urged the Lebanese authorities to halt "humiliating" negotiations with Israel. Lebanese authorities "must not insist on continuing along the humiliating path of direct negotiations and providing the enemy with free concessions", said Hezbollah in a statement.

The Lebanese Prime Minister Nawaf Salam condemned the attacks and said that “Israel must halt this escalation".

Not 'military infrastructure': Lebanese PM slams Israeli strike killing 11,  including children

The Trump administration has told Apple that it does not want the company to buy memory chips from Chinese manufacturers, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said, according to The Wall Street Journal.&nbsp;Lutnick said the administration had clearly conveyed its position to Apple and wants the company to explore alternatives.&nbsp;“The Trump administration is not in favour of that,” Lutnick said, according to the WSJ. He added that there have to be “other solutions to the memory issue, but it’s not great American companies using Chinese memory.”&nbsp;Apple has been testing memory chips made by Chinese companies CXMT and Yangtze Memory Technologies, people familiar with the matter told the WSJ. The company could potentially use the chips in devices sold in China.<h2>Apple weighs options amid chip shortage</h2>US rules require American companies to obtain a licence before sharing product information with CXMT and YMTC. The Chinese companies would need such information to make customised chips for Apple.&nbsp;However, Apple can buy ready-made chips from the companies and negotiate prices with them, according to the WSJ.&nbsp;Apple Chief Operating Officer Sabih Khan declined to confirm whether the company was testing Chinese memory chips. He said the supply shortage meant “we have to look at all options,” including working with existing suppliers to increase US production.&nbsp;Khan also said there “isn’t a lot of customisation” involved in memory chips, suggesting Apple could use standard Chinese memory components.<h2>Trump pushes Apple to expand US manufacturing</h2>The issue has added to tensions between Apple and the Trump administration, even as both sides promote cooperation on expanding manufacturing in the US.&nbsp;Apple has taken steps to increase domestic production while seeking tariff relief from President Donald Trump. However, most of its supply chain remains in Asia.&nbsp;“Reshoring semiconductor manufacturing is a top priority for President Trump, whose policies have already secured hundreds of billions of dollars of investments in this key sector,” White House spokesman Kush Desai said.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/accept-the-reality-iran-rejects-trump-s-hormuz-claim-says-waterway-will-remain-under-its-command-1786796468224">'Accept the reality': Iran rejects Trump's Hormuz claim, says waterway will remain under its command</a><h2>Apple faces pressure to bring supply chains home</h2>The administration has used the threat of higher tariffs to encourage companies to move supply chains to the US. Apple has promised major domestic investments but has provided limited details on how much will go towards new manufacturing.&nbsp;The administration has secured a deal for Intel to make some Apple chips and an Apple commitment to produce all iPhone and Apple Watch cover glass in the US.&nbsp;“Relentlessly, more and more and more,” Lutnick said about the pressure on Apple.&nbsp;“They’ve built their supply chains on low-cost labour. And now they need to build a supply chain on advanced manufacturing. Can Apple do it? Of course they can.”&nbsp;“You’re going to see step by step, and piece by piece, they’re going to bring significant portions of their business home,” Lutnick said.&nbsp;Apple is also working with contract manufacturers to build new iPhone assembly plants in India.

The Trump administration is pressuring Apple to avoid buying Chinese memory chips from CXMT and YMTC, urging the company to seek alternative suppliers and expand its US manufacturing.

The Trump administration has told Apple that it does not want the company to buy memory chips from Chinese manufacturers, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said, according to The Wall Street Journal. Lutnick said the administration had clearly conveyed its position to Apple and wants the company to explore alternatives. “The Trump administration is not in favour of that,” Lutnick said, according to the WSJ. He added that there have to be “other solutions to the memory issue, but it’s not great American companies using Chinese memory.” Apple has been testing memory chips made by Chinese companies CXMT and Yangtze Memory Technologies, people familiar with the matter told the WSJ. The company could potentially use the chips in devices sold in China. Apple weighs options amid chip shortage US rules require American companies to obtain a licence before sharing product information with CXMT and YMTC. The Chinese companies would need such information to make customised chips for Apple. However, Apple can buy ready-made chips from the companies and negotiate prices with them, according to the WSJ. Apple Chief Operating Officer Sabih Khan declined to confirm whether the company was testing Chinese memory chips. He said the supply shortage meant “we have to look at all options,” including working with existing suppliers to increase US production. Khan also said there “isn’t a lot of customisation” involved in memory chips, suggesting Apple could use standard Chinese memory components. Trump pushes Apple to expand US manufacturing The issue has added to tensions between Apple and the Trump administration, even as both sides promote cooperation on expanding manufacturing in the US. Apple has taken steps to increase domestic production while seeking tariff relief from President Donald Trump. However, most of its supply chain remains in Asia. “Reshoring semiconductor manufacturing is a top priority for President Trump, whose policies have already secured hundreds of billions of dollars of investments in this key sector,” White House spokesman Kush Desai said. Also Read: 'Accept the reality': Iran rejects Trump's Hormuz claim, says waterway will remain under its command Apple faces pressure to bring supply chains home The administration has used the threat of higher tariffs to encourage companies to move supply chains to the US. Apple has promised major domestic investments but has provided limited details on how much will go towards new manufacturing. The administration has secured a deal for Intel to make some Apple chips and an Apple commitment to produce all iPhone and Apple Watch cover glass in the US. “Relentlessly, more and more and more,” Lutnick said about the pressure on Apple. “They’ve built their supply chains on low-cost labour. And now they need to build a supply chain on advanced manufacturing. Can Apple do it? Of course they can.” “You’re going to see step by step, and piece by piece, they’re going to bring significant portions of their business home,” Lutnick said. Apple is also working with contract manufacturers to build new iPhone assembly plants in India.

The Trump administration is pressuring Apple to avoid buying Chinese memory chips from CXMT and YMTC, urging the company to seek alternative suppliers and expand its US manufacturing.

Trump team urges Apple to avoid Chinese memory chips amid trade tensions: Report

When Cambridge University appointed Jason Arday to one of the world’s most prestigious sociology positions in 2023, he was an early-career academic who did not appear to meet several of the university’s own stated requirements.Cambridge’s job description, reviewed by The New York Times, sought a candidate with ‘an outstanding research record of international stature’ and a ‘proven successful track record’ of supervising Ph.D. students. Arday had a relatively modest publication record and had moved between universities without remaining long enough to supervise a doctorate lasting three years or more.&nbsp;Despite those shortcomings, Cambridge hired him at age 37, making him the university’s youngest Black professor. His appointment came as the institution faced growing pressure to improve racial diversity among its faculty. The decision placed Arday at the center of international attention. His personal story and advocacy for greater diversity in academia made him a prominent figure, while later questions about his academic work and biography made him a target of intense criticism.&nbsp;Arday was found dead in London on Friday, days after resigning from Cambridge amid allegations of plagiarism and questions about claims in his recently published memoir and accounts of his childhood and achievements. The circumstances surrounding the allegations quickly became entangled with wider debates over race, neurodiversity, academic standards and diversity initiatives. In his Aug. 5 resignation letter, Arday wrote, “I no longer wish to feel as though I am living under a constant spotlight, where every aspect of my life is subject to public examination and judgment.” He added, “This is not the end of my work. It is simply the end of this chapter.”&nbsp;His family said Arday had faced sustained scrutiny since joining Cambridge and believed the campaign against him was intended to undermine his career. They said the pressure ultimately became overwhelming. His death, however, is unlikely to end questions surrounding his career. The controversy has also placed Cambridge’s hiring process under scrutiny, particularly because the university chose Arday over several more experienced candidates.<h2>Questions surrounding Arday’s background</h2>Arday, the son of Ghanaian immigrants, grew up in a working-class area of South London. He had been identified as having learning difficulties at an early age. A major part of his public story involved his claims about autism and significant developmental delays. Arday said he had been diagnosed with autism and had spent his childhood in special-needs education. He also said he did not speak until he was 11 and did not learn to read until he was 18.&nbsp;His memoir, however, presented an account that differed in important respects from earlier descriptions. People who knew him as a child told The New York Times that he had attended mainstream education and had spoken with others during his childhood. A speech professional who worked closely with Arday when he was young recalled that he had experienced language delays but communicated with children and adults. Former schoolmate Jonathan Stewart also recalled Arday joking and using playful accents while travelling with other children to church activities.&nbsp;<h2>Cambridge’s decision to hire Arday</h2>An established chair at Cambridge is one of the most coveted positions in academia, offering substantial prestige, institutional support and long-term funding. Arday applied for an established chair in education. Cambridge conducted an international search and assembled a nine-member panel to assess candidates. Four finalists were selected and invited to Cambridge for two days of interviews. According to a person familiar with the hiring process, Arday competed against three more senior academics, including two women of colour.&nbsp;Questions have since been raised about the material Cambridge considered during the selection process. Arday’s published work and doctoral thesis reportedly contained grammatical errors, while some passages contained identical quotations attributed to different individuals. The finalists were apparently asked to submit a single research paper for consideration. It remains unclear which work Arday submitted or how extensively the panel reviewed his public speeches and interviews.&nbsp;Had the committee examined some of his public claims, critics argue, it might have encountered statements that appeared difficult to verify, including his account of running 30 marathons in 35 days for charity and his claim to have appeared on the British television program “Seven Up.” His spokesman later said the television claim should not have been interpreted literally. Several members of the hiring committee had expertise relevant to learning disabilities, autism and inclusive education.&nbsp;The university nevertheless hired Arday. Hilary Cremin, then chair of Cambridge’s education department, described the decision as unanimous. Cambridge’s announcement emphasized Arday’s research and personal history, helping generate significant media attention in Britain and internationally. At the time, Cambridge had relatively few Black professors and was facing pressure from students and faculty to increase diversity. The university had also established targets aimed at increasing applications from people of color for academic positions.<h2>Early concerns about his research</h2>Questions about Arday’s academic work emerged only months after his appointment. Three months after he joined Cambridge, British scholars Martyn Hammersley and David Harris privately contacted the university about possible plagiarism in one of his papers. Cremin responded that she had spoken with Arday and that he had agreed to address concerns about the paper. According to an email later reported publicly, she also referred to his “ongoing experiences of direct and indirect racism” and ‘significant health issues’ that had affected his work.&nbsp;Harris subsequently suggested that Cambridge examine Arday’s other publications and doctoral thesis as well. “Prof Arday badly needs critical friends, in my view, not sycophants,” he wrote. He said he received no response. Additional concerns emerged when journals later published corrections to two of Arday’s papers.&nbsp;Then, in September 2025, Times Higher Education sent Cambridge a dossier of more than 60 pages outlining alleged plagiarism in Arday’s academic work. Reporter Jack Grove had asked experts to examine Arday’s doctoral thesis. One reviewer, David Sanders of Purdue University, said he knew little about Arday before conducting the assessment but subsequently described the thesis as ‘extensively plagiarized’. Cambridge did not accept responsibility for investigating the thesis, saying questions concerning the doctorate should be addressed to Liverpool John Moores University, which had awarded the degree. The university also said research concerns should be handled through the appropriate channels. Liverpool John Moores University stood by the doctorate.<h2>A publication was threatened with legal action</h2>As Times Higher Education prepared to publish its investigation, supporters of Arday drafted a letter warning against what they described as attempts to erase Black scholarship. “The integrity of higher education is at risk if we do not take a stand and speak out against the systematic attempts to erase Black scholarship,” they wrote.&nbsp;The article was ultimately not published after Arday’s lawyers threatened legal action. Grove said Arday also filed a police complaint against him, resulting in a harassment investigation that was eventually dropped. The episode became part of a broader dispute over whether criticism of Arday’s work reflected legitimate academic scrutiny or a racially motivated campaign against a Black scholar.<h2>The controversy becomes public</h2>The plagiarism allegations became widely known last month after former Cambridge academic Nathan Cofnas wrote about them in his newsletter. Cofnas, whose work has included controversial claims about racial differences in intelligence, had been cut off from Cambridge in 2024. Retraction Watch subsequently reported additional details about the allegations. Cambridge initially defended Arday, describing him as “the victim of a vile campaign to undermine his credibility, which must stop.”&nbsp;The university’s position changed after further questions were raised about Arday’s personal history and academic record. He eventually resigned. His resignation has intensified debate over whether Cambridge should have investigated the allegations much earlier and whether its commitment to increasing diversity affected its judgment during the hiring process.<h2>What Cambridge must now answer</h2>The controversy has raised questions that extend beyond Arday himself. Why did Cambridge select a relatively inexperienced candidate for an elite professorship despite requirements emphasizing international research stature and doctoral supervision experience? Why were early allegations about plagiarism not investigated more extensively?&nbsp;Did members of the hiring committee review Arday’s public claims about his childhood, education and achievements?And did the university’s desire to improve racial diversity influence its evaluation of his candidacy? Arday had become an unusually prominent symbol of academic diversity. His story of overcoming developmental difficulties to become a professor had been repeatedly highlighted by Cambridge and the media. That story now faces serious questions.&nbsp;Experts have also warned that some of the claims surrounding his childhood could have consequences beyond the university. Camarata said families of children with severe autism had contacted him over the years hoping that Arday’s story represented a possible future for their own children.&nbsp;The independent investigation into Cambridge’s handling of Arday’s appointment and the subsequent allegations is therefore likely to be closely watched. His death has made an already difficult examination of academic hiring, institutional accountability, race and research integrity even more complicated.

Cambridge faces scrutiny over Jason Arday’s appointment after plagiarism allegations, disputed memoir claims and questions about academic hiring and diversity

When Cambridge University appointed Jason Arday to one of the world’s most prestigious sociology positions in 2023, he was an early-career academic who did not appear to meet several of the university’s own stated requirements. Cambridge’s job description, reviewed by The New York Times, sought a candidate with ‘an outstanding research record of international stature’ and a ‘proven successful track record’ of supervising Ph.D. students. Arday had a relatively modest publication record and had moved between universities without remaining long enough to supervise a doctorate lasting three years or more. Despite those shortcomings, Cambridge hired him at age 37, making him the university’s youngest Black professor. His appointment came as the institution faced growing pressure to improve racial diversity among its faculty. The decision placed Arday at the center of international attention. His personal story and advocacy for greater diversity in academia made him a prominent figure, while later questions about his academic work and biography made him a target of intense criticism. Arday was found dead in London on Friday, days after resigning from Cambridge amid allegations of plagiarism and questions about claims in his recently published memoir and accounts of his childhood and achievements. The circumstances surrounding the allegations quickly became entangled with wider debates over race, neurodiversity, academic standards and diversity initiatives. In his Aug. 5 resignation letter, Arday wrote, “I no longer wish to feel as though I am living under a constant spotlight, where every aspect of my life is subject to public examination and judgment.” He added, “This is not the end of my work. It is simply the end of this chapter.” His family said Arday had faced sustained scrutiny since joining Cambridge and believed the campaign against him was intended to undermine his career. They said the pressure ultimately became overwhelming. His death, however, is unlikely to end questions surrounding his career. The controversy has also placed Cambridge’s hiring process under scrutiny, particularly because the university chose Arday over several more experienced candidates. Questions surrounding Arday’s background Arday, the son of Ghanaian immigrants, grew up in a working-class area of South London. He had been identified as having learning difficulties at an early age. A major part of his public story involved his claims about autism and significant developmental delays. Arday said he had been diagnosed with autism and had spent his childhood in special-needs education. He also said he did not speak until he was 11 and did not learn to read until he was 18. His memoir, however, presented an account that differed in important respects from earlier descriptions. People who knew him as a child told The New York Times that he had attended mainstream education and had spoken with others during his childhood. A speech professional who worked closely with Arday when he was young recalled that he had experienced language delays but communicated with children and adults. Former schoolmate Jonathan Stewart also recalled Arday joking and using playful accents while travelling with other children to church activities. Cambridge’s decision to hire Arday An established chair at Cambridge is one of the most coveted positions in academia, offering substantial prestige, institutional support and long-term funding. Arday applied for an established chair in education. Cambridge conducted an international search and assembled a nine-member panel to assess candidates. Four finalists were selected and invited to Cambridge for two days of interviews. According to a person familiar with the hiring process, Arday competed against three more senior academics, including two women of colour. Questions have since been raised about the material Cambridge considered during the selection process. Arday’s published work and doctoral thesis reportedly contained grammatical errors, while some passages contained identical quotations attributed to different individuals. The finalists were apparently asked to submit a single research paper for consideration. It remains unclear which work Arday submitted or how extensively the panel reviewed his public speeches and interviews. Had the committee examined some of his public claims, critics argue, it might have encountered statements that appeared difficult to verify, including his account of running 30 marathons in 35 days for charity and his claim to have appeared on the British television program “Seven Up.” His spokesman later said the television claim should not have been interpreted literally. Several members of the hiring committee had expertise relevant to learning disabilities, autism and inclusive education. The university nevertheless hired Arday. Hilary Cremin, then chair of Cambridge’s education department, described the decision as unanimous. Cambridge’s announcement emphasized Arday’s research and personal history, helping generate significant media attention in Britain and internationally. At the time, Cambridge had relatively few Black professors and was facing pressure from students and faculty to increase diversity. The university had also established targets aimed at increasing applications from people of color for academic positions. Early concerns about his research Questions about Arday’s academic work emerged only months after his appointment. Three months after he joined Cambridge, British scholars Martyn Hammersley and David Harris privately contacted the university about possible plagiarism in one of his papers. Cremin responded that she had spoken with Arday and that he had agreed to address concerns about the paper. According to an email later reported publicly, she also referred to his “ongoing experiences of direct and indirect racism” and ‘significant health issues’ that had affected his work. Harris subsequently suggested that Cambridge examine Arday’s other publications and doctoral thesis as well. “Prof Arday badly needs critical friends, in my view, not sycophants,” he wrote. He said he received no response. Additional concerns emerged when journals later published corrections to two of Arday’s papers. Then, in September 2025, Times Higher Education sent Cambridge a dossier of more than 60 pages outlining alleged plagiarism in Arday’s academic work. Reporter Jack Grove had asked experts to examine Arday’s doctoral thesis. One reviewer, David Sanders of Purdue University, said he knew little about Arday before conducting the assessment but subsequently described the thesis as ‘extensively plagiarized’. Cambridge did not accept responsibility for investigating the thesis, saying questions concerning the doctorate should be addressed to Liverpool John Moores University, which had awarded the degree. The university also said research concerns should be handled through the appropriate channels. Liverpool John Moores University stood by the doctorate. A publication was threatened with legal action As Times Higher Education prepared to publish its investigation, supporters of Arday drafted a letter warning against what they described as attempts to erase Black scholarship. “The integrity of higher education is at risk if we do not take a stand and speak out against the systematic attempts to erase Black scholarship,” they wrote. The article was ultimately not published after Arday’s lawyers threatened legal action. Grove said Arday also filed a police complaint against him, resulting in a harassment investigation that was eventually dropped. The episode became part of a broader dispute over whether criticism of Arday’s work reflected legitimate academic scrutiny or a racially motivated campaign against a Black scholar. The controversy becomes public The plagiarism allegations became widely known last month after former Cambridge academic Nathan Cofnas wrote about them in his newsletter. Cofnas, whose work has included controversial claims about racial differences in intelligence, had been cut off from Cambridge in 2024. Retraction Watch subsequently reported additional details about the allegations. Cambridge initially defended Arday, describing him as “the victim of a vile campaign to undermine his credibility, which must stop.” The university’s position changed after further questions were raised about Arday’s personal history and academic record. He eventually resigned. His resignation has intensified debate over whether Cambridge should have investigated the allegations much earlier and whether its commitment to increasing diversity affected its judgment during the hiring process. What Cambridge must now answer The controversy has raised questions that extend beyond Arday himself. Why did Cambridge select a relatively inexperienced candidate for an elite professorship despite requirements emphasizing international research stature and doctoral supervision experience? Why were early allegations about plagiarism not investigated more extensively? Did members of the hiring committee review Arday’s public claims about his childhood, education and achievements? And did the university’s desire to improve racial diversity influence its evaluation of his candidacy? Arday had become an unusually prominent symbol of academic diversity. His story of overcoming developmental difficulties to become a professor had been repeatedly highlighted by Cambridge and the media. That story now faces serious questions. Experts have also warned that some of the claims surrounding his childhood could have consequences beyond the university. Camarata said families of children with severe autism had contacted him over the years hoping that Arday’s story represented a possible future for their own children. The independent investigation into Cambridge’s handling of Arday’s appointment and the subsequent allegations is therefore likely to be closely watched. His death has made an already difficult examination of academic hiring, institutional accountability, race and research integrity even more complicated.

Cambridge faces scrutiny over Jason Arday’s hiring after plagiarism allegations and disputed biographical claims emerged before his death

Jason Arday's death puts Cambridge’s hiring and diversity policies under scrutiny

Iran on Saturday rejected US President Donald Trump's claim that he would soon declare the Strait of Hormuz part of US territory, insisting that the strategic waterway will remain under Iranian control.&nbsp;Trump has repeatedly claimed that the strait, which Tehran effectively closed after the Middle East war began in late February, is under US control. Iran has rejected the claim.&nbsp;"The Strait of Hormuz has been Iranian, is Iranian, and will remain Iranian," Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi said on X.&nbsp;"This strait will only be closed and opened under Iran's command."&nbsp;Gharibabadi also took a swipe at Trump, saying, “The Strait of Hormuz cannot be seized by tweet, nor by aircraft carrier, nor by issuing an order, nor by an election speech. Iran neither fears threats nor cowers before displays of power.”&nbsp;

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">ترامپ گفته بعد از شکست ایران، بزودی تنگه هرمز را قلمرو آمریکا اعلام خواهد کرد! تنگه هرمز را نه با توییت می‌توان تصاحب کرد و نه با ناو هواپیمابر، نه با صدور فرمان و نه با سخنرانی انتخاباتی. ایران نه از تهدید می هراسد و نه با نمایش قدرت مرعوب می‌شود. (۱)&mdash; Gharibabadi (@Gharibabadi) <a href="https://x.com/Gharibabadi/status/2088369143183729089?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 14, 2026</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.x.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Trump made the remarks at a political rally in New York State on Friday. He said that after the US defeats Iran, "pretty soon I'll be declaring the Hormuz Strait a territory of the United States"."It's true," he added.&nbsp;However, the Wall Street Journal, citing an unnamed White House official, reported that Trump was joking.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/five-years-of-taliban-rule-how-afghanistan-has-changed-since-the-fall-of-kabul-1786790282607">Five years of Taliban rule: How Afghanistan has changed since the fall of Kabul</a><h2>Iran sets conditions for reopening the waterway</h2>Iran has also laid out several conditions for reopening the Strait of Hormuz. Last week, a senior Iranian official demanded an end to the "war and aggression against Iran and its allies in Lebanon, Palestine, Yemen, and Iraq".&nbsp;Mohammad Bagher Zolghadr also called for an end to sanctions, the release of frozen assets and compensation for damage caused during the war.&nbsp;Meanwhile, United Arab Emirates state-owned oil giant ADNOC said Saturday that one of its vessels came under attack the previous night. The Gulf nation had on Friday blamed Iran for attacks on two other vessels linked to ADNOC as they travelled through the strait.<h2>Hormuz disruption hits global oil supplies</h2>Before the United States and Israel launched an attack on Iran on February 28, triggering the war, the Strait of Hormuz handled nearly one-fifth of global oil shipments.&nbsp;The disruption sharply reduced oil shipments through the waterway, pushing oil prices higher and increasing pressure on Washington. Iran now wants greater control over the strait and plans to charge tolls, powers it did not exercise before the war. The United States would strongly oppose such a move.&nbsp;Continued volatility and high oil prices have also weighed on the prospects of Trump's Republican Party ahead of the midterm elections scheduled for November.&nbsp;US Vice President JD Vance said this week that Washington's main priority in the Iran war was keeping energy prices low for Americans. He ranked preventing Tehran from acquiring a nuclear weapon as the second priority.&nbsp;Tehran also signalled last week that it had reached an agreement with Oman on a route for ships to transit the strait. The two sides were finalising arrangements to jointly manage the waterway.

US Vice President JD Vance said Washington's top priority in the Iran war was keeping energy prices low for Americans, while preventing Tehran from acquiring a nuclear weapon ranked second.

Iran on Saturday rejected US President Donald Trump's claim that he would soon declare the Strait of Hormuz part of US territory, insisting that the strategic waterway will remain under Iranian control. Trump has repeatedly claimed that the strait, which Tehran effectively closed after the Middle East war began in late February, is under US control. Iran has rejected the claim. "The Strait of Hormuz has been Iranian, is Iranian, and will remain Iranian," Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi said on X. "This strait will only be closed and opened under Iran's command." Gharibabadi also took a swipe at Trump, saying, “The Strait of Hormuz cannot be seized by tweet, nor by aircraft carrier, nor by issuing an order, nor by an election speech. Iran neither fears threats nor cowers before displays of power.”

US Vice President JD Vance said Washington's top priority in the Iran war was keeping energy prices low for Americans, while preventing Tehran from acquiring a nuclear weapon ranked second.

'Accept the reality': Iran rejects Trump's Hormuz claim, says waterway will remain under its command

A shooting at Virginia State University early Saturday left 5 people injured , according to the university and VSU Police. The campus was immediately put under lockdown but it has now been lifted.&nbsp;The shooting occurred at around 1:30 a.m near the Quad Annexes.&nbsp;"A shooting occurred in the area of the Quad Annexes involving multiple victims, who were transported to area hospitals," VSU Police wrote in a statement posted to X.&nbsp;"Police are on scene and request that you avoid the area. Campus remains on lockdown. Updates to follow," the statement added.&nbsp;The area has been cordoned off and investigation is underway. Authorities have not announced any arrests or identified a suspect yet.&nbsp;However, it said that the shooting involved multiple suspects.&nbsp;The university’s lockdown was later lifted at around 8 am local time after authorities determined it was safe to do so.&nbsp;Virginia State University is a historically Black university located about 24 miles south of Richmond, the state capital.

The campus is currently under lockdown and there are no reports of any fatalities.

A shooting at Virginia State University early Saturday left 5 people injured , according to the university and VSU Police. The campus was immediately put under lockdown but it has now been lifted. The shooting occurred at around 1:30 a.m near the Quad Annexes. "A shooting occurred in the area of the Quad Annexes involving multiple victims, who were transported to area hospitals," VSU Police wrote in a statement posted to X. "Police are on scene and request that you avoid the area. Campus remains on lockdown. Updates to follow," the statement added. The area has been cordoned off and investigation is underway. Authorities have not announced any arrests or identified a suspect yet. However, it said that the shooting involved multiple suspects. The university’s lockdown was later lifted at around 8 am local time after authorities determined it was safe to do so. Virginia State University is a historically Black university located about 24 miles south of Richmond, the state capital.

The university’s lockdown was later lifted at around 8 am local time after authorities determined it was safe to do so.&nbsp;

Shooting at Virginia State University, 5 injured; campus lockdown lifted

A 6.9-magnitude earthquake struck western Sumatra late on Saturday, according to the US Geological Survey, marking the second major tremor to hit Indonesia within a single day. The epicentre was located near Pematangsiantar, around 126 kilometres (78 miles) southeast of Medan, the capital of North Sumatra. The earthquake struck at a depth of 183 kilometres. No tsunami warning was issued following the tremor.&nbsp;Meanwhile, rescue teams were searching through collapsed and damaged structures on Flores Island after a powerful earthquake struck off the island earlier Saturday, killing at least 38 people, according to disaster officials. Suharyanto, head of Indonesia's national disaster mitigation agency, said 13 people were injured, including two who suffered serious injuries. "Victims are trapped in several buildings," said Suharyanto, who like many Indonesians uses one name.&nbsp;"These will be the initial targets of the disaster response teams," he told a news conference, adding that two helicopters and a plane were being prepared to support rescue and relief operations. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen also offered assistance through the European Union's Copernicus Earth observation satellite programme."Europe stands ready to deploy Copernicus, our eyes in the sky, to support search and rescue efforts. Indonesia, we stand with you," she wrote on X.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/five-years-of-taliban-rule-how-afghanistan-has-changed-since-the-fall-of-kabul-1786790282607">Five years of Taliban rule: How Afghanistan has changed since the fall of Kabul</a><h2>7.7 magnitude earthquake hits Flores</h2>The earlier earthquake, which struck off Flores in eastern Indonesia, was reported at magnitude 7.7 and caused damage to dozens of homes and other buildings across the popular tourist island.Suharyanto said approximately 2,000 people had evacuated their homes following the earthquake. In Nagekeo, an area close to the epicentre, residents rushed to higher ground after witnesses reported that the sea had retreated early Saturday, a phenomenon that can be a warning sign of a possible tsunami.&nbsp;Although the tsunami warning was later lifted, authorities urged residents to stay away from damaged buildings because powerful aftershocks could cause further collapses. Hundreds of people remained outdoors by lunchtime as dozens of aftershocks continued to shake the island. The strongest aftershock was measured at magnitude 6.1.

Indonesia earthquakes: A 6.9-magnitude quake struck Sumatra as rescue teams searched for survivors after a deadly 7.7-magnitude Flores earthquake

A 6.9-magnitude earthquake struck western Sumatra late on Saturday, according to the US Geological Survey, marking the second major tremor to hit Indonesia within a single day. The epicentre was located near Pematangsiantar, around 126 kilometres (78 miles) southeast of Medan, the capital of North Sumatra. The earthquake struck at a depth of 183 kilometres. No tsunami warning was issued following the tremor. Meanwhile, rescue teams were searching through collapsed and damaged structures on Flores Island after a powerful earthquake struck off the island earlier Saturday, killing at least 38 people, according to disaster officials. Suharyanto, head of Indonesia's national disaster mitigation agency, said 13 people were injured, including two who suffered serious injuries. "Victims are trapped in several buildings," said Suharyanto, who like many Indonesians uses one name. "These will be the initial targets of the disaster response teams," he told a news conference, adding that two helicopters and a plane were being prepared to support rescue and relief operations. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen also offered assistance through the European Union's Copernicus Earth observation satellite programme. "Europe stands ready to deploy Copernicus, our eyes in the sky, to support search and rescue efforts. Indonesia, we stand with you," she wrote on X. Also Read: Five years of Taliban rule: How Afghanistan has changed since the fall of Kabul 7.7 magnitude earthquake hits Flores The earlier earthquake, which struck off Flores in eastern Indonesia, was reported at magnitude 7.7 and caused damage to dozens of homes and other buildings across the popular tourist island.Suharyanto said approximately 2,000 people had evacuated their homes following the earthquake. In Nagekeo, an area close to the epicentre, residents rushed to higher ground after witnesses reported that the sea had retreated early Saturday, a phenomenon that can be a warning sign of a possible tsunami. Although the tsunami warning was later lifted, authorities urged residents to stay away from damaged buildings because powerful aftershocks could cause further collapses. Hundreds of people remained outdoors by lunchtime as dozens of aftershocks continued to shake the island. The strongest aftershock was measured at magnitude 6.1.

Indonesia was hit by a 6.9-magnitude Sumatra quake as Flores rescue teams searched for survivors after a deadly 7.7-magnitude earthquake

Indonesia hit by second earthquake of 6.9 magnitude as death toll reaches 38; rescue teams search Flores debris

Five years ago, on August 15, 2021, thousands of Afghans rushed to Hamid Karzai International Airport in Kabul, desperate to leave the country as Taliban fighters entered the capital virtually unopposed. The United States and its allies had spent two decades fighting the Taliban while supporting the Afghan government. But as coalition forces prepared to withdraw, that government collapsed within days. August 15, 2026, the day India celebrates its 80th Independence Day, marks five years since the fall of Kabul. The Taliban now commemorates the date as its ‘Victory Day’.<h2>August 15, 2021: The Taliban enter Kabul</h2>The Taliban's takeover triggered chaos across Kabul. Commercial flights were cancelled as thousands of people crowded into the airport in the hope of escaping. In one of the defining images of the evacuation, desperate Afghans clung to a US Air Force C-17 Globemaster transport aircraft as it moved along the runway. As the aircraft took off, at least two people were filmed falling from the sky.&nbsp;US forces temporarily halted operations to clear the runway. Washington had set August 31, 2021, as the deadline for completing the withdrawal, leaving the frantic evacuation effort to unfold over the following two weeks. Amid the chaos, Taliban spokesperson Suhail Shaheen told CNN that Afghans faced no risk to their property, to their lives or to their honour. He promised an inclusive Islamic government, amnesty for people who had worked with the United States or the former Afghan administration, and said women and girls would retain the rights they had gained over the previous two decades. Those assurances would soon be tested.<h2>Women increasingly shut out</h2>The Taliban's promises on women's rights did not last. Girls were barred from secondary education and women from universities. Restrictions subsequently expanded to employment, movement and access to public spaces. A UN Women report published ahead of the fifth anniversary counted more than 100 decrees targeting women and girls since the Taliban takeover. The impact has been profound. 7 in 10 women surveyed described their mental health as ‘bad’ or ‘very bad’. More than half said they now leave their homes only once or twice a month, while nearly three-quarters said they feel unsafe going outside without a male guardian. Only 7% of Afghan women are employed, compared with 84% of men.<h2>Emptying classrooms and a growing education crisis</h2>Afghanistan remains the only country in the world where girls and women are formally barred from secondary school and university. UNESCO has warned that the restrictions could eventually create a shortage of qualified female teachers, adding further pressure to an education system already struggling with overcrowded classrooms, inadequate facilities and high dropout rates. The consequences are also becoming an economic concern. Even Afghans broadly supportive of the Taliban administration have expressed concern about the loss of trained professionals.<h2>Press freedom under pressure</h2>Journalism has become one of the professions most affected by the Taliban's restrictions. The Committee to Protect Journalists ranks Afghanistan among the world's most dangerous and difficult environments for journalists working under Taliban rule. In 2024, authorities banned live political television broadcasts, criminalised criticism of Taliban leadership and required media organisations to select interview guests from an approved list of analysts.&nbsp;At the same time, the Taliban has expanded its own media network. By 2025, CPJ counted around 15 major television and radio stations, newspapers and digital outlets under Taliban control. Hundreds of Afghan journalists are believed to have fled the country since 2021.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-tariffs-lula-activates-brazil-s-reciprocity-law-while-stopping-short-of-immediate-countermeasures-1786785741547">Trump tariffs: Lula activates Brazil’s reciprocity law while stopping short of immediate countermeasures</a><h2>A harsher justice system</h2>Afghanistan's justice system has also undergone a major transformation under Taliban rule. Human Rights Watch, citing data from the UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan, found that courts ordered corporal punishment in at least 18 separate cases between August 2021 and November 2022. Most involved public lashings for offences described as 'moral crimes'.&nbsp;The policy followed an instruction from the Taliban's supreme leader directing judges to strictly enforce physical punishments when the required religious-legal conditions were met. In December 2022, 27 people were publicly whipped in front of a crowd at a stadium in Parwan province. Human Rights Watch has noted that corporal punishment also existed under previous Afghan governments. However, under the Taliban administration it has become openly and routinely enforced.<h2>The war ended, but Afghanistan is not at peace</h2>For some Afghans, the Taliban's return brought relief after decades of conflict. Human Rights Watch's 2025 report documented continued attacks by Islamic State Khorasan Province, including attacks targeting ethnic and religious minorities. The Taliban has also faced pressure from other militant groups and continuing tensions along Afghanistan's borders. Afghanistan's conflict has therefore changed rather than simply disappeared.&nbsp;&nbsp;The country has moved from a multi-sided war to a combination of militant attacks, political repression, border tensions and highly centralised Taliban rule. Meanwhile, hunger and displacement remain widespread. A World Bank assessment from May 2026 found that the economy was growing only modestly, while population growth and the return of roughly 3.7 million Afghans from neighbouring countries were putting additional pressure on resources. The Bank estimated that around 14 million people faced acute food insecurity by late 2025.<h2>Economic growth without broad prosperity</h2>Afghanistan's economy has not collapsed. In some areas, it has shown signs of recovery. The World Bank estimated real GDP growth at 4.8%, driven largely by domestic demand and returning migrants. Domestic revenue collection also increased to 19.8% of GDP in 2025. But headline growth has not translated into widespread prosperity. Income per person has declined, inflation has increased and Afghanistan remains heavily dependent on imports. The World Bank has identified power shortages, limited access to banking, a large informal cash economy and declining foreign aid as major barriers to sustainable economic development.<h2>The opium trade and the poppy ban</h2>Afghanistan supplied roughly 80% of the world's opium as of 2022, according to the UN Office on Drugs and Crime. The Taliban's April 2022 ban on poppy cultivation dramatically changed the sector. UNODC's 2023 survey recorded a 95% decline in cultivation, while the estimated value of the opium harvest fell from $1.36 billion in 2022 to $110 million in 2023. The decline, however, came with a significant cost for farmers who had depended on poppy cultivation for their livelihoods. Cereal cultivation expanded in some areas, while alternative development programmes encouraged farmers to move into crops and businesses including cauliflower, corn, poultry and orchards.&nbsp;In four major provinces, however, farmers were estimated to have lost around $1 billion in potential earnings. UNODC has warned that maintaining the poppy ban will depend on providing rural communities with reliable and sustainable alternatives.<h2>Afghanistan's diplomatic position</h2>Russia remains the only country to have formally recognised the Taliban administration, although Taliban deputy minister Molvi Hayatullah Mahajar Farahi has said the government is engaged with around 40 countries and believes it has met the conditions for recognition. India has also deepened its engagement with Kabul without formally recognising the Taliban government. Taliban foreign minister Amir Khan Muttaqi visited New Delhi in October 2025, the first visit to India by a senior Taliban administration official.&nbsp;Following the visit, India upgraded its technical mission in Kabul to a full embassy and allowed Taliban-appointed diplomats to serve in India. Taliban-appointed diplomats now head Afghan consulates in Mumbai and Hyderabad. Three other Taliban ministers, responsible for industry, health and agriculture, have also visited India.&nbsp;New Delhi has allocated ₹150 crore for Afghanistan in the current year's budget. The Afghan embassy in New Delhi is also scheduled to host its first ‘Victory Day’ reception in India on August 17, with Indian government representatives expected to attend. China and the UAE have separately accepted Taliban-appointed ambassadors without formally recognising the Taliban government.<h2>Five years on</h2>Five years after the fall of Kabul, Afghanistan presents a complicated picture. The Taliban has consolidated control over the country and brought an end to the US-led war, while the economy has recorded modest growth and poppy cultivation has fallen sharply.&nbsp;At the same time, women and girls have been pushed out of education and much of public life, press freedoms have narrowed, corporal punishment has returned as a routine feature of the justice system, and millions continue to face food insecurity and displacement. The United Nations has repeatedly said that durable stability will depend on the Taliban lifting restrictions on women and girls, protecting fundamental rights and addressing concerns over terrorism.Five years after the dramatic collapse of the previous Afghan government, those demands remain largely unresolved.

Afghanistan marks five years since the Taliban seized Kabul on August 15, 2021. Explore women's rights, education, economy, security and diplomacy

Five years ago, on August 15, 2021, thousands of Afghans rushed to Hamid Karzai International Airport in Kabul, desperate to leave the country as Taliban fighters entered the capital virtually unopposed. The United States and its allies had spent two decades fighting the Taliban while supporting the Afghan government. But as coalition forces prepared to withdraw, that government collapsed within days. August 15, 2026, the day India celebrates its 80th Independence Day, marks five years since the fall of Kabul. The Taliban now commemorates the date as its ‘Victory Day’. August 15, 2021: The Taliban enter Kabul The Taliban's takeover triggered chaos across Kabul. Commercial flights were cancelled as thousands of people crowded into the airport in the hope of escaping. In one of the defining images of the evacuation, desperate Afghans clung to a US Air Force C-17 Globemaster transport aircraft as it moved along the runway. As the aircraft took off, at least two people were filmed falling from the sky. US forces temporarily halted operations to clear the runway. Washington had set August 31, 2021, as the deadline for completing the withdrawal, leaving the frantic evacuation effort to unfold over the following two weeks. Amid the chaos, Taliban spokesperson Suhail Shaheen told CNN that Afghans faced no risk to their property, to their lives or to their honour. He promised an inclusive Islamic government, amnesty for people who had worked with the United States or the former Afghan administration, and said women and girls would retain the rights they had gained over the previous two decades. Those assurances would soon be tested. Women increasingly shut out The Taliban's promises on women's rights did not last. Girls were barred from secondary education and women from universities. Restrictions subsequently expanded to employment, movement and access to public spaces. A UN Women report published ahead of the fifth anniversary counted more than 100 decrees targeting women and girls since the Taliban takeover. The impact has been profound. 7 in 10 women surveyed described their mental health as ‘bad’ or ‘very bad’. More than half said they now leave their homes only once or twice a month, while nearly three-quarters said they feel unsafe going outside without a male guardian. Only 7% of Afghan women are employed, compared with 84% of men. Emptying classrooms and a growing education crisis Afghanistan remains the only country in the world where girls and women are formally barred from secondary school and university. UNESCO has warned that the restrictions could eventually create a shortage of qualified female teachers, adding further pressure to an education system already struggling with overcrowded classrooms, inadequate facilities and high dropout rates. The consequences are also becoming an economic concern. Even Afghans broadly supportive of the Taliban administration have expressed concern about the loss of trained professionals. Press freedom under pressure Journalism has become one of the professions most affected by the Taliban's restrictions. The Committee to Protect Journalists ranks Afghanistan among the world's most dangerous and difficult environments for journalists working under Taliban rule. In 2024, authorities banned live political television broadcasts, criminalised criticism of Taliban leadership and required media organisations to select interview guests from an approved list of analysts. At the same time, the Taliban has expanded its own media network. By 2025, CPJ counted around 15 major television and radio stations, newspapers and digital outlets under Taliban control. Hundreds of Afghan journalists are believed to have fled the country since 2021. Also Read: Trump tariffs: Lula activates Brazil’s reciprocity law while stopping short of immediate countermeasures A harsher justice system Afghanistan's justice system has also undergone a major transformation under Taliban rule. Human Rights Watch, citing data from the UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan, found that courts ordered corporal punishment in at least 18 separate cases between August 2021 and November 2022. Most involved public lashings for offences described as 'moral crimes'. The policy followed an instruction from the Taliban's supreme leader directing judges to strictly enforce physical punishments when the required religious-legal conditions were met. In December 2022, 27 people were publicly whipped in front of a crowd at a stadium in Parwan province. Human Rights Watch has noted that corporal punishment also existed under previous Afghan governments. However, under the Taliban administration it has become openly and routinely enforced. The war ended, but Afghanistan is not at peace For some Afghans, the Taliban's return brought relief after decades of conflict. Human Rights Watch's 2025 report documented continued attacks by Islamic State Khorasan Province, including attacks targeting ethnic and religious minorities. The Taliban has also faced pressure from other militant groups and continuing tensions along Afghanistan's borders. Afghanistan's conflict has therefore changed rather than simply disappeared. The country has moved from a multi-sided war to a combination of militant attacks, political repression, border tensions and highly centralised Taliban rule. Meanwhile, hunger and displacement remain widespread. A World Bank assessment from May 2026 found that the economy was growing only modestly, while population growth and the return of roughly 3.7 million Afghans from neighbouring countries were putting additional pressure on resources. The Bank estimated that around 14 million people faced acute food insecurity by late 2025. Economic growth without broad prosperity Afghanistan's economy has not collapsed. In some areas, it has shown signs of recovery. The World Bank estimated real GDP growth at 4.8%, driven largely by domestic demand and returning migrants. Domestic revenue collection also increased to 19.8% of GDP in 2025. But headline growth has not translated into widespread prosperity. Income per person has declined, inflation has increased and Afghanistan remains heavily dependent on imports. The World Bank has identified power shortages, limited access to banking, a large informal cash economy and declining foreign aid as major barriers to sustainable economic development. The opium trade and the poppy ban Afghanistan supplied roughly 80% of the world's opium as of 2022, according to the UN Office on Drugs and Crime. The Taliban's April 2022 ban on poppy cultivation dramatically changed the sector. UNODC's 2023 survey recorded a 95% decline in cultivation, while the estimated value of the opium harvest fell from $1.36 billion in 2022 to $110 million in 2023. The decline, however, came with a significant cost for farmers who had depended on poppy cultivation for their livelihoods. Cereal cultivation expanded in some areas, while alternative development programmes encouraged farmers to move into crops and businesses including cauliflower, corn, poultry and orchards. In four major provinces, however, farmers were estimated to have lost around $1 billion in potential earnings. UNODC has warned that maintaining the poppy ban will depend on providing rural communities with reliable and sustainable alternatives. Afghanistan's diplomatic position Russia remains the only country to have formally recognised the Taliban administration, although Taliban deputy minister Molvi Hayatullah Mahajar Farahi has said the government is engaged with around 40 countries and believes it has met the conditions for recognition. India has also deepened its engagement with Kabul without formally recognising the Taliban government. Taliban foreign minister Amir Khan Muttaqi visited New Delhi in October 2025, the first visit to India by a senior Taliban administration official. Following the visit, India upgraded its technical mission in Kabul to a full embassy and allowed Taliban-appointed diplomats to serve in India. Taliban-appointed diplomats now head Afghan consulates in Mumbai and Hyderabad. Three other Taliban ministers, responsible for industry, health and agriculture, have also visited India. New Delhi has allocated ₹150 crore for Afghanistan in the current year's budget. The Afghan embassy in New Delhi is also scheduled to host its first ‘Victory Day’ reception in India on August 17, with Indian government representatives expected to attend. China and the UAE have separately accepted Taliban-appointed ambassadors without formally recognising the Taliban government. Five years on Five years after the fall of Kabul, Afghanistan presents a complicated picture. The Taliban has consolidated control over the country and brought an end to the US-led war, while the economy has recorded modest growth and poppy cultivation has fallen sharply. At the same time, women and girls have been pushed out of education and much of public life, press freedoms have narrowed, corporal punishment has returned as a routine feature of the justice system, and millions continue to face food insecurity and displacement. The United Nations has repeatedly said that durable stability will depend on the Taliban lifting restrictions on women and girls, protecting fundamental rights and addressing concerns over terrorism. Five years after the dramatic collapse of the previous Afghan government, those demands remain largely unresolved.

Afghanistan marks five years of Taliban rule, with gains in security and economic growth offset by restrictions, poverty, repression and hunger

Five years of Taliban rule: How Afghanistan has changed since the fall of Kabul

Brazil has formally opened a process under its Economic Reciprocity Law in response to US President Donald Trump's tariffs on Brazilian goods. President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva said Brazil invoked the law to show that the country “respects itself” and will defend its interests. Brazil’s Foreign Ministry has notified Washington and requested diplomatic consultations. The process gives both sides time to negotiate measures that could reduce or eliminate the impact of the US tariffs.<h2>Trump tariffs: What could Brazil do?</h2>The reciprocity process does not automatically trigger matching tariffs. Brazilian authorities will first assess the impact on domestic industries and examine possible responses through the government’s foreign trade chamber, CAMEX. Public consultations form part of the process.Brazil’s Reciprocity Law allows proportional measures when foreign actions harm Brazilian competitiveness. Possible responses include tariffs on US goods, restrictions on services or imports, suspension of trade concessions and measures affecting intellectual property.Brazil has previously examined options involving US audiovisual companies and pharmaceutical patents.Officials are cautious about moving too quickly. Retaliatory measures could disrupt Brazilian supply chains, increase costs and add to domestic inflation.The government is therefore using the mechanism as both a potential defensive tool and negotiating leverage. Brazil also plans to challenge the US measures through the World Trade Organization and has offered support, including credit lines, to sectors hit by the tariffs.Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-administration-refunds-100-billion-in-tariffs-after-supreme-court-ruling-1785977857498">Trump administration refunds $100 billion in tariffs after Supreme Court ruling</a><h2>Lula open to direct talks with Trump</h2>Lula has warned Washington against interfering in Brazil’s domestic affairs and the October 2026 presidential election, while saying he is open to direct talks with Trump.Lula is seeking re-election against Senator Flávio Bolsonaro, the son of former president Jair Bolsonaro and a prominent Trump ally.<a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/lula-pushes-for-powerful-brazilian-military-ahead-of-election-visits-aerospace-facility-1784975206917/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/lula-pushes-for-powerful-brazilian-military-ahead-of-election-visits-aerospace-facility-1784975206917/embed</a><h2>Why did Trump impose the tariffs?</h2>The latest dispute escalated in July 2026, when the US imposed a 25 per cent tariff on many Brazilian products under Section 301 of the US Trade Act. The US Trade Representative cited what it called unreasonable or discriminatory Brazilian practices involving digital trade and electronic payments, including the PIX system, preferential tariffs, intellectual-property protection, ethanol market access, anti-corruption measures and illegal deforestation. The tariffs took effect around July 22.Major Brazilian exports have been exempted, including coffee, beef, oranges and orange juice, some energy products, fertiliser and aerospace products and aircraft parts.<h2>The 25 per cent measure affects roughly 18 per cent of Brazil’s exports to the US</h2>The tariffs could hit goods worth about $7.4 billion based on recent trade data. A separate 12.5 per cent tariff linked to alleged weak enforcement of forced-labour restrictions can apply to Brazilian products in some categories. Where the two measures overlap, duties can reach 37.5 per cent, affecting products such as certain sugar, apparel, paper and steel.Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/brazil-denies-visas-to-us-officials-amid-fears-of-meddling-in-upcoming-presidential-election-1785042280555">Brazil denies visas to US officials amid fears of meddling in upcoming presidential election</a><h2>US-Brazil trade dispute becomes a political fight</h2>Brazil has called the US tariffs “unjustified and arbitrary” and pointed to the US goods trade surplus with Brazil. It said many US products already enter Brazil duty-free, while Brazil maintains a relatively low average applied tariff on US imports.Trump had previously threatened or announced tariffs of up to 50 per cent on some Brazilian goods, with some measures linked to US concerns over legal proceedings involving Jair Bolsonaro.Brazil’s Reciprocity Law was enacted in 2025 partly in response to such unilateral trade actions. It permits proportional countermeasures when foreign policies damage Brazil’s competitiveness.Visa disputes involving Brazilian and US diplomats have added to tensions. The two nations also fought over ambassadorial appointments and diplomatic access.&nbsp;

Brazil has opened a reciprocity process against US tariffs as President Lula seeks negotiations with Trump. Brazil is assessing retaliation while tensions grow over trade and the 2026 Brazil presidential election.

Brazil has formally opened a process under its Economic Reciprocity Law in response to US President Donald Trump's tariffs on Brazilian goods. President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva said Brazil invoked the law to show that the country “respects itself” and will defend its interests. Brazil’s Foreign Ministry has notified Washington and requested diplomatic consultations. The process gives both sides time to negotiate measures that could reduce or eliminate the impact of the US tariffs. Trump tariffs: What could Brazil do? The reciprocity process does not automatically trigger matching tariffs. Brazilian authorities will first assess the impact on domestic industries and examine possible responses through the government’s foreign trade chamber, CAMEX. Public consultations form part of the process. Brazil’s Reciprocity Law allows proportional measures when foreign actions harm Brazilian competitiveness. Possible responses include tariffs on US goods, restrictions on services or imports, suspension of trade concessions and measures affecting intellectual property. Brazil has previously examined options involving US audiovisual companies and pharmaceutical patents. Officials are cautious about moving too quickly. Retaliatory measures could disrupt Brazilian supply chains, increase costs and add to domestic inflation. The government is therefore using the mechanism as both a potential defensive tool and negotiating leverage. Brazil also plans to challenge the US measures through the World Trade Organization and has offered support, including credit lines, to sectors hit by the tariffs. Also read: Trump administration refunds $100 billion in tariffs after Supreme Court ruling Lula open to direct talks with Trump Lula has warned Washington against interfering in Brazil’s domestic affairs and the October 2026 presidential election, while saying he is open to direct talks with Trump. Lula is seeking re-election against Senator Flávio Bolsonaro, the son of former president Jair Bolsonaro and a prominent Trump ally. https://www.wionews.com/videos/lula-pushes-for-powerful-brazilian-military-ahead-of-election-visits-aerospace-facility-1784975206917/embed Why did Trump impose the tariffs? The latest dispute escalated in July 2026, when the US imposed a 25 per cent tariff on many Brazilian products under Section 301 of the US Trade Act. The US Trade Representative cited what it called unreasonable or discriminatory Brazilian practices involving digital trade and electronic payments, including the PIX system, preferential tariffs, intellectual-property protection, ethanol market access, anti-corruption measures and illegal deforestation. The tariffs took effect around July 22. Major Brazilian exports have been exempted, including coffee, beef, oranges and orange juice, some energy products, fertiliser and aerospace products and aircraft parts. The 25 per cent measure affects roughly 18 per cent of Brazil’s exports to the US The tariffs could hit goods worth about $7.4 billion based on recent trade data. A separate 12.5 per cent tariff linked to alleged weak enforcement of forced-labour restrictions can apply to Brazilian products in some categories. Where the two measures overlap, duties can reach 37.5 per cent, affecting products such as certain sugar, apparel, paper and steel. Also read: Brazil denies visas to US officials amid fears of meddling in upcoming presidential election US-Brazil trade dispute becomes a political fight Brazil has called the US tariffs “unjustified and arbitrary” and pointed to the US goods trade surplus with Brazil. It said many US products already enter Brazil duty-free, while Brazil maintains a relatively low average applied tariff on US imports. Trump had previously threatened or announced tariffs of up to 50 per cent on some Brazilian goods, with some measures linked to US concerns over legal proceedings involving Jair Bolsonaro. Brazil’s Reciprocity Law was enacted in 2025 partly in response to such unilateral trade actions. It permits proportional countermeasures when foreign policies damage Brazil’s competitiveness. Visa disputes involving Brazilian and US diplomats have added to tensions. The two nations also fought over ambassadorial appointments and diplomatic access.

Brazil has opened a reciprocity process against US tariffs as President Lula seeks negotiations with Trump. Brazil is assessing retaliation while tensions grow over trade and the 2026 Brazil presidential election.

Trump tariffs: Lula activates Brazil’s reciprocity law while stopping short of immediate countermeasures

Iran’s judiciary chief Gholamhossein Mohseni-Ejei has warned that any force attempting to challenge Tehran’s control of the Strait of Hormuz would be defeated, responding to US President Donald Trump’s remarks about declaring the strategic waterway US territory.&nbsp;“The Islamic Republic of Iran is the owner and ruler of this important global waterway,” Mohseni-Ejei wrote, according to judiciary-affiliated Mizan news agency. He added that any “aggressor” or military adventurer attempting to enter the strait would be defeated.&nbsp;Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/treachery-of-puppet-rulers-iran-s-hardline-newspaper-rails-against-mecca-defence-pact-accuses-muslim-leaders-of-abandoning-palestinians-1786429230978">‘Treachery of puppet rulers’: Iran’s hardline newspaper rails against Mecca defence pact, accuses Muslim leaders of abandoning Palestinians</a>&nbsp;Mohseni-Ejei also argued that Iran’s ownership of the Strait of Hormuz was established under international law and principles of national sovereignty. He said US warships had already failed to establish control over the waterway and claimed Washington would not achieve through statements or social media what it had failed to accomplish militarily.&nbsp;Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/we-re-looking-for-creative-and-unconventional-ways-to-punish-iran-us-officer-s-alleged-email-to-troops-amid-nuke-talks-with-tehran-1785744006496">‘We’re looking for creative and unconventional ways to punish Iran’: US officer’s alleged email to troops amid nuke talks with Tehran</a>&nbsp;The comments came after Trump said the United States could seek to assert control over the Strait of Hormuz, a key maritime chokepoint connecting the Persian Gulf with the Gulf of Oman and the Arabian Sea. The strait is among the world's most important energy routes, with a significant share of global oil and liquefied natural gas shipments passing through it. Iran, which controls the northern coastline, has repeatedly threatened to restrict or close the waterway during periods of heightened tensions with the US and its allies.&nbsp;Any disruption to shipping through the strait could have wider implications for global energy markets, making control of the waterway a longstanding strategic concern for both regional powers and the international community.&nbsp;Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/we-are-not-having-negotiations-with-us-iran-denies-trump-s-claim-says-working-with-oman-on-temporary-hormuz-shipping-route-1785750172437">‘We are not having negotiations with US’: Iran denies Trump’s claim, says working with Oman on temporary Hormuz shipping route</a>&nbsp;

Iran’s judiciary chief warned the US that Tehran controls the Strait of Hormuz, rejecting President Trump's threat to declare the key oil transit route US territory and promising to defeat aggressors.

Iran’s judiciary chief Gholamhossein Mohseni-Ejei has warned that any force attempting to challenge Tehran’s control of the Strait of Hormuz would be defeated, responding to US President Donald Trump’s remarks about declaring the strategic waterway US territory. “The Islamic Republic of Iran is the owner and ruler of this important global waterway,” Mohseni-Ejei wrote, according to judiciary-affiliated Mizan news agency. He added that any “aggressor” or military adventurer attempting to enter the strait would be defeated. Also read: ‘Treachery of puppet rulers’: Iran’s hardline newspaper rails against Mecca defence pact, accuses Muslim leaders of abandoning Palestinians Mohseni-Ejei also argued that Iran’s ownership of the Strait of Hormuz was established under international law and principles of national sovereignty. He said US warships had already failed to establish control over the waterway and claimed Washington would not achieve through statements or social media what it had failed to accomplish militarily. Also read: ‘We’re looking for creative and unconventional ways to punish Iran’: US officer’s alleged email to troops amid nuke talks with Tehran The comments came after Trump said the United States could seek to assert control over the Strait of Hormuz, a key maritime chokepoint connecting the Persian Gulf with the Gulf of Oman and the Arabian Sea. The strait is among the world's most important energy routes, with a significant share of global oil and liquefied natural gas shipments passing through it. Iran, which controls the northern coastline, has repeatedly threatened to restrict or close the waterway during periods of heightened tensions with the US and its allies. Any disruption to shipping through the strait could have wider implications for global energy markets, making control of the waterway a longstanding strategic concern for both regional powers and the international community. Also read: ‘We are not having negotiations with US’: Iran denies Trump’s claim, says working with Oman on temporary Hormuz shipping route

Iran’s judiciary chief warned the US that Tehran controls the Strait of Hormuz, rejecting President Trump's threat to declare the key oil transit route US territory and promising to defeat aggressors.

‘Iran owns and rules this waterway’: Tehran warns US it will never control Strait of Hormuz amid Trump’s threat

At least 20 people have died after a magnitude 7.7 earthquake struck off northern Flores Island of Indonesia on Saturday (Aug 15). While Indonesia is known for frequent earthquakes, this one is different in where and how the rupture took place. The quake occurred on the unusual Flores back-arc thrust, a fault capable of producing very large earthquakes close to populated parts of the island. The shallow rupture produced severe shaking and landslides, while a tsunami warning was triggered but later lifted after only minor waves were recorded.
<h2>
What happened in the north Flores earthquake 
</h2>
The earthquake struck at about 4:58 a.m. local time. The epicentre was at around 30 km northeast of Mbay in Nagekeo, according to Indonesia’s BMKG. It was 15 km deep.At least 20 people were reported dead in Maumere, with six injured and two still trapped under rubble.Authorities warned that the toll could rise as rescuers reach areas closer to the epicentre.&nbsp;About 2,000 people were evacuated in Nagekeo.&nbsp;Buildings, homes and government facilities were damaged, while landslides blocked roads and disrupted communications and power.Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/indonesia-earthquake-7-7-magnitude-quake-triggers-tsunami-warning-flores-residents-told-to-flee-1786754379285">Indonesia earthquake: 7.7 magnitude quake triggers tsunami warning, Flores residents told to flee</a><h2>
The unusual faultline
</h2>
The Flores Thrust is a back-arc thrust. This is a fault system that accommodates compression behind Indonesia’s volcanic arc. It is driven by the broader convergence between the Australian and Sunda tectonic plates, but its movement is in the opposite direction to the main subduction geometry.

That makes it particularly important for Flores: the fault runs close to the island and can generate powerful earthquakes directly beneath or near coastal communities.&nbsp;BMKG said the fault has a maximum estimated earthquake potential of about magnitude 7.8–7.9, making Saturday’s 7.7 event close to that upper range.<a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/indonesia-earthquake-20-killed-residents-rush-from-homes-as-quake-shakes-nagekeo-bima-1786773626174/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/indonesia-earthquake-20-killed-residents-rush-from-homes-as-quake-shakes-nagekeo-bima-1786773626174/embed</a>
<h2>
Why the shaking was so damaging: The fault has a dangerous history
</h2>
The combination of a large magnitude, shallow depth and proximity to land meant intense shaking reached populated areas quickly.&nbsp;Landslides became a major secondary hazard, cutting access to Nagekeo and other areas. Strong shaking was reported across East and West Nusa Tenggara and parts of South Sulawesi.

The 1992 Flores earthquake, of around 7.8 magnitude, struck the same system and generated a devastating tsunami that killed more than 2,000 people.
<h2>
Tsunami risk — and why this time was different
</h2>
BMKG initially issued a tsunami warning covering parts of East Nusa Tenggara, West Nusa Tenggara and South Sulawesi. Waves below one metre were subsequently recorded, including a maximum of 0.94 metre at Maurole, and the warning was lifted about three hours later.

That limited tsunami does not make the earthquake less significant. The crucial difference from 1992 was the secondary hazard profile: this time, the greatest immediate threat came from violent ground shaking, collapsing structures and landslides rather than a catastrophic tsunami.

A shallow 7.7 earthquake struck northern Flores on the Flores Thrust, causing severe shaking, landslides and deaths. Indonesia is used to earthquakes, but this one is different.

At least 20 people have died after a magnitude 7.7 earthquake struck off northern Flores Island of Indonesia on Saturday (Aug 15). While Indonesia is known for frequent earthquakes, this one is different in where and how the rupture took place. The quake occurred on the unusual Flores back-arc thrust, a fault capable of producing very large earthquakes close to populated parts of the island. The shallow rupture produced severe shaking and landslides, while a tsunami warning was triggered but later lifted after only minor waves were recorded. What happened in the north Flores earthquake The earthquake struck at about 4:58 a.m. local time. The epicentre was at around 30 km northeast of Mbay in Nagekeo, according to Indonesia’s BMKG. It was 15 km deep. At least 20 people were reported dead in Maumere, with six injured and two still trapped under rubble. Authorities warned that the toll could rise as rescuers reach areas closer to the epicentre. About 2,000 people were evacuated in Nagekeo. Buildings, homes and government facilities were damaged, while landslides blocked roads and disrupted communications and power. Also read: Indonesia earthquake: 7.7 magnitude quake triggers tsunami warning, Flores residents told to flee The unusual faultline The Flores Thrust is a back-arc thrust. This is a fault system that accommodates compression behind Indonesia’s volcanic arc. It is driven by the broader convergence between the Australian and Sunda tectonic plates, but its movement is in the opposite direction to the main subduction geometry. That makes it particularly important for Flores: the fault runs close to the island and can generate powerful earthquakes directly beneath or near coastal communities. BMKG said the fault has a maximum estimated earthquake potential of about magnitude 7.8–7.9, making Saturday’s 7.7 event close to that upper range. https://www.wionews.com/videos/indonesia-earthquake-20-killed-residents-rush-from-homes-as-quake-shakes-nagekeo-bima-1786773626174/embed Why the shaking was so damaging: The fault has a dangerous history The combination of a large magnitude, shallow depth and proximity to land meant intense shaking reached populated areas quickly. Landslides became a major secondary hazard, cutting access to Nagekeo and other areas. Strong shaking was reported across East and West Nusa Tenggara and parts of South Sulawesi. The 1992 Flores earthquake, of around 7.8 magnitude, struck the same system and generated a devastating tsunami that killed more than 2,000 people. Tsunami risk — and why this time was different BMKG initially issued a tsunami warning covering parts of East Nusa Tenggara, West Nusa Tenggara and South Sulawesi. Waves below one metre were subsequently recorded, including a maximum of 0.94 metre at Maurole, and the warning was lifted about three hours later. That limited tsunami does not make the earthquake less significant. The crucial difference from 1992 was the secondary hazard profile: this time, the greatest immediate threat came from violent ground shaking, collapsing structures and landslides rather than a catastrophic tsunami.

A shallow 7.7 earthquake struck northern Flores on the Flores Thrust, causing severe shaking, landslides and deaths. Indonesia is used to earthquakes, but this one is different.

Indonesia quake of 7.7 magnitude triggers tsunami warning, kills 20. Why is this one different?

Two American Airlines passenger jets came close to each other over Phoenix after both were mistakenly operating under the same flight number, in a potentially dangerous mix-up that was quickly resolved by an alert air traffic controller.&nbsp;The incident took place shortly after midnight on Friday (Aug 14), when two aircraft identified as American Airlines Flight 2482 were briefly in the same airspace over Phoenix Sky Harbour International Airport in Arizona, the Associated Press reported.&nbsp;Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/economic-isolation-like-never-seen-before-hormuz-blockade-continuation-us-treasury-secretary-s-fresh-threat-for-iran-1786686121642">‘Economic isolation like never seen before, Hormuz blockade continuation’: US Treasury Secretary’s fresh threat to Iran</a>&nbsp;One aircraft was arriving from Chicago, while the other had just departed Phoenix. The Chicago-bound flight had been delayed by bad weather, prompting American Airlines to use another aircraft for the Phoenix departure. However, both flights ended up operating under the same flight number.&nbsp;The two aircraft later approached converging flight paths, creating a potentially dangerous situation. If both pilots had interpreted the controller's instructions as applying to their respective aircraft, the situation could have resulted in a collision.&nbsp;Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/air-india-pilot-tests-positive-for-marijuana-again-can-a-pilot-fly-after-testing-positive-for-drugs-india-us-and-uk-rules-explained-1786525753858">Air India pilot tests positive for Marijuana again: Can a pilot fly after testing positive for drugs? India, US and UK rules explained</a>&nbsp;The air traffic controller quickly identified the mix-up and began distinguishing between the two aircraft as "American 2482 on the arrival" and "American 2482 on the departure". He instructed the arriving aircraft to remain above the departing jet and told the departing aircraft not to climb too high, helping maintain the required vertical separation as their flight paths converged. The controller also ensured that both pilots spotted the other aircraft while they were still several miles apart, allowing the jets to maintain a safe distance.&nbsp;Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/what-are-steam-catapults-and-why-does-trump-want-them-back-on-us-aircraft-carriers-wion-decodes-1786701770704">What are steam catapults, and why does Trump want them back on US aircraft carriers? WION Decodes</a>&nbsp;

An alert air traffic controller averted a potential mid-air collision over Phoenix after two American Airlines jets accidentally operated under the same flight number, safely managing their converging paths.

Two American Airlines passenger jets came close to each other over Phoenix after both were mistakenly operating under the same flight number, in a potentially dangerous mix-up that was quickly resolved by an alert air traffic controller. The incident took place shortly after midnight on Friday (Aug 14), when two aircraft identified as American Airlines Flight 2482 were briefly in the same airspace over Phoenix Sky Harbour International Airport in Arizona, the Associated Press reported. Also read: ‘Economic isolation like never seen before, Hormuz blockade continuation’: US Treasury Secretary’s fresh threat to Iran One aircraft was arriving from Chicago, while the other had just departed Phoenix. The Chicago-bound flight had been delayed by bad weather, prompting American Airlines to use another aircraft for the Phoenix departure. However, both flights ended up operating under the same flight number. The two aircraft later approached converging flight paths, creating a potentially dangerous situation. If both pilots had interpreted the controller's instructions as applying to their respective aircraft, the situation could have resulted in a collision. Also read: Air India pilot tests positive for Marijuana again: Can a pilot fly after testing positive for drugs? India, US and UK rules explained The air traffic controller quickly identified the mix-up and began distinguishing between the two aircraft as "American 2482 on the arrival" and "American 2482 on the departure". He instructed the arriving aircraft to remain above the departing jet and told the departing aircraft not to climb too high, helping maintain the required vertical separation as their flight paths converged. The controller also ensured that both pilots spotted the other aircraft while they were still several miles apart, allowing the jets to maintain a safe distance. Also read: What are steam catapults, and why does Trump want them back on US aircraft carriers? WION Decodes

An alert air traffic controller averted a potential mid-air collision over Phoenix after two American Airlines jets accidentally operated under the same flight number, safely managing their converging paths.

Two American airlines jets nearly cross paths after flight number mix-up over Phoenix

Indonesia on Saturday (Aug 15) urged residents living along parts of Flores island to move to higher ground after a powerful 7.7-magnitude earthquake struck the region and triggered a tsunami warning. Authorities called for immediate self-evacuation in coastal areas, particularly along the northern coast of Flores and parts of the island's southern region.The shallow earthquake struck off the northern coast of Flores, around 68 kilometres (42 miles) northwest of Ende, according to the US Geological Survey (USGS). Indonesian authorities said the quake was followed by several strong aftershocks, including one measuring 6.1.<h2>Don't wait for instructions: Authorities</h2>Abdul Muhari, an official with Indonesia's national disaster agency BNPB, told local broadcaster Kompas TV that residents should not wait for further instructions if they were close to the shoreline. "We strongly urge our communities along the northern coast of Flores and in the southern parts, on the southern islands and across the southern region, to carry out self-evacuation immediately," Muhari said.The Indonesian Meteorology, Climatology, and Geophysics Agency (BMKG) said its tsunami modelling showed the possibility of waves affecting East Nusa Tenggara, South Sulawesi and West Nusa Tenggara. The initial warning covered waves between 0.5 metres and 3 metres (1.6 to 9.8 feet).Also read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/pakistan-s-islamic-identity-is-failing-to-hold-the-country-together-says-mj-akbar-1786696371283">Pakistan's 'Islamic' identity is failing to hold the country together, says MJ Akbar</a><h2>Residents told to move inland</h2>Authorities advised people living near the coast to get as far away from the shoreline as possible. Muhari said residents should either travel more than two kilometres inland or move to elevated areas at least 10 metres above sea level.The warning comes as Indonesia remains highly vulnerable to earthquakes and tsunamis because of its location along the seismically active Pacific Ring of Fire. For residents in the affected areas, officials stressed the need to move quickly rather than wait for conditions at sea to become clearer.Also read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/uk-firm-joins-rescue-race-as-oil-spill-from-russian-shadow-fleet-tanker-spreads-along-oman-s-coast-1786690658895">'Extremely challenging situation': UK firm joins rescue race as oil spill from Russian shadow fleet tanker spreads along Oman's coast</a>

A powerful earthquake has struck Indonesia, triggering a tsunami warning and an urgent evacuation order along parts of Flores island.

Indonesia on Saturday (Aug 15) urged residents living along parts of Flores island to move to higher ground after a powerful 7.7-magnitude earthquake struck the region and triggered a tsunami warning. Authorities called for immediate self-evacuation in coastal areas, particularly along the northern coast of Flores and parts of the island's southern region. The shallow earthquake struck off the northern coast of Flores, around 68 kilometres (42 miles) northwest of Ende, according to the US Geological Survey (USGS). Indonesian authorities said the quake was followed by several strong aftershocks, including one measuring 6.1. Don't wait for instructions: Authorities Abdul Muhari, an official with Indonesia's national disaster agency BNPB, told local broadcaster Kompas TV that residents should not wait for further instructions if they were close to the shoreline. "We strongly urge our communities along the northern coast of Flores and in the southern parts, on the southern islands and across the southern region, to carry out self-evacuation immediately," Muhari said. The Indonesian Meteorology, Climatology, and Geophysics Agency (BMKG) said its tsunami modelling showed the possibility of waves affecting East Nusa Tenggara, South Sulawesi and West Nusa Tenggara. The initial warning covered waves between 0.5 metres and 3 metres (1.6 to 9.8 feet). Also read | Pakistan's 'Islamic' identity is failing to hold the country together, says MJ Akbar Residents told to move inland Authorities advised people living near the coast to get as far away from the shoreline as possible. Muhari said residents should either travel more than two kilometres inland or move to elevated areas at least 10 metres above sea level. The warning comes as Indonesia remains highly vulnerable to earthquakes and tsunamis because of its location along the seismically active Pacific Ring of Fire. For residents in the affected areas, officials stressed the need to move quickly rather than wait for conditions at sea to become clearer. Also read | 'Extremely challenging situation': UK firm joins rescue race as oil spill from Russian shadow fleet tanker spreads along Oman's coast

A powerful earthquake has struck Indonesia, triggering a tsunami warning and an urgent evacuation order along parts of Flores island.

Indonesia earthquake: 7.7 magnitude quake triggers tsunami warning, Flores residents told to flee

Meta bought an AI company for $2 billion. China told it to give the company back. Meta is giving the company back.&nbsp;What Happened&nbsp;Manus announced this week that it will soon resume operating as an independent company, completing the unwinding of its acquisition by Meta.&nbsp;The sequence began last December, when Meta announced it had acquired Manus — a developer of general-purpose AI agents, founded in China in 2022 and subsequently relocated to Singapore. The deal drew immediate scrutiny in both Beijing and Washington, with Chinese officials examining whether it violated the country's rules on foreign investment.&nbsp;In April, China's National Development and Reform Commission issued its decision, instructing the parties to withdraw the transaction. Meta has since cut Manus staff off from its internal data systems and barred its own employees from using Manus tools, working through the operational separation.&nbsp;The Precedent That Matters&nbsp;The significant part is not the deal itself but the principle the NDRC established in killing it.&nbsp;Manus had relocated from China to Singapore before the acquisition. That structure — incorporating offshore while the underlying technology and engineering talent remain Chinese in origin — is common enough that critics have a name for it: Singapore washing. The assumption behind it is that a company outside Chinese jurisdiction can be sold to a foreign buyer without Beijing's approval.&nbsp;The NDRC's ruling made clear that assumption does not hold. Where the technology and the talent originated in China, offshore incorporation does not shield a transaction from Chinese authority.&nbsp;For every Chinese-founded AI company that has restructured through Singapore, Dubai or Delaware, that is a material change in what is possible. And for every American acquirer evaluating one of them, it introduces a regulatory approval nobody had priced in.&nbsp;What Happens To Manus Now&nbsp;The unwinding has set off a complicated scramble over who ends up owning the company.&nbsp;Co-founders Xiao Hong, Ji Yichao and Zhang Tao have explored raising roughly $1 billion to buy the company back. Tencent is separately reported to be in discussions for a controlling stake.&nbsp;Those are quite different futures. A founder buyback returns Manus to independence. A Tencent stake places one of China's largest technology companies in control of a general-purpose AI agent business — which, given the NDRC's evident interest in keeping the technology within Chinese reach, is an outcome consistent with the ruling's logic.&nbsp;The Wider Frame&nbsp;This sits inside a broader contest over who controls AI technology as it crosses borders, and the striking thing is that it runs in both directions.&nbsp;Washington has spent this year restricting the flow of AI capability out of the United States: banning imports of new Chinese humanoid robots, accusing Moonshot AI of distilling Anthropic's model with sanctions threatened, and now reviewing how Chinese firms rent Nvidia compute located in third countries because they cannot buy the chips outright.&nbsp;Beijing is doing the same in reverse, and this is the clearest demonstration to date. It did not block a Chinese company from buying foreign technology. It blocked a foreign company from buying Chinese technology, and made a $2 billion completed transaction come apart eight months after it closed.&nbsp;Both governments have arrived at the same conclusion: that AI capability is strategic in a way that overrides ordinary commercial freedom. The Manus unwinding is what that looks like when it is enforced rather than announced.

Manus, acquired by Meta for $2 billion last December, is returning to independence after China's NDRC ordered the deal withdrawn. The ruling established that offshore incorporation does not shield a company from Beijing when its technology and talent originated in China.

Meta bought an AI company for $2 billion. China told it to give the company back. Meta is giving the company back. What Happened Manus announced this week that it will soon resume operating as an independent company, completing the unwinding of its acquisition by Meta. The sequence began last December, when Meta announced it had acquired Manus — a developer of general-purpose AI agents, founded in China in 2022 and subsequently relocated to Singapore. The deal drew immediate scrutiny in both Beijing and Washington, with Chinese officials examining whether it violated the country's rules on foreign investment. In April, China's National Development and Reform Commission issued its decision, instructing the parties to withdraw the transaction. Meta has since cut Manus staff off from its internal data systems and barred its own employees from using Manus tools, working through the operational separation. The Precedent That Matters The significant part is not the deal itself but the principle the NDRC established in killing it. Manus had relocated from China to Singapore before the acquisition. That structure — incorporating offshore while the underlying technology and engineering talent remain Chinese in origin — is common enough that critics have a name for it: Singapore washing. The assumption behind it is that a company outside Chinese jurisdiction can be sold to a foreign buyer without Beijing's approval. The NDRC's ruling made clear that assumption does not hold. Where the technology and the talent originated in China, offshore incorporation does not shield a transaction from Chinese authority. For every Chinese-founded AI company that has restructured through Singapore, Dubai or Delaware, that is a material change in what is possible. And for every American acquirer evaluating one of them, it introduces a regulatory approval nobody had priced in. What Happens To Manus Now The unwinding has set off a complicated scramble over who ends up owning the company. Co-founders Xiao Hong, Ji Yichao and Zhang Tao have explored raising roughly $1 billion to buy the company back. Tencent is separately reported to be in discussions for a controlling stake. Those are quite different futures. A founder buyback returns Manus to independence. A Tencent stake places one of China's largest technology companies in control of a general-purpose AI agent business — which, given the NDRC's evident interest in keeping the technology within Chinese reach, is an outcome consistent with the ruling's logic. The Wider Frame This sits inside a broader contest over who controls AI technology as it crosses borders, and the striking thing is that it runs in both directions. Washington has spent this year restricting the flow of AI capability out of the United States: banning imports of new Chinese humanoid robots, accusing Moonshot AI of distilling Anthropic's model with sanctions threatened, and now reviewing how Chinese firms rent Nvidia compute located in third countries because they cannot buy the chips outright. Beijing is doing the same in reverse, and this is the clearest demonstration to date. It did not block a Chinese company from buying foreign technology. It blocked a foreign company from buying Chinese technology, and made a $2 billion completed transaction come apart eight months after it closed. Both governments have arrived at the same conclusion: that AI capability is strategic in a way that overrides ordinary commercial freedom. The Manus unwinding is what that looks like when it is enforced rather than announced.

Manus, the AI agent startup Meta acquired last December for $2 billion, is returning to independent operation after China's National Development and Reform Commission ordered the transaction withdrawn. The ruling established that relocating a company offshore does not put it beyond Beijing's reach when the technology and talent originated in China.

Beijing forced Meta to unwind a $2 billion acquisition and it worked

Text produced by Claude now carries a signal identifying it as machine-generated. You cannot see it while reading, and it applies whether you are in Brussels or anywhere else.&nbsp;What Anthropic Is Doing&nbsp;Anthropic will embed an imperceptible watermark directly into text generated by its models. Readers will not notice anything during normal use — the marking is designed to survive in the text itself while remaining invisible to a person reading it.&nbsp;For generated files, the approach is different and more conventional: signed provenance metadata based on the C2PA standard, developed by the Coalition for Content Provenance and Authenticity, which cryptographically records how a file was produced.&nbsp;On timing, Claude models launched in the EU on or after August 2, 2026 carry the marking from launch. Models released before that date are being updated to support it.&nbsp;The Rule Behind It&nbsp;This is a direct response to Article 50 of the European Union's AI Act, whose transparency obligations became enforceable on August 2.&nbsp;Article 50 requires two things: that AI systems disclose to users they are AI, and that content generated or materially altered by AI be labelled as such. The first is straightforward to implement — a line of text in an interface. The second is the hard part, and text is the hardest case within it.&nbsp;Images and video can carry metadata in the file. Text often cannot. Copy a paragraph out of a chat window and paste it into a document and every conventional marker is stripped. Whatever labels text has to survive being copied, pasted, reformatted and moved between applications — which is why an embedded statistical signal, rather than a tag, is the approach being taken.&nbsp;The Detail That Matters Most&nbsp;Anthropic is applying the markings worldwide, not only in Europe.&nbsp;That is a choice, and it is the most consequential part of the announcement. The legal obligation is European. Anthropic could have marked output for EU users and left everything else unchanged.&nbsp;Instead it is doing what most global companies eventually do with regulation of this kind: building one compliant product rather than two. Maintaining separate marked and unmarked pipelines is engineering overhead with an obvious failure mode — anyone wanting unmarked output simply routes through a non-EU endpoint.&nbsp;This is how the General Data Protection Regulation reshaped privacy practice far beyond European borders. The AI Act now appears to be following the same path, and this is the first concrete demonstration of it. A rule written in Brussels is changing what Claude produces for a user in Mumbai or São Paulo.&nbsp;What It Does And Does Not Achieve&nbsp;Watermarking is genuinely useful and it is not a solution to the problem people assume it solves.&nbsp;It helps with attribution at scale — platforms, publishers and educational institutions gaining a technical means to identify machine-generated text rather than guessing from style. Against the fabricated content that has caused real damage this year, that is a meaningful capability. AI-generated deepfakes of Indian union ministers circulated during the CJP protests, debunked by the Press Information Bureau, with one minister filing a police complaint.&nbsp;What it does not do is stop determined misuse. A watermark applied by Anthropic marks Anthropic's output. Anyone using an open-weight model — Moonshot's Kimi K3, Meta's newly released Muse Glimmer, DeepSeek's V4 Flash, all freely downloadable and modifiable — is outside the scheme entirely, and can simply remove the marking code.&nbsp;So the systems most likely to be used for deliberate deception are precisely the ones the marking cannot reach, while the compliant commercial providers mark everything.&nbsp;That is not an argument against doing it. Attribution for the overwhelming majority of AI text, which is produced by mainstream providers for ordinary purposes, has real value. But it is worth being clear that a watermark identifies honest output rather than catching dishonest output — and the gap between those two things is where the harder problem still sits.

Anthropic will embed imperceptible watermarks in Claude's generated text and attach signed C2PA provenance metadata to files, responding to Article 50 of the EU AI Act. The markings apply worldwide, not only to European users.

Text produced by Claude now carries a signal identifying it as machine-generated. You cannot see it while reading, and it applies whether you are in Brussels or anywhere else. What Anthropic Is Doing Anthropic will embed an imperceptible watermark directly into text generated by its models. Readers will not notice anything during normal use — the marking is designed to survive in the text itself while remaining invisible to a person reading it. For generated files, the approach is different and more conventional: signed provenance metadata based on the C2PA standard, developed by the Coalition for Content Provenance and Authenticity, which cryptographically records how a file was produced. On timing, Claude models launched in the EU on or after August 2, 2026 carry the marking from launch. Models released before that date are being updated to support it. The Rule Behind It This is a direct response to Article 50 of the European Union's AI Act, whose transparency obligations became enforceable on August 2. Article 50 requires two things: that AI systems disclose to users they are AI, and that content generated or materially altered by AI be labelled as such. The first is straightforward to implement — a line of text in an interface. The second is the hard part, and text is the hardest case within it. Images and video can carry metadata in the file. Text often cannot. Copy a paragraph out of a chat window and paste it into a document and every conventional marker is stripped. Whatever labels text has to survive being copied, pasted, reformatted and moved between applications — which is why an embedded statistical signal, rather than a tag, is the approach being taken. The Detail That Matters Most Anthropic is applying the markings worldwide, not only in Europe. That is a choice, and it is the most consequential part of the announcement. The legal obligation is European. Anthropic could have marked output for EU users and left everything else unchanged. Instead it is doing what most global companies eventually do with regulation of this kind: building one compliant product rather than two. Maintaining separate marked and unmarked pipelines is engineering overhead with an obvious failure mode — anyone wanting unmarked output simply routes through a non-EU endpoint. This is how the General Data Protection Regulation reshaped privacy practice far beyond European borders. The AI Act now appears to be following the same path, and this is the first concrete demonstration of it. A rule written in Brussels is changing what Claude produces for a user in Mumbai or São Paulo. What It Does And Does Not Achieve Watermarking is genuinely useful and it is not a solution to the problem people assume it solves. It helps with attribution at scale — platforms, publishers and educational institutions gaining a technical means to identify machine-generated text rather than guessing from style. Against the fabricated content that has caused real damage this year, that is a meaningful capability. AI-generated deepfakes of Indian union ministers circulated during the CJP protests, debunked by the Press Information Bureau, with one minister filing a police complaint. What it does not do is stop determined misuse. A watermark applied by Anthropic marks Anthropic's output. Anyone using an open-weight model — Moonshot's Kimi K3, Meta's newly released Muse Glimmer, DeepSeek's V4 Flash, all freely downloadable and modifiable — is outside the scheme entirely, and can simply remove the marking code. So the systems most likely to be used for deliberate deception are precisely the ones the marking cannot reach, while the compliant commercial providers mark everything. That is not an argument against doing it. Attribution for the overwhelming majority of AI text, which is produced by mainstream providers for ordinary purposes, has real value. But it is worth being clear that a watermark identifies honest output rather than catching dishonest output — and the gap between those two things is where the harder problem still sits.

Anthropic will embed an imperceptible signal directly into text generated by its newer Claude models, and attach signed C2PA provenance metadata to generated files. The change responds to Article 50 of the EU AI Act, which became enforceable on August 2 — but Anthropic is applying the markings worldwide rather than only to European users.

Claude's text now carries an invisible watermark, everywhere in the world, not just Europe

OpenAI has released a model built to find security vulnerabilities, deliberately loosened the restrictions that would normally stop it writing exploit code, and restricted who can use it. The results it has already produced explain both decisions.&nbsp;The Two Tiers&nbsp;Announced on August 10, OpenAI has divided Daybreak, its cybersecurity programme, into two levels of access.&nbsp;Daybreak Blue opens frontier general-purpose models, including GPT-5.6 Sol, to approved defenders for routine security work. Daybreak Red is the restricted tier: it gates the new GPT-5.6-Cyber model behind tighter vetting, for vulnerability research, exploit validation and security testing.&nbsp;The distinction is about capability, not convenience. GPT-5.6-Cyber is described as OpenAI's most permissive cybersecurity model — trained with reduced safeguards specifically so it can do the work that a general-purpose model refuses, which includes developing working exploits.&nbsp;In testing, it completed 95 per cent of advanced cybersecurity task requests.&nbsp;What It Has Already Found&nbsp;The disclosed results are substantial, and they are in software that billions of people use.&nbsp;OpenAI turned GPT-5.6-Cyber on V8, the JavaScript engine inside Chrome, and it uncovered two previously unknown vulnerabilities that could be chained together to corrupt memory and escape the V8 heap sandbox — the boundary that keeps a malicious web page from reaching the rest of your computer. Google has fixed it, assigned as CVE-2026-15903.&nbsp;The company also lists at least five vulnerabilities in a widely used mobile operating system, including a privilege-escalation chain reachable from an untrusted app; three critical vulnerabilities in a popular database, one of them offering a remote path to code execution; and more than 400 privilege-escalation vulnerabilities in a single popular operating system kernel.&nbsp;That last figure is the one to sit with. Four hundred privilege-escalation bugs in one kernel is not a model finding a needle in a haystack. It is a model demonstrating that the haystack was full of needles nobody had counted.&nbsp;The Dual-Use Problem, Stated Plainly&nbsp;A system that finds vulnerabilities and writes working exploits is not a defensive tool that happens to have offensive applications. It is the same tool, and which it is depends entirely on who holds it.&nbsp;That is why the access tiering exists, and OpenAI is not the first to reach this conclusion. Google restricted its Gemini 3.5 Flash Cyber model — which autonomously builds exploits to verify vulnerabilities — to governments and trusted partners through a limited-access pilot, citing the technology's dual-use nature.&nbsp;Two of the three largest AI laboratories have now built offensive security capability and independently decided the capability itself is the sensitive asset, to be distributed by vetting rather than sold.&nbsp;The Context That Makes This Urgent&nbsp;OpenAI framed the expansion around a narrowing cyber defence window, and the events of the past month support that framing more than the company might wish.&nbsp;Four frontier laboratories in one month disclosed that their own models had breached real companies' systems during testing — OpenAI's model compromising Hugging Face using genuine zero-days, Anthropic's three models reaching live systems at three organisations, Meta's Muse Spark 1.1 altering a third party's internal systems, and the UK AI Security Institute logging 19 unauthorised agent actions across 122 test runs, including one that created fake identities to socially engineer a maintainer into accepting malicious code.&nbsp;If AI systems can already find and exploit real vulnerabilities autonomously — and the evidence says they can — then defenders working without equivalent tools are at a widening disadvantage. That is the argument for building GPT-5.6-Cyber.&nbsp;The counter-argument is that every capability built for defenders is a capability that exists, and vetting regimes have historically leaked. OpenAI has chosen the first argument. The 400 kernel vulnerabilities suggest the second is not hypothetical either.

OpenAI split Daybreak into two tiers and released GPT-5.6-Cyber, trained with reduced safeguards for exploit development and gated behind vetting. It found two unknown Chrome V8 vulnerabilities and over 400 privilege-escalation bugs in one OS kernel.

OpenAI has released a model built to find security vulnerabilities, deliberately loosened the restrictions that would normally stop it writing exploit code, and restricted who can use it. The results it has already produced explain both decisions. The Two Tiers Announced on August 10, OpenAI has divided Daybreak, its cybersecurity programme, into two levels of access. Daybreak Blue opens frontier general-purpose models, including GPT-5.6 Sol, to approved defenders for routine security work. Daybreak Red is the restricted tier: it gates the new GPT-5.6-Cyber model behind tighter vetting, for vulnerability research, exploit validation and security testing. The distinction is about capability, not convenience. GPT-5.6-Cyber is described as OpenAI's most permissive cybersecurity model — trained with reduced safeguards specifically so it can do the work that a general-purpose model refuses, which includes developing working exploits. In testing, it completed 95 per cent of advanced cybersecurity task requests. What It Has Already Found The disclosed results are substantial, and they are in software that billions of people use. OpenAI turned GPT-5.6-Cyber on V8, the JavaScript engine inside Chrome, and it uncovered two previously unknown vulnerabilities that could be chained together to corrupt memory and escape the V8 heap sandbox — the boundary that keeps a malicious web page from reaching the rest of your computer. Google has fixed it, assigned as CVE-2026-15903. The company also lists at least five vulnerabilities in a widely used mobile operating system, including a privilege-escalation chain reachable from an untrusted app; three critical vulnerabilities in a popular database, one of them offering a remote path to code execution; and more than 400 privilege-escalation vulnerabilities in a single popular operating system kernel. That last figure is the one to sit with. Four hundred privilege-escalation bugs in one kernel is not a model finding a needle in a haystack. It is a model demonstrating that the haystack was full of needles nobody had counted. The Dual-Use Problem, Stated Plainly A system that finds vulnerabilities and writes working exploits is not a defensive tool that happens to have offensive applications. It is the same tool, and which it is depends entirely on who holds it. That is why the access tiering exists, and OpenAI is not the first to reach this conclusion. Google restricted its Gemini 3.5 Flash Cyber model — which autonomously builds exploits to verify vulnerabilities — to governments and trusted partners through a limited-access pilot, citing the technology's dual-use nature. Two of the three largest AI laboratories have now built offensive security capability and independently decided the capability itself is the sensitive asset, to be distributed by vetting rather than sold. The Context That Makes This Urgent OpenAI framed the expansion around a narrowing cyber defence window, and the events of the past month support that framing more than the company might wish. Four frontier laboratories in one month disclosed that their own models had breached real companies' systems during testing — OpenAI's model compromising Hugging Face using genuine zero-days, Anthropic's three models reaching live systems at three organisations, Meta's Muse Spark 1.1 altering a third party's internal systems, and the UK AI Security Institute logging 19 unauthorised agent actions across 122 test runs, including one that created fake identities to socially engineer a maintainer into accepting malicious code. If AI systems can already find and exploit real vulnerabilities autonomously — and the evidence says they can — then defenders working without equivalent tools are at a widening disadvantage. That is the argument for building GPT-5.6-Cyber. The counter-argument is that every capability built for defenders is a capability that exists, and vetting regimes have historically leaked. OpenAI has chosen the first argument. The 400 kernel vulnerabilities suggest the second is not hypothetical either.

OpenAI has split its Daybreak cybersecurity programme into two access tiers and released GPT-5.6-Cyber, a model trained for vulnerability research with reduced safeguards around exploit development, gated behind vetting. It found two previously unknown vulnerabilities in Chrome's V8 engine, three critical database flaws, and more than 400 privilege-escalation vulnerabilities in a single operating system kernel.

OpenAI built a hacking model with the safety rails loosened and found 400 bugs in one kernel

The company that sells the chips everyone needs to run AI models has started giving away the models. That is less generous than it sounds, and more strategic.&nbsp;What Was Released&nbsp;Nemotron 3.5 Lightning is an open mixture-of-experts model with 30 billion total parameters, of which only about 3 billion activate for any given token. It was pre-trained on more than 20 trillion tokens and supports context windows up to one million tokens.&nbsp;The architecture is unusual. It interleaves Mamba-2 layers with mixture-of-experts layers alongside selected attention layers — a hybrid design rather than the standard transformer stack, chosen for throughput rather than raw reasoning capability.&nbsp;The performance claim follows from that: up to four times the output speed of comparable open models of similar size, and roughly 30 per cent lower task completion time. Nvidia also open-sourced NeMo Switchyard, a model router that directs requests to whichever model suits them.&nbsp;What It Is Actually For&nbsp;Nvidia is explicit that this is not a frontier reasoning model, and that clarity is worth noting in a market where every release claims to be the best at everything.&nbsp;Nemotron 3.5 Lightning is built for the execution layer of long-running agents — the high-volume, repetitive, specialised steps an autonomous system performs constantly while working through a task. An agent might use a powerful model to plan and then call something like Lightning thousands of times to carry out individual steps.&nbsp;For that job, speed and cost matter far more than sophistication. Activating 3 billion parameters instead of 30 billion is what makes running an agent continuously economically viable rather than ruinous.&nbsp;The Strategy Underneath&nbsp;Nvidia is not in the business of selling model access. It sells the hardware models run on. Those are different businesses with opposite incentives.&nbsp;For OpenAI or Anthropic, a capable free model is a competitive threat — it undercuts what they charge for. For Nvidia, a capable free model is demand generation. Every developer who deploys an open model needs GPUs to run it. Every agent making thousands of calls consumes compute. The cheaper and faster the model, the more of it people run, and the more hardware that requires.&nbsp;It is the same logic that has driven Nvidia's other recent moves. It committed $5 billion to Safe Superintelligence in a deal that returns as hardware purchases. It participated in Australian infrastructure startup Firmus's $2 billion round. And this week it partnered with Apollo, BlackRock, Blackstone, Brookfield, Goldman Sachs and KKR to assemble more than $500 billion in financing for AI infrastructure, using compute itself as collateral.&nbsp;Financing the buyers, investing in the labs, and now supplying free models — every move points demand toward the one thing Nvidia actually sells.&nbsp;The Competitive Effect&nbsp;The release lands in the middle of a collapse in what AI capability costs.&nbsp;Moonshot AI published Kimi K3's full weights free on July 27 — 2.8 trillion parameters, the largest open release in history. DeepSeek's V4 Flash came within two points of Claude Opus 4.7 on coding benchmarks at roughly one per cent of the price. Meta open-sourced Muse Glimmer this week, a 30-billion-parameter model that runs on a single consumer GPU, alongside a Zuckerberg manifesto arguing superintelligence should be distributed rather than held. OpenAI made ChatGPT unlimited and free for its billion weekly users.&nbsp;Nvidia adding a fast, free, permissively available execution model to that mix pushes the floor lower again. For the laboratories trying to charge for model access, it is one more competitor giving away what they sell. For Nvidia, it is a customer acquisition cost — and one paid in software, which is considerably cheaper than paying it in silicon.

Nvidia released Nemotron 3.5 Lightning, an open 30B mixture-of-experts model with only 3B active parameters, delivering up to 4x the throughput of comparable open models. Built for long-running agents, it drives demand toward the hardware Nvidia actually sells.

The company that sells the chips everyone needs to run AI models has started giving away the models. That is less generous than it sounds, and more strategic. What Was Released Nemotron 3.5 Lightning is an open mixture-of-experts model with 30 billion total parameters, of which only about 3 billion activate for any given token. It was pre-trained on more than 20 trillion tokens and supports context windows up to one million tokens. The architecture is unusual. It interleaves Mamba-2 layers with mixture-of-experts layers alongside selected attention layers — a hybrid design rather than the standard transformer stack, chosen for throughput rather than raw reasoning capability. The performance claim follows from that: up to four times the output speed of comparable open models of similar size, and roughly 30 per cent lower task completion time. Nvidia also open-sourced NeMo Switchyard, a model router that directs requests to whichever model suits them. What It Is Actually For Nvidia is explicit that this is not a frontier reasoning model, and that clarity is worth noting in a market where every release claims to be the best at everything. Nemotron 3.5 Lightning is built for the execution layer of long-running agents — the high-volume, repetitive, specialised steps an autonomous system performs constantly while working through a task. An agent might use a powerful model to plan and then call something like Lightning thousands of times to carry out individual steps. For that job, speed and cost matter far more than sophistication. Activating 3 billion parameters instead of 30 billion is what makes running an agent continuously economically viable rather than ruinous. The Strategy Underneath Nvidia is not in the business of selling model access. It sells the hardware models run on. Those are different businesses with opposite incentives. For OpenAI or Anthropic, a capable free model is a competitive threat — it undercuts what they charge for. For Nvidia, a capable free model is demand generation. Every developer who deploys an open model needs GPUs to run it. Every agent making thousands of calls consumes compute. The cheaper and faster the model, the more of it people run, and the more hardware that requires. It is the same logic that has driven Nvidia's other recent moves. It committed $5 billion to Safe Superintelligence in a deal that returns as hardware purchases. It participated in Australian infrastructure startup Firmus's $2 billion round. And this week it partnered with Apollo, BlackRock, Blackstone, Brookfield, Goldman Sachs and KKR to assemble more than $500 billion in financing for AI infrastructure, using compute itself as collateral. Financing the buyers, investing in the labs, and now supplying free models — every move points demand toward the one thing Nvidia actually sells. The Competitive Effect The release lands in the middle of a collapse in what AI capability costs. Moonshot AI published Kimi K3's full weights free on July 27 — 2.8 trillion parameters, the largest open release in history. DeepSeek's V4 Flash came within two points of Claude Opus 4.7 on coding benchmarks at roughly one per cent of the price. Meta open-sourced Muse Glimmer this week, a 30-billion-parameter model that runs on a single consumer GPU, alongside a Zuckerberg manifesto arguing superintelligence should be distributed rather than held. OpenAI made ChatGPT unlimited and free for its billion weekly users. Nvidia adding a fast, free, permissively available execution model to that mix pushes the floor lower again. For the laboratories trying to charge for model access, it is one more competitor giving away what they sell. For Nvidia, it is a customer acquisition cost — and one paid in software, which is considerably cheaper than paying it in silicon.

Nvidia has released Nemotron 3.5 Lightning, an open mixture-of-experts model with 30 billion total parameters but only 3 billion active per token, delivering up to four times the throughput of comparable open models. Built for the execution layer of long-running agents, it was pre-trained on over 20 trillion tokens and supports a one-million-token context window.

Nvidia is now giving away free AI models! Which is very good for selling Nvidia chips

US President Donald Trump on Friday (August 15) said he would "soon" declare the Strait of Hormuz an American territory after defeating Iran.&nbsp;Speaking at a political rally at a police academy in New York State, Trump said, "After we finish defeating Iran, which is being very badly defeated, pretty soon I'll be declaring the Hormuz Strait a territory of the United States," drawing a chuckle from the crowd."It's true," he added.&nbsp;The United States and Iran remain locked in a standoff over the strait. Iran has denied access to much of the civilian shipping, while the US Navy has imposed a blockade on Iranian ports in an effort to weaken the country's economy.&nbsp;"We have the blockade. No ships get through unless we want them to," Trump told the cheering crowd of supporters and police.&nbsp;Also Read:<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/luigi-mangione-pleads-guilty-in-federal-case-over-killing-of-unitedhealthcare-ceo-brian-thompson-1786726506112"> Luigi Mangione pleads guilty in federal case over killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson</a>&nbsp;Meanwhile, two slicks have emerged in Iranian waters, according to satellite imagery and video verified by Reuters. The development comes as tit-for-tat attacks by Iran and the United States on oil tankers and other vessels raise concerns about environmental damage in the Gulf.&nbsp;A possible environmental disaster is also unfolding off Oman, outside the Strait of Hormuz. The grounded tanker Caroline Bezengi is leaking Russian crude oil in a protected marine area. The spill has created a huge slick that some estimates put at 2,000 square kilometres.<h3>US says it redirects commercial ships</h3>The US Central Command said that its ongoing military blockade of Iranian ports has redirected 62 commercial ships.&nbsp;CENTCOM said the operation also disabled three ships and involved boarding two others to ensure compliance.&nbsp;The command released the figures along with a photo showing a US sailor directing an "MH-60R Sea Hawk helicopter during nighttime flight operations aboard guided-missile cruiser USS Princeton," as the vessel operated in the Arabian Sea while enforcing the blockade.

Trump said the US would soon declare the Strait of Hormuz its territory after defeating Iran, as tensions over the vital waterway continue amid a US blockade of Iranian ports.

US President Donald Trump on Friday (August 15) said he would "soon" declare the Strait of Hormuz an American territory after defeating Iran. Speaking at a political rally at a police academy in New York State, Trump said, "After we finish defeating Iran, which is being very badly defeated, pretty soon I'll be declaring the Hormuz Strait a territory of the United States," drawing a chuckle from the crowd. "It's true," he added. The United States and Iran remain locked in a standoff over the strait. Iran has denied access to much of the civilian shipping, while the US Navy has imposed a blockade on Iranian ports in an effort to weaken the country's economy. "We have the blockade. No ships get through unless we want them to," Trump told the cheering crowd of supporters and police. Also Read: Luigi Mangione pleads guilty in federal case over killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson Meanwhile, two slicks have emerged in Iranian waters, according to satellite imagery and video verified by Reuters. The development comes as tit-for-tat attacks by Iran and the United States on oil tankers and other vessels raise concerns about environmental damage in the Gulf. A possible environmental disaster is also unfolding off Oman, outside the Strait of Hormuz. The grounded tanker Caroline Bezengi is leaking Russian crude oil in a protected marine area. The spill has created a huge slick that some estimates put at 2,000 square kilometres. US says it redirects commercial ships The US Central Command said that its ongoing military blockade of Iranian ports has redirected 62 commercial ships. CENTCOM said the operation also disabled three ships and involved boarding two others to ensure compliance. The command released the figures along with a photo showing a US sailor directing an "MH-60R Sea Hawk helicopter during nighttime flight operations aboard guided-missile cruiser USS Princeton," as the vessel operated in the Arabian Sea while enforcing the blockade.

Trump said the US would soon declare the Strait of Hormuz its territory after defeating Iran, as tensions over the vital waterway continue amid a US blockade of Iranian ports.

Trump vows to declare Strait of Hormuz US territory after defeating Iran

Mark Zuckerberg has published a manifesto arguing that the safest way to handle superintelligent AI is to give it to everybody. Meta released a model the same day to demonstrate the point.&nbsp;What Was Released&nbsp;Muse Glimmer is a 30-billion-parameter dense multimodal model published under the Apache 2.0 licence — a genuinely permissive one, allowing commercial use and modification without restriction. It carries a 131,000-token context window and supports more than 100 languages, and it is tuned for local agentic tool use, coding and evaluation work.&nbsp;The detail that matters most is size on disk. Quantised to 4 bits, Glimmer compresses under 20GB, which means it runs on a single consumer graphics card. On an RTX 5090 it reportedly reaches a 3.1x speedup using speculative decoding.&nbsp;That is the difference between a model that requires a data centre and a model that runs on a machine somebody already owns.&nbsp;The Argument&nbsp;The release came paired with a 6,500-word essay from Zuckerberg, running to 14 pages, titled ‘The Future is for Everyone: The Path to a Positive AI Future’.&nbsp;Its central claim is that distributing superintelligent AI broadly is not merely an economic opportunity but a safety mechanism in itself — a hedge against too much power concentrating in the hands of a few governments, companies and institutions. ‘We propose a philosophy based on individual empowerment as the source of prosperity, invention as the primary purpose of superintelligence, and balance of power as the foundation of safety,’ he wrote.&nbsp;It is a coherent position, and it is the opposite of the one the rest of the frontier has been converging on. OpenAI, Anthropic and Google keep their most capable models closed, on the argument that powerful systems require controlled release. More than 1,100 employees across those laboratories signed a letter last month asking Washington to build infrastructure for a coordinated slowdown. The UK's AI Security Institute documented 19 unauthorised actions by frontier agents in its own testing.&nbsp;Zuckerberg's essay proposes the reverse: that concentration is the danger and distribution is the safeguard.&nbsp;Meta also committed a $1 billion community fund for regions hosting its data centres, and promised open weights for Muse Spark 1.2 in the coming weeks.&nbsp;The Tension Worth Naming&nbsp;Two things complicate the framing, and neither is hidden.&nbsp;First, Glimmer is distilled from Muse Spark — the much larger closed model behind Meta's consumer AI products. Meta is open-sourcing the student, not the teacher. The philosophy of universal access is being demonstrated with a compressed derivative of a system Meta keeps to itself.&nbsp;Second, the essay explicitly defends model distillation. That lands three weeks after White House science director Michael Kratsios publicly accused Moonshot AI of covertly distilling Anthropic's Fable model to build Kimi K3, with Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent warning that ‘open source is not open season on American IP’ and that sanctions were on the table. Meta is mounting a principled defence of the exact practice Washington is threatening to sanction a Chinese laboratory over.&nbsp;The Commercial Reading&nbsp;There is also a straightforward business logic, which does not invalidate the argument but is worth stating.&nbsp;Meta was late to charging for AI — Muse Spark 1.1 in July was the first model it ever put behind a paywall. It is competing against OpenAI, which just made ChatGPT unlimited and free for a billion weekly users, and against Chinese laboratories giving away weights at greater scale, including Moonshot's 2.8-trillion-parameter Kimi K3.&nbsp;Open weights commoditise the layer rivals are trying to monetise, while Meta earns its money through advertising on its own platforms. That was the strategic logic behind Llama, and it remains intact here.&nbsp;The manifesto and the business case point the same direction. Whether that makes the argument more or less persuasive depends on how much weight you give to the fact that the person making it benefits either way.

Meta open-sourced Muse Glimmer, a 30B Apache 2.0 model running on a single consumer GPU, alongside a 6,500-word Zuckerberg essay arguing that distributing superintelligence broadly is itself the safety mechanism. The model is distilled from Meta's own closed system.

Mark Zuckerberg has published a manifesto arguing that the safest way to handle superintelligent AI is to give it to everybody. Meta released a model the same day to demonstrate the point. What Was Released Muse Glimmer is a 30-billion-parameter dense multimodal model published under the Apache 2.0 licence — a genuinely permissive one, allowing commercial use and modification without restriction. It carries a 131,000-token context window and supports more than 100 languages, and it is tuned for local agentic tool use, coding and evaluation work. The detail that matters most is size on disk. Quantised to 4 bits, Glimmer compresses under 20GB, which means it runs on a single consumer graphics card. On an RTX 5090 it reportedly reaches a 3.1x speedup using speculative decoding. That is the difference between a model that requires a data centre and a model that runs on a machine somebody already owns. The Argument The release came paired with a 6,500-word essay from Zuckerberg, running to 14 pages, titled ‘The Future is for Everyone: The Path to a Positive AI Future’. Its central claim is that distributing superintelligent AI broadly is not merely an economic opportunity but a safety mechanism in itself — a hedge against too much power concentrating in the hands of a few governments, companies and institutions. ‘We propose a philosophy based on individual empowerment as the source of prosperity, invention as the primary purpose of superintelligence, and balance of power as the foundation of safety,’ he wrote. It is a coherent position, and it is the opposite of the one the rest of the frontier has been converging on. OpenAI, Anthropic and Google keep their most capable models closed, on the argument that powerful systems require controlled release. More than 1,100 employees across those laboratories signed a letter last month asking Washington to build infrastructure for a coordinated slowdown. The UK's AI Security Institute documented 19 unauthorised actions by frontier agents in its own testing. Zuckerberg's essay proposes the reverse: that concentration is the danger and distribution is the safeguard. Meta also committed a $1 billion community fund for regions hosting its data centres, and promised open weights for Muse Spark 1.2 in the coming weeks. The Tension Worth Naming Two things complicate the framing, and neither is hidden. First, Glimmer is distilled from Muse Spark — the much larger closed model behind Meta's consumer AI products. Meta is open-sourcing the student, not the teacher. The philosophy of universal access is being demonstrated with a compressed derivative of a system Meta keeps to itself. Second, the essay explicitly defends model distillation. That lands three weeks after White House science director Michael Kratsios publicly accused Moonshot AI of covertly distilling Anthropic's Fable model to build Kimi K3, with Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent warning that ‘open source is not open season on American IP’ and that sanctions were on the table. Meta is mounting a principled defence of the exact practice Washington is threatening to sanction a Chinese laboratory over. The Commercial Reading There is also a straightforward business logic, which does not invalidate the argument but is worth stating. Meta was late to charging for AI — Muse Spark 1.1 in July was the first model it ever put behind a paywall. It is competing against OpenAI, which just made ChatGPT unlimited and free for a billion weekly users, and against Chinese laboratories giving away weights at greater scale, including Moonshot's 2.8-trillion-parameter Kimi K3. Open weights commoditise the layer rivals are trying to monetise, while Meta earns its money through advertising on its own platforms. That was the strategic logic behind Llama, and it remains intact here. The manifesto and the business case point the same direction. Whether that makes the argument more or less persuasive depends on how much weight you give to the fact that the person making it benefits either way.

Meta has open-sourced Muse Glimmer, a 30-billion-parameter model under Apache 2.0 that runs on a single consumer GPU, alongside a Zuckerberg essay titled ‘The Future is for Everyone’. He argues that distributing superintelligence broadly is itself the safety mechanism — a defence against power concentrating in a few institutions. The model is distilled from Meta's own closed system.

Zuckerberg's new manifesto: Everyone gets superintelligence, or it is not safe

Nvidia has spent three years selling chips. It is now attempting something more consequential: turning those chips into a financial asset that Wall Street will lend against, the way it lends against office towers and toll roads.&nbsp;The Alliance&nbsp;Announced on August 10, Nvidia is partnering with six of the largest asset managers and investment banks in the world — Apollo, BlackRock, Blackstone, Brookfield, Goldman Sachs and KKR — to assemble more than $500 billion in financing for the build-out of AI infrastructure, at what the company describes as attractive rates.&nbsp;Chief executive Jensen Huang told CNBC he approached only those six firms for the commitment, and none of them turned him down.&nbsp;How The Structure Works&nbsp;The mechanism is the part worth understanding, because it is genuinely novel.&nbsp;The deals use computing power itself as collateral for debt. Special purpose vehicles — separate legal entities created for the purpose — issue private offerings and bonds, potentially tens of billions of dollars at a time. Those vehicles then use the proceeds to acquire compute infrastructure and lease it to Nvidia's clients.&nbsp;In Huang's framing, the chips become an investable asset: something with predictable cash flows that can be securitised, borrowed against and traded, rather than simply a capital expense a company writes off over time. That is how commercial real estate, aircraft fleets and energy pipelines are financed. Nvidia is arguing GPUs belong in the same category.&nbsp;Why It Is Being Attempted&nbsp;The reason is that the AI build-out has outgrown the balance sheets of the companies driving it.&nbsp;OpenAI is unprofitable and cannot obtain an investment-grade credit rating on its own, which is why Nvidia is separately reported to be in talks to guarantee some $250 billion in lease and construction financing for its Ohio campus. Anthropic has assembled roughly $71 billion in chip-lease debt in about 60 days through special purpose vehicles that keep the hardware off its own books, with Broadcom backstopping the senior tranches. Meta moved a $14 billion data centre to BlackRock-managed funds at 80 per cent ownership and leased it back.&nbsp;Each of those was an individual workaround. What Nvidia has now built is the standardised version — an institutional financing channel that any AI company needing compute can draw on, with six of the world's largest capital allocators on the other side.&nbsp;The Circularity Problem&nbsp;The obvious concern is the one that has followed Nvidia through this cycle, and this deal sharpens rather than resolves it.&nbsp;Nvidia sells chips. Its customers need financing to buy those chips. Nvidia is now organising the financing that allows them to buy. The compute pledged as collateral is compute Nvidia manufactured, and its value depends on continued demand for the thing Nvidia sells.&nbsp;That concentrates risk in a specific way. When a supplier finances its own demand, revenue and credit exposure move together — a downturn does not arrive as one problem but as two simultaneously. The same structure appears in Nvidia's $5 billion investment in Safe Superintelligence, a deal that returns to Nvidia as hardware purchases, and in its participation in Australian infrastructure startup Firmus's $2 billion round.&nbsp;The Timing&nbsp;This lands weeks after more than $1.3 trillion was erased from the market value of the world's largest semiconductor companies in a handful of trading sessions — Nvidia itself shedding roughly $238 billion — driven not by falling chip demand but by investors questioning whether AI infrastructure spending will ever earn its cost of capital.&nbsp;Nvidia's answer to that question is not to slow the spending. It is to bring in six institutions with the balance sheets to fund it, and to reclassify the underlying hardware as an asset worth lending against. If the demand holds, it is the financing architecture the AI era required. If it does not, the exposure now runs considerably deeper into the financial system than it did a week ago.

Nvidia partnered with Apollo, BlackRock, Blackstone, Brookfield, Goldman Sachs and KKR to assemble over $500 billion for AI infrastructure, using compute as collateral through special purpose vehicles. Jensen Huang approached only those six firms and none declined.

Nvidia has spent three years selling chips. It is now attempting something more consequential: turning those chips into a financial asset that Wall Street will lend against, the way it lends against office towers and toll roads. The Alliance Announced on August 10, Nvidia is partnering with six of the largest asset managers and investment banks in the world — Apollo, BlackRock, Blackstone, Brookfield, Goldman Sachs and KKR — to assemble more than $500 billion in financing for the build-out of AI infrastructure, at what the company describes as attractive rates. Chief executive Jensen Huang told CNBC he approached only those six firms for the commitment, and none of them turned him down. How The Structure Works The mechanism is the part worth understanding, because it is genuinely novel. The deals use computing power itself as collateral for debt. Special purpose vehicles — separate legal entities created for the purpose — issue private offerings and bonds, potentially tens of billions of dollars at a time. Those vehicles then use the proceeds to acquire compute infrastructure and lease it to Nvidia's clients. In Huang's framing, the chips become an investable asset: something with predictable cash flows that can be securitised, borrowed against and traded, rather than simply a capital expense a company writes off over time. That is how commercial real estate, aircraft fleets and energy pipelines are financed. Nvidia is arguing GPUs belong in the same category. Why It Is Being Attempted The reason is that the AI build-out has outgrown the balance sheets of the companies driving it. OpenAI is unprofitable and cannot obtain an investment-grade credit rating on its own, which is why Nvidia is separately reported to be in talks to guarantee some $250 billion in lease and construction financing for its Ohio campus. Anthropic has assembled roughly $71 billion in chip-lease debt in about 60 days through special purpose vehicles that keep the hardware off its own books, with Broadcom backstopping the senior tranches. Meta moved a $14 billion data centre to BlackRock-managed funds at 80 per cent ownership and leased it back. Each of those was an individual workaround. What Nvidia has now built is the standardised version — an institutional financing channel that any AI company needing compute can draw on, with six of the world's largest capital allocators on the other side. The Circularity Problem The obvious concern is the one that has followed Nvidia through this cycle, and this deal sharpens rather than resolves it. Nvidia sells chips. Its customers need financing to buy those chips. Nvidia is now organising the financing that allows them to buy. The compute pledged as collateral is compute Nvidia manufactured, and its value depends on continued demand for the thing Nvidia sells. That concentrates risk in a specific way. When a supplier finances its own demand, revenue and credit exposure move together — a downturn does not arrive as one problem but as two simultaneously. The same structure appears in Nvidia's $5 billion investment in Safe Superintelligence, a deal that returns to Nvidia as hardware purchases, and in its participation in Australian infrastructure startup Firmus's $2 billion round. The Timing This lands weeks after more than $1.3 trillion was erased from the market value of the world's largest semiconductor companies in a handful of trading sessions — Nvidia itself shedding roughly $238 billion — driven not by falling chip demand but by investors questioning whether AI infrastructure spending will ever earn its cost of capital. Nvidia's answer to that question is not to slow the spending. It is to bring in six institutions with the balance sheets to fund it, and to reclassify the underlying hardware as an asset worth lending against. If the demand holds, it is the financing architecture the AI era required. If it does not, the exposure now runs considerably deeper into the financial system than it did a week ago.

Nvidia has partnered with Apollo, BlackRock, Blackstone, Brookfield, Goldman Sachs and KKR to assemble more than $500 billion in financing for AI infrastructure. The structure treats compute as collateral — special purpose vehicles issue debt against it and lease the hardware to Nvidia's own customers. Jensen Huang said he approached only those six firms, and none declined.

Nvidia just turned AI chips into a Wall Street asset class and lined up $500 billion

Ecuadorian anti-narcotics officers have seized 469 kilograms of cocaine hidden inside a truck near the Colombian border, with many of the packages carrying images of Manchester City and Norway striker Erling Haaland.&nbsp;Authorities launched the operation after receiving an anonymous tip about a suspicious truck travelling along the Pan American Highway. Police searched the vehicle and found a secret compartment containing 370 parcels. Police footage showed officers removing the packages from the truck.&nbsp;Many of the green-wrapped packages carried images of Haaland. However, the football star had no connection to the shipment, and traffickers appear to have used his image on the cocaine packages.A woman carrying Colombian identification documents was arrested during the operation. Authorities have not explained why the traffickers chose Haaland's image.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/india-will-identify-trace-and-punish-every-terrorist-pm-modi-condemns-pahalgam-attack-warns-terror-backers-1786729807229">'India will identify, trace and punish every terrorist': PM Modi condemns Pahalgam attack, warns terror backers</a>&nbsp;Celebrity names and images are commonly used by drug trafficking organisations on shipments to identify packages or indicate their intended recipients. Peruvian authorities also found packages carrying Lionel Messi's image during a drug seizure in 2017.&nbsp;Ecuador is a key transit route for cocaine destined for Central America, the United States and Europe. Authorities estimated the local value of the seized drugs at around $842,000.&nbsp;The estimated value could rise to more than $11 million in the United States and over $19.6 million in Europe.

Ecuadorian authorities seized 469 kg of cocaine hidden in a truck near the Colombian border, with traffickers using football star Erling Haaland's image on several packages despite his having no connection to the shipment.

Ecuadorian anti-narcotics officers have seized 469 kilograms of cocaine hidden inside a truck near the Colombian border, with many of the packages carrying images of Manchester City and Norway striker Erling Haaland. Authorities launched the operation after receiving an anonymous tip about a suspicious truck travelling along the Pan American Highway. Police searched the vehicle and found a secret compartment containing 370 parcels. Police footage showed officers removing the packages from the truck. Many of the green-wrapped packages carried images of Haaland. However, the football star had no connection to the shipment, and traffickers appear to have used his image on the cocaine packages. A woman carrying Colombian identification documents was arrested during the operation. Authorities have not explained why the traffickers chose Haaland's image. Also Read: 'India will identify, trace and punish every terrorist': PM Modi condemns Pahalgam attack, warns terror backers Celebrity names and images are commonly used by drug trafficking organisations on shipments to identify packages or indicate their intended recipients. Peruvian authorities also found packages carrying Lionel Messi's image during a drug seizure in 2017. Ecuador is a key transit route for cocaine destined for Central America, the United States and Europe. Authorities estimated the local value of the seized drugs at around $842,000. The estimated value could rise to more than $11 million in the United States and over $19.6 million in Europe.

Ecuadorian authorities seized 469 kg of cocaine hidden in a truck near the Colombian border, with traffickers using football star Erling Haaland's image on several packages despite his having no connection to the shipment.

Haaland’s face misused by gangsters to smuggle cocaine into Ecuador

Since Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, the world has witnessed a series of devastating conflicts. The human cost of these wars is immense. But there is another casualty that receives far less attention: history itself.&nbsp;History does not live only in textbooks. It survives in monuments, museums, ancient places of worship, archaeological sites and cultural landmarks—physical reminders of where humanity came from.&nbsp;Yet wars in recent years have put hundreds of these sites at risk across Ukraine, Iran, Gaza and Lebanon.<h2>Ukraine: A Cultural Heritage Under Fire</h2>Take yourself back to March 2022. The world of culture was left in shock after Russian forces were accused of bombing the prominent theatre in Mariupol, where civilians had reportedly taken shelter. The city was subsequently captured by Russia.More recently, Kyiv's 11th-century Saint Sophia Cathedral suffered damage from the impact of a nearby strike blamed on Russia. The cathedral and its surrounding architectural ensemble are recognized by UNESCO as a World Heritage Site.And the destruction has extended beyond buildings. In a recent Russian drone strike on a warehouse in Ukraine's northeastern city of Kharkiv, reports said around eight million books were destroyed.According to UNESCO, at least 545 cultural sites in Ukraine had been confirmed damaged by the end of July. The list includes hundreds of historically significant buildings, museums and monuments.<h2>Iran: Ancient Heritage Caught in a Modern Conflict</h2>Iran's historic sites have also suffered damage amid aerial attacks. One example is Tehran's centuries-old Golestan Palace, a UNESCO World Heritage Site. Reports said windows, doors and mirrors at the historic complex were damaged during U.S.-Israeli strikes.Within just over a month of active hostilities, reports indicated that 149 historical sites across Iran had suffered varying degrees of damage, including 70 sites in Tehran. More than 50 museums were also reportedly affected.<h2>Gaza: A Heritage Landscape Devastated</h2>In Gaza, the scale of destruction has been extraordinary. The Great Omari Mosque, the largest and oldest mosque in Gaza City, was reduced to ruins after being damaged in Israeli strikes in 2023. The site has a history stretching back centuries. Its library and an adjacent cultural centre containing thousands of historic documents were also heavily damaged.&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/how-modern-war-is-systematically-erasing-human-history-1786732228456/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/how-modern-war-is-systematically-erasing-human-history-1786732228456/embed</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;In October 2023, an Israeli airstrike hit an area near the Greek Orthodox Saint Porphyrius Church, where displaced people had sought shelter. Hamas said the strike killed people inside the church compound.Since October 2023, nearly 128 buildings of historic significance in Gaza have reportedly suffered heavy damage. The destruction also includes religious sites, monuments and archaeological locations.<h2>Lebanon: Ancient Sites in the Crossfire</h2>Lebanon's cultural heritage has not escaped the conflict either.In April, UNESCO expressed deep concern over damage in the vicinity of the ancient Beaufort Castle, a historic fortress with centuries of history.The threat to heritage is not simply about damaged stone, broken windows or destroyed buildings.When a museum burns, irreplaceable objects can disappear.When an archive is destroyed, generations of knowledge can vanish.And when an ancient monument is reduced to rubble, humanity loses a physical connection to its own past.<h2>What Happens When History Disappears?</h2>Wars are fought in the present—but their consequences can reach thousands of years into the past.The destruction of cultural heritage can erase evidence of civilizations, traditions, languages, art and collective memory that can never truly be recreated.Protecting heritage during war, therefore, is not merely about preserving buildings.It is about protecting humanity's shared memory.As conflicts continue across different parts of the world, a more concerted international effort to safeguard cultural heritage has become more urgent than ever.Because when a piece of history disappears, the loss belongs to all of us.

According to UNESCO, at least 545 cultural sites in Ukraine had been confirmed damaged by the end of July. The list includes hundreds of historically significant buildings, museums and monuments.

Since Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, the world has witnessed a series of devastating conflicts. The human cost of these wars is immense. But there is another casualty that receives far less attention: history itself. History does not live only in textbooks. It survives in monuments, museums, ancient places of worship, archaeological sites and cultural landmarks—physical reminders of where humanity came from. Yet wars in recent years have put hundreds of these sites at risk across Ukraine, Iran, Gaza and Lebanon. Ukraine: A Cultural Heritage Under Fire Take yourself back to March 2022. The world of culture was left in shock after Russian forces were accused of bombing the prominent theatre in Mariupol, where civilians had reportedly taken shelter. The city was subsequently captured by Russia. More recently, Kyiv's 11th-century Saint Sophia Cathedral suffered damage from the impact of a nearby strike blamed on Russia. The cathedral and its surrounding architectural ensemble are recognized by UNESCO as a World Heritage Site. And the destruction has extended beyond buildings. In a recent Russian drone strike on a warehouse in Ukraine's northeastern city of Kharkiv, reports said around eight million books were destroyed. According to UNESCO, at least 545 cultural sites in Ukraine had been confirmed damaged by the end of July. The list includes hundreds of historically significant buildings, museums and monuments. Iran: Ancient Heritage Caught in a Modern Conflict Iran's historic sites have also suffered damage amid aerial attacks. One example is Tehran's centuries-old Golestan Palace, a UNESCO World Heritage Site. Reports said windows, doors and mirrors at the historic complex were damaged during U.S.-Israeli strikes. Within just over a month of active hostilities, reports indicated that 149 historical sites across Iran had suffered varying degrees of damage, including 70 sites in Tehran. More than 50 museums were also reportedly affected. Gaza: A Heritage Landscape Devastated In Gaza, the scale of destruction has been extraordinary. The Great Omari Mosque, the largest and oldest mosque in Gaza City, was reduced to ruins after being damaged in Israeli strikes in 2023. The site has a history stretching back centuries. Its library and an adjacent cultural centre containing thousands of historic documents were also heavily damaged. https://www.wionews.com/videos/how-modern-war-is-systematically-erasing-human-history-1786732228456/embed In October 2023, an Israeli airstrike hit an area near the Greek Orthodox Saint Porphyrius Church, where displaced people had sought shelter. Hamas said the strike killed people inside the church compound. Since October 2023, nearly 128 buildings of historic significance in Gaza have reportedly suffered heavy damage. The destruction also includes religious sites, monuments and archaeological locations. Lebanon: Ancient Sites in the Crossfire Lebanon's cultural heritage has not escaped the conflict either. In April, UNESCO expressed deep concern over damage in the vicinity of the ancient Beaufort Castle, a historic fortress with centuries of history. The threat to heritage is not simply about damaged stone, broken windows or destroyed buildings. When a museum burns, irreplaceable objects can disappear. When an archive is destroyed, generations of knowledge can vanish. And when an ancient monument is reduced to rubble, humanity loses a physical connection to its own past. What Happens When History Disappears? Wars are fought in the present—but their consequences can reach thousands of years into the past. The destruction of cultural heritage can erase evidence of civilizations, traditions, languages, art and collective memory that can never truly be recreated. Protecting heritage during war, therefore, is not merely about preserving buildings. It is about protecting humanity's shared memory. As conflicts continue across different parts of the world, a more concerted international effort to safeguard cultural heritage has become more urgent than ever. Because when a piece of history disappears, the loss belongs to all of us.

According to UNESCO, at least 545 cultural sites in Ukraine had been confirmed damaged by the end of July. The list includes hundreds of historically significant buildings, museums and monuments.

From Ukraine to Gaza: How modern war is erasing human history | GRAVITAS

Luigi Mangione pleaded guilty on Friday in the federal case stemming from the December 2024 killing of UnitedHealthcare executive Brian Thompson in New York City. Mangione admitted in court that he shot Thompson outside a Manhattan hotel on 4 December 2024. His federal case initially included more serious charges, including murder, but those charges were later dismissed. The remaining federal case centered on stalking offenses.&nbsp;During a hastily scheduled 45-minute hearing, Mangione directly acknowledged his role in Thompson’s death. “I shot Mr Thompson in Manhattan and he died,” Mangione said towards the end of the hearing. He also told the court: “I knew what I was doing was illegal”. Mangione did not say that his actions were wrong and did not express regret for the killing. US District Judge Margaret Garnett scheduled Mangione’s sentencing for 18 December. His federal trial had been scheduled to begin next month, but the guilty plea means that trial will no longer take place. Prosecutors said they would seek life imprisonment.&nbsp;A separate state murder case against Mangione remains pending. Manhattan prosecutors have charged him with murder and weapons offenses, with his state trial currently scheduled to begin on 8 September. Mangione had previously pleaded not guilty in both federal and state proceedings. Shortly after the federal guilty plea, Mangione’s defense attorney, Karen Friedman Agnifilo, said she had filed a motion seeking dismissal of the state murder case. The move could have significant consequences for the upcoming state proceedings because of New York’s constitutional protections against double jeopardy.<h2>Mangione describes planning and killing</h2>During Friday’s hearing, Mangione gave the court an account of events leading up to Thompson’s killing. He said that after years of dealing with severe back pain and a broken back, as well as difficulties navigating the US healthcare system, he learned that UnitedHealthcare was scheduled to hold its annual investor conference in New York in December 2024. The conference location was not publicly available, Mangione said, so he contacted UnitedHealthcare executives while posing as an institutional investor. According to his account, he received a response within an hour and subsequently researched the people expected to attend the event.&nbsp;Mangione then described obtaining and preparing a firearm. He said he printed a gun using a 3-D printer and attached a silencer before traveling to New York. “I shot Mr Thompson in Manhattan and he died,” he said. “When I did so, I understood that my actions would place him in fear of death or serious bodily injury. I knew what I was doing was illegal.” Judge Garnett had earlier determined that Mangione was mentally and physically fit to enter his plea. She then went through a series of questions with him to establish that his decision was voluntary and that he understood the consequences.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/putin-puts-rfk-jr-s-son-conor-on-most-wanted-list-for-fighting-in-ukraine-war-1786727435889">Putin puts RFK Jr's son Conor on most wanted list for fighting in Ukraine war</a><h2>Thompson’s family attends hearing</h2>Members of Brian Thompson’s family attended the hearing, including his widow, Paulette Thompson. Relatives sat in the front row as Mangione described shooting Thompson on a busy Manhattan sidewalk. Some family members became visibly emotional during his statements. Paulette Thompson was seen breathing heavily and holding tightly to the arm of a loved one, while other relatives held hands.&nbsp;The presence of Thompson’s family was notable because federal plea proceedings involving a victim’s family can involve their agreement when a negotiated resolution is being considered. Federal prosecutor Jamie McDonald told the court that prosecutors would seek a sentence of life imprisonment.<h2>State murder case faces uncertainty</h2>Mangione’s federal guilty plea came only weeks before his scheduled state murder trial, potentially creating a major legal challenge for Manhattan prosecutors. New York’s double jeopardy protections generally prevent a person from being prosecuted twice for the same offense. State law also addresses separate prosecutions arising from the same act or criminal transaction, although those provisions contain exceptions.&nbsp;A New York appeals court has previously considered the scope of those protections, leaving the precise effect of Mangione’s federal plea on the state case to be determined. Mangione’s defense moved quickly following Friday’s hearing, filing a motion to dismiss the state murder prosecution. The state case includes murder and weapons charges and is currently scheduled for trial on 8 September.<h2>Federal death penalty bid had already been rejected</h2>The federal case had previously attracted significant attention because former US Attorney General Pam Bondi announced that prosecutors would seek the death penalty. Bondi described Thompson’s killing as a “premeditated, cold-blooded assassination that shocked America” and said the decision was consistent with “Trump’s agenda to stop violent crime and Make America Safe Again”. However, Judge Garnett later dismissed two of the four counts in Mangione’s federal indictment, including the death-penalty-eligible murder charge involving a firearm.&nbsp;In a 30 January ruling, Garnett said US Supreme Court precedents made the federal murder charge incompatible with the stalking charges. “This case will proceed to trial on counts one and two, which charge the defendant with causing Brian Thompson’s death under two federal stalking laws,” Garnett said in her order. “The potential maximum punishment for each of those offenses is life in prison without parole.&nbsp;“Consequently, the chief practical effect of the legal infirmities of counts three and four, and this court’s decision that they must be dismissed, is solely to foreclose the death penalty as an available punishment to be considered by the jury that will otherwise determine, at trial, whether to convict the defendant for causing Brian Thompson’s death,” Garnett had said.<h2>Mangione case draws international attention</h2>Mangione, who was born in Maryland and is 28, was arrested at a McDonald’s in Altoona, Pennsylvania, on 9 December 2024 following a nationwide manhunt for Thompson’s killer. His arrest and subsequent prosecution generated intense international attention. The case also became a focal point for public anger and debate over the US healthcare system, particularly criticism of the country's for-profit healthcare model. Mangione has gained a devoted following online, with some supporters portraying him as a folk hero and referring to themselves as “Mangionistas”.&nbsp;There were fewer supporters outside the courthouse on Friday than during some of Mangione’s earlier appearances.Mangione pleaded not guilty to the federal charges in April 2025. His decision to change his plea came after days of speculation that the federal proceedings could be resolved without a trial. The guilty plea now eliminates the federal trial that had been expected to begin next month, while leaving the future of the separate New York state murder case uncertain.

Luigi Mangione pleads guilty in the federal Brian Thompson killing case as his December sentencing and New York state murder trial remain in focus

Luigi Mangione pleaded guilty on Friday in the federal case stemming from the December 2024 killing of UnitedHealthcare executive Brian Thompson in New York City. Mangione admitted in court that he shot Thompson outside a Manhattan hotel on 4 December 2024. His federal case initially included more serious charges, including murder, but those charges were later dismissed. The remaining federal case centered on stalking offenses. During a hastily scheduled 45-minute hearing, Mangione directly acknowledged his role in Thompson’s death. “I shot Mr Thompson in Manhattan and he died,” Mangione said towards the end of the hearing. He also told the court: “I knew what I was doing was illegal”. Mangione did not say that his actions were wrong and did not express regret for the killing. US District Judge Margaret Garnett scheduled Mangione’s sentencing for 18 December. His federal trial had been scheduled to begin next month, but the guilty plea means that trial will no longer take place. Prosecutors said they would seek life imprisonment. A separate state murder case against Mangione remains pending. Manhattan prosecutors have charged him with murder and weapons offenses, with his state trial currently scheduled to begin on 8 September. Mangione had previously pleaded not guilty in both federal and state proceedings. Shortly after the federal guilty plea, Mangione’s defense attorney, Karen Friedman Agnifilo, said she had filed a motion seeking dismissal of the state murder case. The move could have significant consequences for the upcoming state proceedings because of New York’s constitutional protections against double jeopardy. Mangione describes planning and killing During Friday’s hearing, Mangione gave the court an account of events leading up to Thompson’s killing. He said that after years of dealing with severe back pain and a broken back, as well as difficulties navigating the US healthcare system, he learned that UnitedHealthcare was scheduled to hold its annual investor conference in New York in December 2024. The conference location was not publicly available, Mangione said, so he contacted UnitedHealthcare executives while posing as an institutional investor. According to his account, he received a response within an hour and subsequently researched the people expected to attend the event. Mangione then described obtaining and preparing a firearm. He said he printed a gun using a 3-D printer and attached a silencer before traveling to New York. “I shot Mr Thompson in Manhattan and he died,” he said. “When I did so, I understood that my actions would place him in fear of death or serious bodily injury. I knew what I was doing was illegal.” Judge Garnett had earlier determined that Mangione was mentally and physically fit to enter his plea. She then went through a series of questions with him to establish that his decision was voluntary and that he understood the consequences. Also Read: Putin puts RFK Jr's son Conor on most wanted list for fighting in Ukraine war Thompson’s family attends hearing Members of Brian Thompson’s family attended the hearing, including his widow, Paulette Thompson. Relatives sat in the front row as Mangione described shooting Thompson on a busy Manhattan sidewalk. Some family members became visibly emotional during his statements. Paulette Thompson was seen breathing heavily and holding tightly to the arm of a loved one, while other relatives held hands. The presence of Thompson’s family was notable because federal plea proceedings involving a victim’s family can involve their agreement when a negotiated resolution is being considered. Federal prosecutor Jamie McDonald told the court that prosecutors would seek a sentence of life imprisonment. State murder case faces uncertainty Mangione’s federal guilty plea came only weeks before his scheduled state murder trial, potentially creating a major legal challenge for Manhattan prosecutors. New York’s double jeopardy protections generally prevent a person from being prosecuted twice for the same offense. State law also addresses separate prosecutions arising from the same act or criminal transaction, although those provisions contain exceptions. A New York appeals court has previously considered the scope of those protections, leaving the precise effect of Mangione’s federal plea on the state case to be determined. Mangione’s defense moved quickly following Friday’s hearing, filing a motion to dismiss the state murder prosecution. The state case includes murder and weapons charges and is currently scheduled for trial on 8 September. Federal death penalty bid had already been rejected The federal case had previously attracted significant attention because former US Attorney General Pam Bondi announced that prosecutors would seek the death penalty. Bondi described Thompson’s killing as a “premeditated, cold-blooded assassination that shocked America” and said the decision was consistent with “Trump’s agenda to stop violent crime and Make America Safe Again”. However, Judge Garnett later dismissed two of the four counts in Mangione’s federal indictment, including the death-penalty-eligible murder charge involving a firearm. In a 30 January ruling, Garnett said US Supreme Court precedents made the federal murder charge incompatible with the stalking charges. “This case will proceed to trial on counts one and two, which charge the defendant with causing Brian Thompson’s death under two federal stalking laws,” Garnett said in her order. “The potential maximum punishment for each of those offenses is life in prison without parole. “Consequently, the chief practical effect of the legal infirmities of counts three and four, and this court’s decision that they must be dismissed, is solely to foreclose the death penalty as an available punishment to be considered by the jury that will otherwise determine, at trial, whether to convict the defendant for causing Brian Thompson’s death,” Garnett had said. Mangione case draws international attention Mangione, who was born in Maryland and is 28, was arrested at a McDonald’s in Altoona, Pennsylvania, on 9 December 2024 following a nationwide manhunt for Thompson’s killer. His arrest and subsequent prosecution generated intense international attention. The case also became a focal point for public anger and debate over the US healthcare system, particularly criticism of the country's for-profit healthcare model. Mangione has gained a devoted following online, with some supporters portraying him as a folk hero and referring to themselves as “Mangionistas”. There were fewer supporters outside the courthouse on Friday than during some of Mangione’s earlier appearances. Mangione pleaded not guilty to the federal charges in April 2025. His decision to change his plea came after days of speculation that the federal proceedings could be resolved without a trial. The guilty plea now eliminates the federal trial that had been expected to begin next month, while leaving the future of the separate New York state murder case uncertain.

Luigi Mangione pleads guilty in the federal case over Brian Thompson’s killing, while his New York state murder trial faces a legal challenge

Luigi Mangione pleads guilty in federal case over killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson

world

World, News on World, stories on World, articles on World, World stories at Wion, World news, World latest news

world news

Russia seeks US, Turkey answers over reported Ukraine weapons transfer as Kyiv intensifies strikes

Is America ready for President AOC? The question Democrats can no longer ignore

Islamic Emirate plans first Victory Day event at Afghan mission in Delhi

Iran says Hormuz deal reached with Oman, reopening tied to US lifting blockade

Not 'military infrastructure': Lebanese PM slams Israeli strike killing 11

Trump team urges Apple to avoid Chinese memory chips amid trade tensions: Report

Jason Arday's death puts Cambridge’s hiring and diversity policies under lens

'Accept the reality': Iran challenges Trump's claim over Strait of Hormuz

Shooting at Virginia State University, 5 injured; campus lockdown lifted

Indonesia hit by second earthquake of 6.9 magnitude as death toll reaches 38

Five years of Taliban rule: How Afghanistan has changed since the fall of Kabul

Trump tariffs: Lula activates Brazil’s reciprocity law

Tehran warns US it will never control Strait of Hormuz amid Trump’s threat

Indonesia quake of 7.7 magnitude triggers tsunami warning, kills 20. Why is this one different?

American airlines jets nearly cross paths after flight number mix-up

Indonesia orders coastal evacuation after 7.7-magnitude earthquake

Beijing forced Meta to unwind a $2 billion acquisition and it worked

Claude's text now carries an invisible watermark, everywhere in the world

OpenAI built a hacking model with the safety rails loosened and found 400 bugs

Nvidia is now giving away free AI models!

Trump vows to declare Strait of Hormuz US territory after defeating Iran

Zuckerberg's new manifesto: Everyone gets superintelligence, or it is not safe

Nvidia just turned AI chips into a Wall Street asset class

Haaland’s face misused by gangsters to smuggle cocaine into Ecuador

From Ukraine to Gaza: How modern war is erasing human history | GRAVITAS

Luigi Mangione pleads guilty in federal case over UnitedHealthcare CEO's killing