标签： North America

As global alarm over artificial intelligence’s potential existential and societal risks reaches a fever pitch, former U.S. President Donald Trump has shaken up the policy conversation with a new announcement: he plans to establish a dedicated national ‘AI Force’ and appoint a senior White House-level ‘AI tsar’ to lead the country’s AI strategy.

In a social media statement published Saturday, Trump pushed back against the growing chorus of experts and industry leaders calling for a temporary slowdown in cutting-edge AI development until robust safety guardrails can be put in place. He emphasized that under his leadership, the federal government would not place unnecessary barriers that would curb the rapid expansion of the U.S. AI sector. Going further, Trump dismissed widespread public and expert concern over AI’s potential harms as a deliberate ‘hoax’, a stance he has repeated in recent public comments.

Trump framed AI as a transformative technological shift on par with — and far more impactful than — the first Industrial Revolution or the rise of the internet. He projected that AI could eventually account for as much as 25% of U.S. gross domestic product, and stressed that his top priority is maintaining U.S. technological leadership over China in this critical emerging field. AI innovation has already emerged as a core point of competition between the world’s two largest economies, and the issue is expected to be on the agenda when Trump meets Chinese President Xi Jinping next week, according to pre-summit briefing expectations. The former president added that for bad actors who misuse AI for harmful purposes, his administration would leverage existing criminal and civil legal frameworks to hold wrongdoers accountable. Notably, Trump offered no specific structural details, policy outlines, or implementation timeline for his proposed ‘AI Force’ in his initial announcement.

Trump’s proposal comes amid a wave of urgent warnings from AI researchers, top industry leaders, and policymakers across the Western world about the risks posed by unregulated development of increasingly powerful AI systems. In recent weeks, multiple current and former AI researchers have sounded the alarm about existential risk, with one prominent figure estimating a greater than 10% probability that unconstrained AI advancement could lead to human extinction. Major AI companies are currently locked in a global race to roll out increasingly powerful models, with many working toward the development of so-called ‘superintelligence’ — a theoretical AI system that would outperform humans across virtually all cognitive and strategic tasks.

In recent months, three of the world’s largest AI developers — Anthropic, OpenAI, and Google, creators of leading chatbots Claude, ChatGPT, and Gemini respectively — have publicly reported security gaps and incidents where their platforms were exploited for malicious activity. Earlier this year, Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei became the latest top AI leader to call for an industry-wide slowdown in advanced AI development, paired with binding government regulation and independent third-party monitoring of high-risk model training. Amodei’s call has been backed by other prominent industry figures, including OpenAI CEO Sam Altman and xAI founder Elon Musk. Anthropic co-founder Jack Clark told the BBC in a recent interview that mandatory ‘kill switches’ — remote shutdown systems that can be activated by independent third parties to disable misbehaving models — should be required for all high-capacity AI systems.

While U.S. lawmakers have already begun drafting new AI-focused legislation in response to growing safety concerns, Altman acknowledged this week that federal regulators and policymakers have struggled to keep up with the breakneck pace of AI innovation, leaving a gap in effective oversight. Altman pushed back against heavy-handed government intervention, however, arguing that the public and policymakers should place greater trust in AI companies to self-regulate and develop safety systems. ‘The world should trust that we are going to do the right thing because it’s the right thing and we feel the magnitude of this,’ Altman told a tech industry conference in San Francisco.

Across the Atlantic, the debate over AI regulation is also accelerating. In the United Kingdom, cross-party MPs and members of the House of Lords have warned that existing national laws are not equipped to mitigate human rights risks posed by rapidly advancing AI systems. The parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights has released a new report calling for a dedicated new AI bill to address what it describes as the ‘scale and seriousness’ of these emerging threats to public rights and safety.

In a sharp escalation of his long-running battle with the national press corps, former and current President Donald Trump has cut off full White House access to three major U.S. media outlets, triggering immediate legal pushback and fierce condemnation from press freedom advocates. On Saturday morning, correspondents from CNN, Politico, and MS Now were barred from entering White House grounds for official work, and their permanent press credentials were seized outright. The unprecedented move was announced by Trump himself a day earlier on his Truth Social platform, where he justified the ban by accusing the three outlets of consistently publishing what he calls ‘fake news’.

Speaking further on the decision Friday, Trump argued that the United States has allowed intentionally negative coverage of his administration to go unchecked for too long. ‘If they want to write them, that’s fine,’ he said of critical reporting. ‘I don’t have to let them into the people’s house,’ he added, referencing the White House as a public facility.

The president’s latest crackdown on the press comes on the heels of a punishing week that delivered a string of high-profile defeats across his policy and political agenda, leaving him facing mounting headwinds just months before critical 2026 midterm congressional elections. First, the U.S. Supreme Court – a body that includes three justices appointed by Trump himself – blocked his administration’s plan to impose new restrictions on mail-in voting ahead of the November vote. An infuriated Trump lashed out at the court, saying, ‘These are not the people I interviewed to serve on the United States Supreme Court.’

Next, the U.S. Federal Reserve, the nation’s central bank, defied months of public pressure from Trump to cut interest rates and instead announced a rate hike. Shortly after that, a federal judge issued an order blocking the Trump administration from making any changes to Washington DC’s iconic Kennedy Center arts venue for 30 days, a response to Trump’s recent public threat to ‘rip down’ the facility. Compounding these setbacks, Trump’s job approval rating has recently sunk to a historic low for his second term in office, according to public polling.

Legal experts say the new press ban raises serious constitutional questions under U.S. law. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits the government from restricting press freedom, and federal courts have consistently ruled that executive branch officials cannot discriminate against media outlets based on the content of their reporting. All three targeted organizations have already confirmed they will file lawsuits to challenge the administration’s order.

While the scope of this latest action is without precedent, it is far from the first time the Trump White House has moved to restrict press access for critical mainstream outlets. During Trump’s first term in office, the administration revoked the press pass of CNN correspondent Jim Acosta, triggering a legal battle that ended with a federal court ordering Acosta’s credentials restored. The White House also briefly suspended the press pass of a reporter who clashed with former Trump advisor Sebastian Gorka, a move that was also blocked by courts.

Last year, the administration barred Associated Press reporters from joining the presidential press pool – the group of reporters that accompanies the president for public and off-the-record appearances – after the news outlet refused to comply with Trump’s order to rename the Gulf of Mexico as the ‘Gulf of America’. That dispute spiraled into a long-running, still unresolved legal battle, and ultimately led the White House to revise press pool rules to eliminate guaranteed access for all major wire services.

Unlike these earlier actions, which targeted individual reporters, the latest ban applies to entire media organizations and blocks access to all areas of the White House grounds, not just presidential press pool events. That marks a dramatic escalation of the administration’s long-running conflict with the national press. Trump has been open about his disdain for critical coverage, which dates back to his entry into national politics more than a decade ago, but he told reporters Friday that no single specific incident prompted this week’s ban.

Political analysts note the timing of the move comes as Trump faces multiple layers of political vulnerability. Beyond the string of recent legislative and judicial defeats, the president is overseeing an unpopular and protracted war of choice in Iran that has driven up energy and consumer prices across the United States, eroding his support among American voters. Polling consistently shows Trump’s Republican Party faces a steep challenge to retain control of the U.S. House of Representatives, and could also lose its majority in the U.S. Senate, in the upcoming midterm elections. Recent efforts to boost public support by highlighting administration accomplishments at campaign rallies and last month’s Republican National Convention in Texas have so far failed to move polling numbers in the GOP’s favor.

While there may be underlying strategic calculations behind Trump’s decision to target the press this weekend, many analysts see it as a raw expression of presidential frustration at a growing wave of political setbacks, many of which stem from decisions made by Trump himself. As the legal battle over the press ban gets underway, the confrontation adds another layer of volatility to an already charged lead-up to the 2026 midterms.

A sweeping restriction on press access imposed by former (current) U.S. President Donald Trump has escalated into a major national debate over First Amendment protections for independent journalism, after three of the country’s leading news organizations saw their press credentials revoked and were locked out of the White House complex over the weekend.

The restriction moved from announcement to implementation on Saturday, when MSNBC (MS NOW) correspondent Akayla Gardner and a photojournalist from the outlet attempted to enter the White House grounds, only to find their press badges failed to scan. Shortly after, a uniformed Secret Service officer confiscated the disabled credentials, Gardner confirmed in on-the-record comments. When Gardner pressed for an explanation, the officer said the decision to revoke access was outside of his authority. In an unusual inconsistency, one MSNBC producer was still permitted to enter after their badge scanned successfully, though the outlet has received no official clarification for why the producer’s access remained active while other staff credentials were deactivated.

CNN also confirmed Saturday morning that one of its White House correspondents, Betsy Klein, faced the same treatment: a Secret Service agent informed Klein that her press badge had been deactivated, and she was barred from entering the premises. As of Saturday, it remained unclear whether Politico, the third outlet named in Trump’s ban, had attempted to send reporters to the White House, and thus whether its credentials had also been disabled.

Trump first announced the ban during public remarks Friday, naming CNN, MSNBC (MS NOW) and Politico as the outlets targeted for exclusion. The president accused the three organizations of consistently publishing “fiction or lies” about his administration, offering no specific examples of problematic reporting when he first announced the order. When pressed later on what reporting prompted the ban, Trump attributed the decision to “cumulative stories over the last few years. He also hinted that the exclusion could expand to additional critical outlets, telling reporters “there may be others to join them. When asked to clarify which outlets could face future bans, Trump name-checked two more major national publications: “Others to come in terms of fake news? Well, you know, the New York Times is fake news, the Washington Post is fake news.

All three targeted outlets have issued forceful public statements condemning the ban as a direct violation of constitutionally protected press freedoms. The White House is public property funded by American tax dollars, and all decisions made within its walls are matters of public concern, an MSNBC spokesperson emphasized in an official statement. “MSNBC intends to take any and all steps necessary to defend our First Amendment rights and the essential role of independent journalism in our democracy, the statement added.

CNN echoed that stance in its own response, arguing that the outlet holds a constitutional right to conduct reporting free from government interference. “We have a right under the U.S. Constitution to do our reporting without hindrance or interference from the government and this ban is an illegal assault on this fundamental right, the network said.

Press freedom advocates and legal organizations have quickly mobilized to push back against the order, universally condemning it as unconstitutional and a fundamental attack on American democratic norms. The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, a leading non-profit that provides legal representation and support to journalists across the country, said it expects the ban to be quickly overturned by federal courts because it violates core First Amendment precedent. “The First Amendment is clear that once the White House invites in some journalists, it can’t ban others because it doesn’t like their reporting, said Bruce Brown, the organization’s executive director.

This latest restriction is part of a long-running pattern of aggressive action by the Trump administration against media outlets the president views as critical of his presidency. Trump has launched multiple high-profile lawsuits against a range of U.S. and international outlets, including The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and the BBC. Several of these legal actions have resulted in multi-million dollar settlement payments from media organizations to the president, while the lawsuit against the BBC remains active in court as of this reporting.

This latest escalation in tensions between the Trump White House and the national press corps has reignited longstanding concerns about the erosion of press freedom in the United States, with advocates warning that excluding critical outlets from official White House access sets a dangerous precedent that undermines the public’s right to hold government leaders accountable.

As crowds of demonstrators rallied outside the iconic Kennedy Center to push back against looming plans to tear the building down, Kerry Kennedy, niece of the late former U.S. President John F. Kennedy, sat down for an exclusive interview with BBC correspondent Caitríona Perry to share her fierce opposition to the proposed demolition. In the conversation, Perry highlighted the growing public anger that had brought dozens of community members, heritage advocates, and those connected to the Kennedy legacy out to the venue’s steps, where they carried signs and chanted to demand that the historic site be spared from destruction. When asked about the stakes of the current fight, Kerry Kennedy did not mince words, telling Perry that demolishing the center, a space long tied to her family’s legacy of public service and cultural engagement, would be nothing short of a profound tragedy. She went on to note that the venue has served as a hub for artistic expression, community gathering, and national remembrance for decades, arguing that its cultural and historical value far outweighs any potential benefits that could come from clearing the site for new development. The demonstration comes amid ongoing local debates over the future of the property, with development groups pushing for redevelopment to meet shifting urban needs, while preservationists and political figures with ties to the Kennedy family have mobilized in recent weeks to halt the demolition plans. In the interview, Kerry Kennedy emphasized that the fight to save the Kennedy Center is not just about preserving a building, but about protecting a piece of American history that continues to bring people together across political and social divides. She called on local leaders and community members to add their voices to the campaign, urging decision-makers to reconsider the demolition proposal and explore alternative options that would allow the center to remain standing for future generations.

After months of high-stakes diplomatic friction sparked by former President Donald Trump’s aggressive threats to forcibly annex the resource-rich Arctic territory of Greenland, the United States and Denmark have formally announced a new security agreement that reshape strategic dynamics across the North Atlantic and Arctic regions.

Trump first began floating attempts to purchase or seize Greenland more than a year ago, framing the move as a critical national security priority. He argued that the island’s strategic geographic position made it indispensable for defending North America, while its vast untapped reserves of rare earth minerals – materials critical to manufacturing modern technologies from electric vehicles to smartphones – represented an unmatched economic opportunity. The president’s openly stated willingness to use military force to take control of the territory sparked widespread condemnation from Denmark, fellow NATO allies, and the international community, creating an unprecedented rift in transatlantic relations.

Now, the newly announced deal appears to deliver many of the strategic concessions Trump sought, without formal annexation. In a post on his Truth Social platform, Trump framed the agreement as a sweeping victory for the U.S., saying it grants America “permanent control over security, and all other needs” in Greenland at “no cost to the United States”. The core terms of the deal, as outlined by an unnamed senior U.S. State Department official who spoke on condition of anonymity, include sweeping new security authority for the U.S.: Washington gains unilateral power to construct additional military infrastructure across Greenland without requiring prior approval from either Denmark or the Greenlandic government, enshrines permanent access, basing, and overflight rights for U.S. forces, and includes a provision that the agreement will remain in force even if Greenland achieves full independence from Denmark in the future.

Most notably, the deal bars non-NATO countries, specifically named U.S. adversaries Russia and China, from establishing any military presence in Greenland or making investments in the territory’s sensitive strategic sectors without explicit written approval from the U.S. The official noted that prior to the agreement, there was no formal framework to screen foreign investments in Greenland’s sensitive industries, allowing adversaries to expand their economic and political influence in the region unimpeded.

Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen has struck a more measured tone in public comments, confirming that the agreement will be formally signed next week during the United Nations General Assembly in New York. She emphasized that the deal strengthens collective security across the Arctic and North Atlantic while explicitly upholding the sovereignty of the Kingdom of Denmark and the right of Greenlandic people to self-determination. Frederiksen added that the agreement still must undergo mandatory parliamentary review in Denmark before it can enter into force. Jens-Frederik Nielsen, chairman of the Greenland Government, also praised the deal, noting that it recognizes Greenland’s core interests and solidifies its role in international security cooperation, calling the agreement beneficial to all three parties.

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio echoed Trump’s positive framing, describing the deal as a historic breakthrough and a “huge win for the United States and the American people” that permanently resolves long-standing U.S. national security concerns in the region. For Trump, the agreement also advances a separate core priority: his proposed Golden Dome missile defense system, designed to shield the U.S. from intercontinental ballistic missile attacks from Russia and China, which he has identified Greenland as a critical location for.

Notably, the full text of the agreement has not been released to the public, and key questions remain about how the new deal differs from the longstanding 1951 bilateral security agreement between the U.S. and Denmark. That existing deal already grants the U.S. broad authority to deploy unlimited numbers of troops to Greenland, where Washington already maintains the Pituffik Space Base with a permanent garrison of more than 100 U.S. military personnel on the territory’s northwestern tip. The BBC has requested comment from both the Danish Embassy in Washington and the White House, with no formal response provided yet to clarify the full scope of the new agreement.

Fresh scrutiny has emerged over links between former President Donald Trump’s family and a Kremlin-aligned Russian oligarch, after an investigative report revealed that Umar Kremlev, a close ally of Russian President Vladimir Putin, partially covered the cost of Donald Trump Jr.’s post-wedding festivities held on a private Bahamian island.

The probe, published by ProPublica, found Kremlev contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to fund two nights of the three-day celebration, which was held after Donald Trump Jr. wed his partner. The couple later confirmed Kremlev’s financial contribution was a gift, though they have stated the sum was eventually repaid.

During a conversation with reporters in the Oval Office, Donald Trump defended the arrangement, arguing that hosting and funding wedding celebrations for friends is a widespread, entirely permissible practice. When questioned about Kremlev’s involvement, the sitting president asserted that his son had fully repaid the oligarch, but he offered no details to back up that claim. To date, the BBC has not independently verified that repayment occurred, and reporters have reached out to Donald Trump Jr. for additional clarification on the matter.

Legally, the scenario raises no explicit violations: as a private citizen, Donald Trump Jr. faces no legal bar to accepting gifts from foreign nationals. Even so, independent ethics oversight organizations have warned that the acceptance of such a high-value gift from an individual deeply connected to the Russian head of state creates the clear appearance of a conflict of interest, regardless of Donald Trump Jr.’s lack of formal position in the U.S. government.

This latest revelation reignites long-running questions about ties between Donald Trump and Russian officials that first surfaced during his 2016 presidential campaign. Those concerns ultimately spawned a special counsel investigation, which centered in part on a previously undisclosed meeting between Donald Trump Jr. and a Russian intelligence operative at Trump Tower in New York.

Beyond his close connections to the Kremlin, Kremlev leads the International Boxing Association (IBA), an organization that draws significant funding from Gazprom, Russia’s state-owned energy giant. The International Olympic Committee suspended the IBA several years ago, with Kremlev’s failure to fully disclose the organization’s ties to the Russian state energy firm cited as a core reason for the action. ProPublica also notes that Kremlev was part of the official delegation that accompanied Putin on a state visit to China in May, and has been awarded the Order of Friendship, one of Russia’s highest state honors, by Putin himself.

Spokespeople for both Kremlev and Donald Trump Jr. have framed the pair’s connection as a purely personal friendship, rather than a professional or political one. Donald Trump Jr.’s representative told ProPublica the two have no ongoing business ties, while a spokesperson for Kremlev confirmed that the pair have maintained a friendly relationship since meeting several years ago. The BBC has reached out to Kremlev’s representatives for additional comment on the investigation’s findings.

In a major escalation of Western pressure on Moscow over its ongoing invasion of Ukraine, U.S. President Donald Trump has signed into law a sweeping new sanctions package designed to cripple Russia’s core energy revenue stream by targeting the world’s largest importers of Russian crude oil and natural gas.

The legislation, which cleared the U.S. House of Representatives earlier this month, grants the White House broad authority to impose tariffs as high as 100% on the top five buyers of Russian oil and gas — a policy that hits the two largest importers, China and India, the hardest. At President Trump’s request, the scope of the sanctions was expanded to also cover Iran’s energy and weapons industries, expanding the reach of the bill beyond its original focus on Russia.

Formalized as the Lindsey O. Graham Sanctioning Russia and Iran Act of 2026, the 48-piece legislation is named in honor of the late longtime Republican senator, who was one of the most vocal and steadfast supporters of Ukraine in Washington before his unexpected death in July. The bill carves out narrow exceptions for nations that source less than 15% of their natural gas from Russia and are actively taking steps to reduce their reliance on Russian energy supplies.

Beyond targeting energy trade, the legislation codifies new sanctions against Russian President Vladimir Putin, top members of his cabinet and government leadership, major Russian financial institutions, and the so-called “shadow fleet” of oil tankers Moscow has deployed to evade existing international sanctions on its energy exports.

New York Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal previously framed the legislation as aggressive, far-reaching measures that would effectively cripple the revenue stream funding Putin’s military campaign in Ukraine. “This is scorching sanctions that will throttle Putin’s war machine,” Blumenthal said of the bill ahead of its final passage.

Recent trade data compiled by the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA) underscores the potential impact of the new measures: between December 2022 and August 2026, China absorbed 50% of all Russian crude oil exports, while India took in an additional 37%. Turkey and the European Union each accounted for 5% of exports over that period, though EU imports of Russian energy have dropped steadily since the 2022 invasion.

Graham, a 71-year-old South Carolina Republican, died on July 11 from an aortic dissection linked to cardiovascular disease, just days after returning from an official trip to Kyiv. At the time of his passing, President Trump praised the senator, saying “He died doing the work he was born to do.” For years before his death, Graham had pushed successive U.S. administrations to ramp up punitive measures against Russia, and remained one of Ukraine’s most unwavering allies on Capitol Hill even as congressional Republicans grew increasingly divided over the scale of U.S. military and financial aid to Kyiv.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has publicly voiced strong support for the legislation, praising the House’s passage earlier this month. In a post to his official Telegram channel on September 17, Zelenskyy noted the symbolic timing of the House vote, which passed the same night Russia launched a large-scale missile and drone attack across Ukrainian territory. “It is symbolic that the US House of Representatives’ passage of Lindsey Graham’s sanctions bill took place on the night of yet another Russian attack on Ukraine involving ballistic missiles, other missiles, and drones,” he wrote.