Global Pulse

作者： admin

  • France upholds assisted dying law, strikes down social media ban for children

    France upholds assisted dying law, strikes down social media ban for children

    On Friday, France’s highest constitutional authority delivered a split decision on a wide-ranging legislative package, upholding a historic bill legalizing assisted dying for terminally ill adults while striking down a flagship policy of President Emmanuel Macron that would have banned social media access for children under 15. The mixed ruling creates both a key political win and a major setback for Macron’s administration, as the president pushes forward with his second-term policy agenda.

    The assisted dying legislation, which cleared parliament in July following years of contentious public and legislative debate, marks one of the most significant social reforms in France since the legalization of same-sex marriage in 2012, a campaign promise Macron made after his 2022 re-election. With the Constitutional Council’s approval, France becomes the sixth country globally — joining the Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland, Canada, and Luxembourg — to formally legalize assisted dying for eligible patients.

    In a statement following the ruling, the Elysee Palace hailed the decision on assisted dying, noting that it “completes an exemplary democratic debate” and provides “essential safeguards for our fellow citizens.” The council did require minor adjustments to one key provision of the bill: the conscience clause that allows individual healthcare workers to opt out of participating in assisted dying procedures. The council ruled that the exemption must also extend to private healthcare facilities that consider assisted dying fundamentally contrary to their institutional mission, as long as the facility is not the only provider able to meet local end-of-life care needs. This adjustment aligns with a long-held demand from Catholic healthcare institutions across the country.

    Under the final terms of the law, eligibility for assisted dying is restricted to adult French citizens or long-term residents who live with an incurable condition and experience unbearable, treatment-resistant pain — including patients who choose to discontinue palliative or life-sustaining treatment. Patients will primarily self-administer the lethal substance, with exceptions for patients with physical impairments that prevent self-administration, who may receive assistance from a licensed healthcare worker.

    The council’s ruling on the social media provision delivered a far different outcome, striking down the under-15 ban outright in a decision that marked a major blow to Macron’s highly publicized child online protection reform. The court found that the proposed ban violated fundamental rights, arguing the restriction on under-15s’ access to social media was “neither appropriate, necessary, nor proportionate” to the government’s stated goal of protecting child welfare, and infringed on the constitutional rights to freedom of expression and communication for young people. The council also raised serious concerns about the privacy risks posed by the mandatory age verification system that would have been required to enforce the ban, which would have collected user identifying data across all social media platforms operating in France.

    The proposed ban, which was scheduled to go into effect on September 1, would have barred all children under 15 from major platforms including TikTok, Snapchat, and Instagram. The Macron administration had framed the policy as a critical response to growing global research linking excessive early social media use to rising rates of adolescent anxiety, depression, sleep disorders, and online harassment. Macron publicly praised parliament for passing the legislation in July and pledged to implement it before the start of the school year.

    Following the ruling, the Elysee Palace made clear that Macron has no intention of abandoning the reform, and has tasked Prime Minister Sebastien Lecornu with drafting a new “legally robust” version of the child online protection legislation as quickly as possible. The new draft will need to align both with the Constitutional Council’s ruling and existing European Union digital regulatory frameworks, the presidency said, adding that Macron’s “determination to see the reform implemented remains undiminished.”

    Former Prime Minister Gabriel Attal, a prominent supporter of the original ban, expressed disappointment with the ruling in a post on X. “We take note of it and respect this decision, which applies to everyone,” he wrote, vowing to continue fighting against what he described as social media being “a deadly poison for our children.”

    Notably, the court did not strike down a separate provision in the same legislative package that bans personal mobile phone use in all French high schools, which is still set to take effect September 1. The ruling comes as a growing number of countries around the world are exploring targeted regulations to limit children’s social media access, amid mounting public health warnings about the impact of unregulated early social media use on adolescent mental health.

  • Premier League club Liverpool sell minority stake to Jeff Bezos consortium

    Premier League club Liverpool sell minority stake to Jeff Bezos consortium

    One of English football’s most iconic institutions, Liverpool FC, has announced a landmark minority stake sale to a global investor consortium that includes Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, marking one of the biggest deals in modern Premier League history.

    The sale comes from current majority owners Fenway Sports Group (FSG), the American sports conglomerate that acquired the 19-time English top-flight champions for just £300 million back in 2010. The buyer, 1892 Holdings, is a consortium led by British-Indian billionaire Amit Bhatia, with backing from Bezos and Meta co-founder Eduardo Saverin. Industry sources confirm the consortium will take ownership of roughly one-third of the club, valuing Liverpool at between £5 billion ($6.8 billion) and £6 billion in the transaction.

    Bezos, currently the fourth-wealthiest person on the planet with an estimated net worth of $256 billion, has long been linked to bids for prominent North American sports franchises including the NFL’s Seattle Seahawks and Washington Commanders, but this deal marks his first direct investment in a professional sports team. He will not take a seat on Liverpool’s expanded board of directors; instead, Bryan Baum, founder of venture capital firm K5 Sports — the vehicle through which Bezos structured his investment — will join the board, alongside Elaine, Saverin’s wife. Bhatia, meanwhile, will step into the new role of vice-chairman at Anfield. Bhatia, son-in-law of Indian steel magnate Lakshmi Mittal, brings 18 years of top-flight football governance experience to the role, having served as co-owner of English Championship side Queens Park Rangers before stepping down earlier this year when his Liverpool investment plans became public.

    In a statement released Friday, FSG president Mike Gordon emphasized alignment between the existing ownership and the new investor group. “Liverpool has always been built by thinking beyond one season and making decisions with the club’s long-term interests in mind. That approach continues to attract interest from respected investors and business leaders around the world. As we considered this opportunity, it became clear that Amit and the consortium shared our long-term philosophy and appreciation for what makes Liverpool special,” Gordon said.

    Bhatia echoed that sentiment, framing the investment as a privilege rather than a business transaction. “We are incredibly proud to be investing in Liverpool Football Club and to be doing so alongside FSG. We have the utmost respect and admiration for FSG as owners and for everything they have achieved at Anfield. To be welcomed as a partner in a club of this stature is a huge privilege. We are making this investment because we believe deeply in Liverpool and its leadership, and we look forward to supporting the club’s continued success for years to come,” Bhatia said.

    Crucially, FSG has confirmed it will retain full majority ownership and complete operational and decision-making control over the club. The organization says the new capital injection will be used to advance Liverpool’s long-term growth goals on and off the pitch, by bringing in expertise across global business, technology, and investment sectors. “The consortium partners will work with FSG and the club’s leadership team to evaluate opportunities that enhance the club’s objectives on and off the pitch,” FSG said in a statement. This is not the first time FSG has sold down a minority stake: three years ago, the group sold a 3% stake to global sports investment firm Dynasty Equity.

    The deal comes at a pivotal moment for Liverpool, as the club prepares to kick off its 2025-26 Premier League campaign away to Newcastle United on August 23. The side is coming off a hugely disappointing 2024-25 season that saw them finish fifth in the top flight, missing out on qualification for the UEFA Champions League. That underperformance led to the sacking of manager Arne Slot just 12 months after he won the Premier League title in his first season in charge, replacing legendary boss Jurgen Klopp. New manager Andoni Iraola is currently looking to strengthen his squad ahead of the closing of the summer transfer window, and the fresh capital from the stake sale is expected to give Iraola additional budget to pursue new targets. So far this transfer window, Liverpool has spent roughly £94 million on new signings Jeremy Jacquet and Victor Munoz.

  • UK diplomats no longer get hardship bonus for being posted to Buenos Aires

    UK diplomats no longer get hardship bonus for being posted to Buenos Aires

    The UK government has updated its long-running hardship allowance scheme for overseas-based British diplomats, removing eight locations from the list of postings eligible for extra hazard pay and respite breaks, a move that has triggered sharp political debate over the fairness of remaining benefits for civil servants.

    Hardship payments have been offered to Foreign Office staff for 30 years, designed to compensate diplomats and their families for the extra costs, health risks, and reduced quality of life that come with living in challenging postings. Eligibility for the benefit is determined by a range of factors, including security threats, high crime rates, severe pollution, extreme climate, natural disaster risk, geographic isolation, and other impacts on daily life. Payments vary significantly by location, and full breakdowns are not published regularly; the last public disclosure of payment amounts came in 2009, when the highest recorded allowance for a coupled posting reached £26,647 annually in Karachi, Pakistan, compared to £1,517 for Buenos Aires and just £777 for Santiago.

    According to the updated list of eligible postings released last week, eight cities and locations are being stripped of their hardship payment status. These include two South American capitals: Argentina’s Buenos Aires, home to Argentina’s presidential offices in the heart of the city, and Chile’s Santiago. The full list of removed locations also adds Panama City (Panama), Pyongyang (North Korea), Bamako (Mali), and Sarajevo (Bosnia and Herzegovina).

    While the change removes benefits from these eight locations, 144 postings around the world still retain eligibility for hardship payments. This list includes well-known conflict and high-risk zones, but it also features popular international tourist destinations such as Bali in Indonesia and Rio de Janeiro in Brazil, alongside other major tourist hubs including Bangkok, Cape Town, Kuala Lumpur, Dubai, Abu Dhabi, and Muscat.

    This overlap has drawn fierce criticism from the UK Conservative Party, which argues that the current scheme wastes taxpayer money. Conservative Party chairman Kevin Hollinrake claimed that allowing civil servants to collect extra pay for postings in these popular destinations is fundamentally unfair to UK taxpayers. He argued that at a time when British households and businesses are facing elevated tax burdens to fund current government policy, the public should not be forced to cover what he framed as unnecessary taxpayer-funded perks for civil servants. “This kind of nonsense has no place in government,” Hollinrake stated, pledging that a future Conservative government would downsize the civil service to eliminate such waste.

    Lord Moylan, a Conservative peer in the House of Lords, submitted a parliamentary question pressing the government on the scheme’s arrangements. Responding to the question, Foreign Office minister Lord Wood of Anfield clarified that hardship assessments account for any need for additional respite breaks to protect diplomats’ physical and mental health. He added that the scheme is not a new policy, and has been applied consistently by successive UK governments over decades.

    Defending the framework, a spokesperson for the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office argued that the scheme is a necessary protection for staff serving the UK abroad. “British diplomats serve their country around the globe, including in some of the toughest and most challenging physical and political environments in the world,” the spokesperson said. “We have a duty of care to ensure our staff are properly supported, and compensation and other provisions reflect the circumstances of the posting, as it would be in any private sector job.”

  • Five years after the Taliban swept to power, does the West have any influence?

    Five years after the Taliban swept to power, does the West have any influence?

    Five years have passed since the Taliban’s lightning offensive swept into Kabul on 15 August 2021, bringing the ultra-conservative Islamist movement back to full control of Afghanistan. Today, the country grapples with cascading humanitarian, economic and political crises, while the international community remains deeply divided over how to engage the ruling regime – a divide that has left Afghan women, already stripped of most basic rights, increasingly adrift and losing hope.

    In a whitewashed basement workshop in a village south of Kabul, a dozen young women stir bubbling pots of cherries and plums, labeling glass jars of homemade jam to sell. Run by 47-year-old Afghan entrepreneur Najia – a child bride married at 14 and mother of nine – this small operation is one of the very few remaining spaces where Afghan women can still earn an income and build professional skills under Taliban rule. Most of the women working here, including Najia’s own daughters, would be pursuing university degrees or professional careers if the Taliban had not banned girls and women from secondary education and university enrollment. Even this limited opportunity is now being squeezed: new Taliban rules bar women from selling their own goods at public markets and trade fairs, forcing them to rely on male intermediaries to handle sales, with the regime justifying the restriction by claiming women fail to comply with rigid hijab requirements.

    “The world has to talk to the Taliban in a different way because what it’s doing now just isn’t working,” Najia says. “The lives of Afghan women have to change because we’re losing hope.”

    Her words cut to the core of the pressing global question five years into Taliban rule: what approach can actually deliver meaningful change for Afghanistan and its people, amid sweeping restrictions that have erased women and girls from nearly all of public life?

    The debate over how to engage the Taliban has exposed deep rifts globally. Western nations have largely prioritized human rights conditions for any normalization, while neighboring and regional powers have moved ahead to strike trade, mining and energy deals with the regime, extending de facto recognition. Even within the Western bloc, there is no unified approach. Critics across the board acknowledge that current strategies have failed to shift the Taliban’s policies, but few advocate for full isolation: the United Nations estimates 22 million Afghans – nearly half the country’s population – depend on international aid to survive, and the nation has already been battered by overlapping crises: a crippling economic meltdown, repeated devastating natural disasters, cross-border clashes with Pakistan, and the recent influx of millions of deported Afghans returning to the already impoverished country.

    Despite ongoing opposition attacks from armed groups based abroad and Islamic State insurgents, the Taliban has steadily consolidated its hold on power, growing more confident in its rule each year. Today, the regime collects taxes and negotiates major commercial deals with China, Russia, the United Arab Emirates and Uzbekistan, among other partners. While only Russia has granted formal diplomatic recognition, and the Taliban remains locked out of its UN seat, informal and de facto recognition is growing. More than 40 Afghan embassies around the world are now controlled by the Taliban, rather than holdouts from the previous Western-backed government it ousted.

    “The West is losing the argument over formal recognition,” a senior former UN official, who spoke on condition of anonymity due to their ongoing work in Afghanistan, told reporters. “There’s no doubt the Taliban would like to be recognised at the UN but it’s no longer as potent a bargaining chip as it was at the beginning.”

    For the Taliban, the priority is now expanding diplomatic engagement rather than waiting for formal recognition. “We need to come closer diplomatically rather than talking from a distance if we want to make progress in our relationship,” Taliban chief spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid said in an interview in Kandahar – the movement’s de facto seat of power, where reclusive Taliban emir Hibatullah Akhundzada has built his base and issued hundreds of strict edicts, most targeting the public presence of women, which he frames as an Islamic religious obligation to protect gender segregation.

    Five years on, the international community’s approach is evolving. The UN, which maintains a mission in Kabul, has shifted to a new structured negotiation framework called the Mosaic process, which addresses six core issues: human rights (including women’s rights), inclusive governance, counterterrorism on one side, and the Taliban’s demands for sanctions relief, unfreezing of seized Afghan assets, and formal diplomatic representation on the other.

    “Engagement is slow, progress is incremental, and reversals are frequent,” the UN’s acting head of mission in Kabul, Georgette Gagnon, acknowledged. “But a stalled process is better than no process. Pressure has not worked so far, threats have not worked; our best chance lies in consistent and common messaging and collective action.”

    On the ground in provincial Afghanistan, international aid agencies have developed pragmatic “workarounds” to comply with Taliban gender restrictions while still allowing women to work and keep projects running – for example, having women work from home, or in separate facilities from men. Aid workers say these incremental daily adaptations help preserve limited opportunities for women, even as they operate within the regime’s red lines.

    “Everything in Afghanistan is relationships, and day-to-day that can help make things easier,” said Chris Kinder, chairman of British charity Afghanaid, which has operated in the country for more than 40 years. “The Taliban have their red lines and we, and our donors, have ours. We discuss approaches so both sides understand where they are coming from.”

    But many Afghan women’s rights activists and human rights groups argue that unconditioned engagement has become a one-way street, with the Taliban making no meaningful concessions in return for greater global acceptance. A recent flashpoint came in June 2026, when the European Union hosted a Taliban foreign ministry delegation in Brussels for the first time since the regime returned to power, drawing widespread criticism that it amounted to “creeping normalisation” of the Taliban’s discriminatory policies.

    Mahbouba Seraj, a 78-year-old veteran Afghan women’s rights activist who stayed in Kabul after 2021 to run shelters for women fleeing domestic abuse, announced she is preparing to leave the country after her last shelter was shut down by the Taliban in December 2025. Her repeated appeals to reopen girls’ classrooms have been ignored.

    “These small windows that the world sees, the little openings here and there including secret schools for girls, are just meant to fool everybody,” Seraj said. Still, she argues the international community cannot stop talking – it just needs to talk with clear conditions. “They have to talk, but they have to make sure that when they sit down and talk, it’s not just a lot of people just filling the air.”

    Five years into Taliban rule, Afghanistan has largely faded from global headlines, overshadowed by wars in Ukraine and the Middle East. Many observers agree that real and lasting change will have to come from within the Taliban movement itself, rather than being imposed from outside. While a small number of senior Taliban officials have privately pushed back against the strictest edicts – most notably the full ban on girls’ secondary education – the emir’s rulings are treated as absolute, and the movement prioritizes internal unity over policy change.

    Back at Najia’s jam workshop, framed training certificates – including some from the now-shuttered U.S. Agency for International Development – line the walls, a testament to years of perseverance amid growing restrictions. A new social order, shaped by the Taliban’s rules, is slowly taking hold across Afghanistan, but many Afghans continue to push and pray for a different future, pleading with the world not to forget them.

  • Why is Selena Gomez being sued?

    Why is Selena Gomez being sued?

    When A-list pop culture icon Selena Gomez co-founded mental health platform Wondermind Global, the venture was hailed as a groundbreaking intersection of celebrity influence and accessible mental wellness support. What was framed as a mission to destigmatize mental health care and reach underserved communities quickly turned into a high-stakes legal dispute, as the company’s early investors have now moved forward with a lawsuit against the star and other key stakeholders. The core of the investors’ claim centers on allegations that Gomez failed to uphold the contractual commitments she made when the firm was launched, particularly around promises of ongoing, high-impact promotional work and active brand engagement that was meant to drive user growth and market traction.

    BBC journalist Ana Guerra-Moore first broke down the full context of the lawsuit, unpacking how the arrangement between Gomez and her backers was structured from the outset. Investors reportedly agreed to put significant capital into Wondermind Global in large part because of Gomez’s massive global fanbase and personal connection to mental health advocacy, which she has spoken openly about for years. They allege that the star committed to making regular public appearances, promoting the platform across her multi-million follower social media channels, and participating in key branding initiatives that would position Wondermind as a leading player in the fast-growing mental health tech space.

    According to the legal filing, those promotional efforts never materialized to the degree that was agreed upon. Investors claim that the lack of consistent, high-profile engagement from Gomez led to slower user acquisition, weaker brand recognition, and a resulting decline in the company’s valuation that has cost them substantial financial losses. The dispute highlights a longstanding tension in celebrity-backed startups: investors often bank on a star’s drawing power to drive early success, but when that promised influence does not translate into tangible results, disputes over broken commitments often end up in court. As of the latest reporting, neither Gomez nor her legal team have issued a formal public response to the allegations, and the case is still in its early procedural stages.

  • What next for Nigel Farage after beating Count Binface to become MP once more?

    What next for Nigel Farage after beating Count Binface to become MP once more?

    Twelve months ago, Nigel Farage stood at the pinnacle of British political influence. As leader of the Reform UK party, his movement commanded commanding leads in national opinion polls, with Farage and his allies dictating the terms of the UK’s national political conversation. Keir Starmer’s governing Labour Party found itself stuck in a reactive posture, and many prominent political commentators openly speculated that a Reform UK general election victory was no longer a question of if, but when.

    Today, that political momentum has vanished entirely, and Farage’s own long-term political future is now hanging in the balance, tied up in a parliamentary ethics investigation over an undeclared £5 million ($6.74 million) gift from Thailand-based crypto billionaire Christopher Harborne. To clear his name and put his fate to voters, Farage resigned his seat as the Member of Parliament for Clacton, a coastal constituency in eastern England, last month, triggering a special by-election.

    When votes were counted in the early hours of Friday, official results confirmed Farage had retained the seat with 22,239 votes – a slight increase of 1,000 votes over his 2024 general election majority, secured on a lower overall voter turnout than the previous contest. But what exactly did this win deliver for the veteran Brexit architect?

    From the start of the campaign, the contest followed an unusual path: all major mainstream UK parties, including Labour and the Conservatives, made the decision to boycott the by-election, arguing it was an unnecessary political stunt staged by Farage for personal gain. With no big-party candidates on the ballot, the field swelled to 34 contenders, a chaotic mix of independent candidates, representatives from tiny minor parties, and novelty joke candidates – including three hopefuls from the Official Monster Raving Loony Party, a long-running UK satirical political group.

    Farage’s closest competitor ended up being a novelty candidate who performs under the name Count Binface, a self-described “intergalactic space warrior” who campaigns while wearing a full costume shaped like a waste bin. In a result that stunned many political observers, Count Binface secured 9,455 votes, equal to 26.9% of the total vote share, against Farage’s 63.3% – an unusually strong performance for a satirical candidate.

    That strong showing for a novelty contender has left Farage’s victory ringing hollow. Attempting to spin the result, Farage attempted to frame Count Binface as a proxy for the political “establishment” he has long railed against – a narrative that has gained little traction with the general public. Responding to Farage’s accusation from the vote count, Count Binface delivered a cutting rebuke:

    “Someone who has been an MP, been an MEP, who was one of the chief architects of Brexit and one of the dominant figures in British politics over the last 20 years, and is reputedly a member of the East India gentleman’s club, which apparently does not admit women – I would say that’s arguably slightly more establishment than a lone wolf space warrior with a Ceefax fixation,” he said. “But you know what? It’s up to you.”

    Notably, Farage himself was absent from the official vote count. He claimed police advice over alleged plans to disrupt the result forced his absence, but acting returning officer Ian Davidson clarified that the decision to skip the count was Farage’s personal choice. Political observers have widely speculated Farage avoided the event to avoid being photographed alongside his unlikely rival. Instead of attending the count, Farage appeared at “Farage Fest”, a campaign celebration held on a farm on the outskirts of Clacton complete with festival tents and a ferris wheel, where he hailed the result as a “resounding victory” and claimed “the result in Clacton speaks for itself.”

    But few independent analysts accept that framing. A year on from Farage’s poll peak, the political landscape has shifted dramatically: new Prime Minister Andy Burnham now sets the national political agenda, the Labour government is enjoying a steady boost in national polling, and there is growing speculation Burnham could call an early snap general election this autumn if current polling trends hold.

    Farage is no longer the figure dictating the terms of national political debate; instead, he is clearly on the defensive. To rebuild Reform UK’s political standing and advance its policy platform of national restructuring and mass deportations, Farage will need far more than a by-election win against a field of novelty and minor candidates.

    Worse for Farage, his return to Parliament means the suspended parliamentary investigation into the undeclared £5 million gift has now resumed, and the cloud of ethics scrutiny hanging over his political career has returned. Whether he can survive this controversy politically remains an open question.

    For his part, Count Binface has already claimed a victory of his own: “I came first in the Clacton by-election! Of the candidates who bothered to turn up for the results.”

  • France’s top court blocks social media ban for under-15s

    France’s top court blocks social media ban for under-15s

    A landmark decision from France’s Constitutional Council, the nation’s highest constitutional authority, has overturned a groundbreaking legislative ban on social media use for individuals under the age of 15, ruling that the policy violated fundamental constitutional protections for freedom of expression.

    The controversial bill, which positioned France as the first European nation to enact such a sweeping restriction on minor’s social media access, was approved by national lawmakers in July 2025. Drafted in response to growing public and expert concern over the well-documented negative impacts of unregulated social media use on adolescent mental health, the ban was scheduled to roll out in phases starting this September under a commitment from President Emmanuel Macron’s administration.

    The court’s Friday ruling nullifies the policy entirely. Shortly after the decision was announced, President Macron directed Prime Minister Sébastien Lecornu to develop a revised draft law that addresses all the constitutional concerns raised by the council. The review of the original legislation was triggered by Lecornu himself, who referred contested portions of the bill to the nine-member Constitutional Council after its parliamentary approval to confirm its alignment with France’s constitution.

    In its official ruling, the council stated that the core first article of the original legislation created an infringement on under-15s’ rights to freedom of expression and communication that was “neither appropriate, necessary, nor proportionate” to the stated goal of protecting youth mental health. The court also highlighted critical flaws in the law’s mandatory age-verification requirement for accessing online platforms, noting that the policy failed to put in place the “necessary legal safeguards” to protect user rights, raising unaddressed privacy concerns.

    Following the ruling, a spokesperson from the Élysée Palace confirmed that the French government will move forward with expedited work on a new bill, emphasizing that President Macron remains fully committed to implementing this reform by the beginning of 2027. The original policy would have barred all users under 15 from creating new social media accounts starting this September, with mandatory age verification for all new accounts, and extended the rule to all existing accounts by January 2026.

    Critics of the original ban had raised a host of concerns long before the court ruling, questioning everything from the technical feasibility of the policy to the privacy risks of widespread age verification. Opponents also argued that young, tech-savvy users would easily bypass verification checks, and that the legislation had been rushed through the legislative process without sufficient scrutiny.

    France’s policy is part of a growing global trend of restricting minor access to social media: Australia became the first nation to implement a national ban in December 2024, barring users under 16 from platforms, though enforcement gaps have left widespread underage use unchanged. Across Europe, momentum for restrictive policies has accelerated in recent months. In May 2025, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen proposed a “social media delay” for children across the European Union, indicating that new bloc-wide legislation could be introduced within months. In the United Kingdom, Labour Party leader and Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer announced a national ban on social media for under-16s set to take effect in January 2027, alongside an optional midnight curfew for 16 and 17-year-old users.

  • ‘I shot Mr Thompson’ – Inside the court as Mangione pleaded guilty

    ‘I shot Mr Thompson’ – Inside the court as Mangione pleaded guilty

    In a closely watched court proceeding that drew sharp media attention, Luigi Mangione formally entered a guilty plea in the case centered on the shooting of Mr. Thompson. Nada Tawfik, the British Broadcasting Corporation’s senior North America correspondent, was present inside the courtroom to observe every moment of the high-stipes hearing. As the proceedings unfolded, Mangione directly addressed the court, making the explicit statement: “I shot Mr. Thompson.”

    The guilty plea marks a major turning point in a case that has captured public attention across the United States, closing the chapter on pre-trial proceedings and clearing the path for sentencing in the coming weeks. Courtroom observers note that Mangione’s admission of responsibility came without any negotiated plea deal that would reduce potential charges, according to initial on-site reporting from the hearing. Tawfik’s presence inside the courtroom provided the public with a first-hand, on-the-ground account of the proceeding, one of the few independent reports from inside the court during the plea hearing.

    Legal analysts point out that a guilty plea in a shooting case typically eliminates the need for a full jury trial, significantly speeding up the judicial process and bringing a measure of closure to the victim’s family, who have been waiting for progress in the case since the shooting incident occurred. While few additional details about the motive behind the shooting have been released publicly as of yet, the guilty plea confirms Mangione’s responsibility for the attack on Mr. Thompson. Court officials have not yet announced a firm date for the sentencing hearing, but legal sources close to the case indicate it will be scheduled within the next 60 to 90 days.

  • Mangione admits shooting health care CEO

    Mangione admits shooting health care CEO

    In a high-profile case that has split American public opinion amid long-simmering anger over the U.S. commercial healthcare system, 28-year-old Luigi Mangione has formally admitted to fatally shooting UnitedHealthcare Chief Executive Brian Thompson during a court hearing Friday, while entering a guilty plea to federal stalking charges.

    Mangione’s admission comes nearly eight months after the December 2024 shooting that sent shockwaves through corporate America. “On the morning of December 4, I shot Mr Thompson in Manhattan and he died,” Mangione told a federal judge, confirming the premeditated attack he carried out to protest what he calls a broken U.S. health insurance system. Thompson, 50, was killed at a Manhattan conference venue, just days after Mangione traveled to New York from Atlanta via bus, prosecutors confirmed.

    According to official case details, Mangione used false identification to check into a Manhattan hostel roughly 10 days before the shooting, and conducted multiple reconnaissance missions near Thompson’s hotel and the planned attack site. He acknowledged in court Friday that he constructed the murder weapon using a 3D printer, then outfitted it with an aftermarket silencer and extended magazine. Law enforcement recovered the homemade gun, the silencer, and a handwritten planning checklist that included reminders to complete intelligence checks and purchase a camera from a local Best Buy when they arrested Mangione five days after the shooting following a multi-state manhunt. He was taken into custody at a McDonald’s in Altoona, Pennsylvania, after restaurant staff recognized him and tipped off authorities.

    Mangione is currently facing stalking charges in federal court and separate murder charges in New York state court. Following his guilty plea on Friday, defense attorney Karen Friedman Agnifilo announced that her legal team had filed a motion to dismiss the state charges, arguing that dual prosecution for the same conduct violates New York’s double jeopardy protections.

    A sentencing hearing for the federal stalking charge is scheduled for December 18, and federal prosecutors have confirmed they will push for a life sentence. Both the federal stalking charge and state murder charge carry a maximum possible life sentence; two additional federal charges that would have allowed prosecutors to seek the death penalty were thrown out by a judge earlier this year.

    The slaying of Thompson has pulled back the curtain on deep, widespread public frustration with the profitable U.S. private healthcare system, and the case has exacerbated already sharp political divides across the country. While former President Donald Trump and other leading conservative figures have demanded harsh punishment to set an example for would-be political violence, many working-class Americans frustrated by soaring healthcare costs and insurance denials have embraced Mangione as a folk hero. On Friday, dozens of supporters gathered outside the heavily fortified Manhattan courthouse as a police helicopter circled overhead, while inside the courtroom, Thompson’s family attended the hearing. As Thompson’s relatives left the courthouse in a convoy of black SUVs, one onlooker shouted “America loves Luigi” toward their vehicle.

    U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York Jamie McDonald pushed back against any glorification of the attack following the hearing, telling reporters: “There can be no celebrity in assassination.” Under U.S. legal precedent, it is constitutionally permitted for defendants to face charges in both state and federal court for the same underlying criminal conduct, so long as the charges are distinct, as they are in Mangione’s case.

  • Luigi Mangione has pleaded guilty to federal charges. What happens now?

    Luigi Mangione has pleaded guilty to federal charges. What happens now?

    In a dramatic development in the high-profile killing of UnitedHealthcare chief executive Brian Thompson, 28-year-old Luigi Mangione has entered guilty pleas to two federal stalking charges that allege he tracked the executive across state lines before his 2024 death.

    Mangione made his plea during a Friday hearing held in a Manhattan federal courtroom. Under the charges he admitted to Friday — stalking resulting in death — the defendant could be sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. This comes after prosecutors built a case that Mangione crossed state lines, conducted pre-attack surveillance of Thompson, and carried out the plan that ended in Thompson’s death.

    Notably, Mangione did not reach any plea deal with federal prosecutors regarding his sentencing; he only agreed to admit guilt to the two counts. Prior to this hearing, he had entered not guilty pleas to all charges against him in both federal and state courts. The original federal indictment against Mangione included four total charges, but a federal judge dismissed two counts back in January. That ruling removed the only capital offense on the docket — a federal firearms charge that carried the possibility of the death penalty — eliminating any chance Mangione would face execution for the crime. Only the two interstate stalking charges remained after that January ruling.

    While the federal case against Mangione is moving toward a final sentencing hearing scheduled for December, the defendant still faces a separate criminal prosecution in New York state court. He is scheduled to go on trial for eight state felony charges starting September 8, with charges including second-degree murder, possession of a forged instrument linked to an alleged fake driver’s license, and six counts of criminal weapon possession. Mangione has maintained not guilty pleas for all eight state charges, and three additional initial charges — including first-degree murder tied to terrorism — were previously thrown out by a state judge. A conviction on the state second-degree murder charge would carry a sentence ranging from 25 years in prison up to life imprisonment, and New York state has no death penalty, after its highest court ruled capital punishment unconstitutional in 2004.

    Mangione’s legal team has long argued that dual prosecutions in both federal and state court for the same killing violate his constitutional rights, and Friday’s guilty plea has amplified that argument. Legal experts warn the plea could fundamentally disrupt the upcoming state trial, as defense attorneys are expected to push to dismiss the state charges under the double jeopardy principle. This constitutional protection bars individuals from being prosecuted twice for the same offense based on identical facts.

    New York’s own state constitution includes an explicit prohibition on double jeopardy that could further bolster the defense’s motion. Mitchell Epner, a former federal prosecutor and current defense attorney, explained the core of this argument: once a federal prosecution has concluded on a set of facts, state authorities cannot bring a new prosecution based on those same facts. It remains unclear how the state judge will rule on the expected double jeopardy motion, leaving the future of the state trial uncertain as the September start date approaches.