A major multi-university study finds faster AI means fewer people working.
Economists now see real job losses alongside strong economic growth.
The debate has shifted to whether AI will replace the need for new jobs entirely.
For years, economists were the professionals most likely to tell you to calm down about any fear related to technology. ATMs didn’t replace cashiers, Excel didn’t replace bookkeepers and robotic vacuums didn’t replace maids. “Augment, not replace” was the consensus.
Well, that consensus is cracking.
A new paper from researchers at the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, the Forecasting Research Institute, Yale, Stanford, and the University of Pennsylvania surveyed 69 economists, 52 AI specialists, and 38 superforecasters about how AI will reshape the U.S. economy.
All three groups agree on one thing: Faster AI progress means lower labor force participation. That’s the polite way to say “fewer people working.”
The numbers are staggering. Under what the researchers call the “rapid” scenario—where AI surpasses human performance across most cognitive and physical tasks by 2030—economists forecast the U.S. labor force participation rate dropping from its current 62% to 54% by 2050.
About half of that drop, roughly 10 million lost jobs, would be directly attributable to AI rather than demographics or other trends.
The rapid scenario isn’t science fiction. It’s the world where AI can negotiate book contracts, assist in any factory or home, and replace all freelance software engineers, paralegals, and customer service agents.
Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei has already warned that the disruption is accelerating faster than most expect—and the study’s rapid scenario effectively validates that framing. GDP tells the other half of the story.
Under the same rapid scenario, economists project annual GDP growth hitting 3.5% by 2045-2049—approaching post-WWII boom levels. AI experts are even more bullish, forecasting 5.3% growth. Tremendous aggregate wealth creation, concentrated at the top, with a thinner workforce to share it. The researchers flag that under rapid AI, the wealthiest 10% of households could hold 80% of total wealth by 2050—higher than pre-WWII inequality.
But there’s a nuance that often gets lost in the AI jobs debate. The paper finds that expert disagreement isn’t mainly about whether powerful AI will arrive, but about what happens to the economy once it does. That’s a meaningful shift. The previous pro-tech arguments assumed that even transformative automation would eventually create new categories of work. The new question economists are wrestling with is whether AI, unlike ATMs, automates the task of inventing new tasks.
For now, the aggregate employment data still looks mostly stable. A Yale and Brookings study from late 2025 found no mass unemployment signal nearly three years after ChatGPT’s launch. But research cited in the new paper documents a 13% relative employment drop among workers aged 22-25 in the most AI-exposed occupations. The macro is stable. The leading edge is not.
On policy, economists and the general public part ways sharply. Economists favor targeted retraining programs (71.8% support) and largely reject job guarantees (13.7%) and universal basic income (37.4%). The general public is far more open to structural interventions. The paper’s authors note that optimal policy depends heavily on which scenario plays out—and right now, nobody knows which one will.
So, the “augment, not replace” parable isn’t dead, but it’s on life support, and the economists running the numbers have enough data to be worried.
Daily Debrief Newsletter
Start every day with the top news stories right now, plus original features, a podcast, videos and more.
Islamabad, Pakistan – More than 12 hours of face-to-face negotiations between the United States and Iran ended without agreement in Islamabad on Sunday, leaving a fragile two-week ceasefire as the only barrier between diplomacy and a return to war.
Pakistan, which spent weeks positioning itself as a mediator and succeeded in bringing both sides into the same room, emerged with its role intact. But officials acknowledge the harder phase now begins — getting American and Iranian negotiators back into talks before their differences explode into full-fledged war again.
Recommended Stories
list of 4 itemsend of list
“Pakistan has been and will continue to play its role to facilitate engagements and dialogue between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States of America in the days to come,” Pakistan’s Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar said in a statement after the conclusion of the talks.
The talks, the highest-level direct engagement between Washington and Tehran since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, faltered over differences surrounding Iran’s nuclear programme.
“The simple fact is that we need to see an affirmative commitment that they will not seek a nuclear weapon, and they will not seek the tools that would enable them to quickly achieve a nuclear weapon,” said US Vice President JD Vance, who led the American delegation alongside special envoy Steve Witkoff and US President Donald Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner.
However, Vance left a narrow opening for the resumption of talks.
“We leave here with a very simple proposal, a method of understanding that is our final and best offer. We’ll see if the Iranians accept it,” Vance said, tapping the podium for emphasis, before ending his brief remarks, which lasted for less than five minutes.
Pakistani and Iranian sources confirmed that the Iranian delegation met senior Pakistani officials later on Sunday before departing for Tehran, though details of those discussions remain unclear.
What is clear is that Pakistan isn’t giving up yet.
Washington’s red lines
US officials said that Iran had entered negotiations misreading its leverage, believing it held advantages that, in Washington’s assessment, it did not.
US Vice President JD Vance speaks during a news conference after meeting with representatives from Pakistan and Iran, on Sunday, April 12, 2026, in Islamabad, Pakistan [Jacquelyn Martin/Pool via Reuters]
According to these officials, Vance spent much of his time during the talks correcting what they described as Iranian misperceptions about the US position — asserting that no deal would be possible without a full commitment on the nuclear issue.
Officials also suggested that Trump’s subsequent announcement of a blockade in the Strait of Hormuz was not an impulsive reaction, but a pre-planned step aimed at removing the waterway as an Iranian bargaining tool and forcing the nuclear issue back to the centre of any future talks.
But the US officials, speaking on background, also acknowledged that the gulf in the positions between Washington and Tehran that they failed to bridge extended to issues beyond Iran’s nuclear programme.
In essence, they said, the two sides failed to agree on six key points: ending all uranium enrichment; dismantling major enrichment facilities; removing Iran’s stockpile of highly enriched uranium; accepting a broader regional security framework involving US allies; ending funding for groups Washington designates as “terrorist” organisations, including Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis; and fully reopening the Strait of Hormuz without tolls.
Hours after the talks ended, Trump acknowledged partial progress, but underscored the central impasse.
“The meeting went well, most points were agreed to, but the only point that really mattered, NUCLEAR, was not,” he wrote on Truth Social.
“Effective immediately, the United States Navy, the Finest in the World, will begin the process of BLOCKADING any and all Ships trying to enter, or leave, the Strait of Hormuz,” Trump said. “Iran will not be allowed to profit off this Illegal Act of EXTORTION.”
Iran has effectively controlled access to the Strait of Hormuz, through which roughly 20 percent of global oil supplies pass, since the US-Israeli attacks began on February 28.
Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has imposed what analysts describe as a de facto toll system, requiring vessels to secure clearance codes and transit under escort through a controlled corridor.
The disruption has pushed oil prices above $100 per barrel at times, unsettling global markets and placing sustained pressure on energy-importing countries across Asia and Europe.
Tehran has framed its control of the strait as both a security measure and a key negotiating lever, one it has shown little willingness to relinquish without a broader settlement.
Tehran’s point of view
Iran’s account of the breakdown differed sharply.
In a post on X early on April 13, after returning to Tehran, Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said his country had engaged in “good faith”, only to face shifting demands.
Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, left, meets with Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, right, in Islamabad on April 11, 2026 [Handout/Prime Minister’s Office via Reuters]
“When just inches away from an Islamabad MoU, we encountered maximalism, shifting goalposts, and blockade,” he wrote. “Zero lessons learned. Good will begets good will. Enmity begets enmity.”
The reference to an “Islamabad MoU”, a memorandum of understanding, was the clearest public signal yet that the two sides had come closer to a formal agreement than either government had previously acknowledged.
Iran’s Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, who led the country’s delegation, said his team had proposed “forward-looking initiatives”, but failed to secure trust.
“Due to the experiences of the two previous wars, we have no trust in the opposing side,” he wrote on Sunday.
Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei also pointed to partial progress but unresolved differences.
“On some issues we actually reached mutual understanding, but there was a gap over two or three important issues and ultimately the talks didn’t result in an agreement,” he said.
Tehran’s key demands, including an end to Israeli strikes on Lebanon, the release of $6bn in frozen assets, guarantees on its nuclear programme and the right to charge vessels transiting the Strait of Hormuz, remained unmet.
Iran’s ambassador to Pakistan, Reza Amiri Moghadam, however, offered a more measured view — suggesting that Tehran was not closing the window on talks.
“The Islamabad Talks is not an event but a process,” he wrote in his message on X on Sunday. “The Islamabad Talks laid the foundation for a diplomatic process that, if trust and will are strengthened, can create a sustainable framework for the interests of all parties.”
Pakistan’s balancing act
For Pakistan, analysts say, the outcome represents a setback but not a failure.
Officials were careful to describe the talks as “an important opening step in a continuing diplomatic process”, stressing that issues of such complexity cannot be resolved in a single round.
The emphasis, they said, was on keeping the channel open.
Muhammad Obaidullah, a former Pakistan Navy commodore who has served in Iran as a diplomat, said expectations of a breakthrough were always unrealistic.
“The mere fact of bringing both parties face to face is a significant diplomatic achievement in itself,” he told Al Jazeera. “The diplomacy is not dead.”
Ishtiaq Ahmad, professor emeritus of international relations at Quaid-i-Azam University in Islamabad, went further.
“The talks did not collapse; they concluded without agreement but with a defined US offer on the table and the channel still intact,” he said.
“Pakistan’s role was to move the crisis from escalation to structured engagement, which it achieved. The absence of convergence reflects structural differences between the US and Iran, not a failure of mediation.”
Both Trump and Iranian officials have praised Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and Chief of Army Staff Field Marshal Asim Munir for their efforts to secure the ceasefire, and for hosting the talks in Islamabad. That, say analysts, suggests that they remain open to further Pakistan-brokered negotiations.
Sahar Baloch, a Germany-based scholar of Iran, said that trust remains Pakistan’s most valuable asset.
“The real test of credibility is not preventing breakdowns, but remaining relevant after them,” she said.
A man walks past a billboard announcing peace negotiations as delegations from the United States and Iran hold high-level talks in Islamabad, Pakistan, April 11, 2026 [Asim Hafeez/Reuters]
Fragile ceasefire
The immediate threat to Pakistan’s role comes from the evolving situation in the Strait of Hormuz and in Lebanon.
Iran has already warned that continued Israeli strikes on Lebanon could render negotiations meaningless. Iran’s President Masoud Pezeshkian has framed such attacks as a direct challenge to the ceasefire.
Trump’s blockade announcement now adds pressure from a second front.
Ahmad, a former Pakistan chair at Oxford University, warned that a collapse of the truce would sharply narrow diplomatic options.
“If the ceasefire collapses, the immediate consequence is the loss of the diplomatic window,” he said. “A second round becomes far more difficult because both sides would return to negotiating under active escalation, where positions tend to harden rather than converge.”
Obaidullah drew a historical parallel with the US naval quarantine of Cuba during the 1962 missile crisis. What if China were to use its own ships to import Iranian oil? Would the US attack them?
“The world will again be watching who blinks first,” Obaidullah said. “However, it may turn into a far greater conflict if neither side does.”
The Cuban Missile Crisis of October 1962 brought the US and the Soviet Union to the brink of nuclear war, after Washington discovered Moscow had installed nuclear missiles on Cuban soil, within striking distance of the American mainland.
The US blocked the Soviets from providing more equipment to Cuba, and eventually, a diplomatic settlement was reached, with the Soviets agreeing to withdraw the missiles in exchange for a US pledge not to invade Cuba.
Baloch, the Berlin-based scholar, agreed that the situation remains volatile.
“The ceasefire risks becoming more symbolic than substantive,” she said. “But paradoxically, escalation can sometimes force a return to talks, even if under more urgent and less favourable conditions.”
What is the road ahead?
Pakistan’s room for manoeuvring is also shaped by its economic fragility.
The disruption in the Strait of Hormuz has driven up energy prices, compounding pressures on an economy already under strain before the conflict.
Ahmad said this creates both urgency and limits.
“Economic exposure, especially to energy shocks and external financing, creates urgency for Pakistan to prevent a prolonged conflict,” he said.
“But it also reinforces a constraint: Pakistan cannot afford escalation with either side. Its leverage is not coercive; it is positional. It comes from being the only channel acceptable to both sides, not from the ability to impose outcomes,” Ahmad said.
Eight days remain until the end of the initial two-week truce, a window Pakistani officials said privately represents a genuine opportunity for further technical and political alignment, if both sides choose to use it.
Ahmad suggested that any breakthrough would depend on creating a sequence of steps acceptable to both sides.
“The US is asking for early nuclear commitments; Iran is asking for guarantees and relief first,” he said.
Pakistan’s role, he added, would be to help “structure this sequencing, keep both sides engaged, and prevent breakdown at each stage”.
Islamabad won’t be the one drafting a deal itself, he emphasised, noting, “At this point, maintaining the channel is as important as the substance of the deal itself.”
Senior figures within the film community in Hungary gave two thumbs up to Péter Magyar’s landslide victory Monday, although the scale of reforms needed within the media and entertainment sector are daunting.
Contacted by Variety, Hungarian filmmaker László Nemes, who won an Oscar with “Son of Saul,” wrote: “Free at last! Hungary has chosen hope over fear, freedom over submission, humanism over anti-humanism. This election is a profound game-changer, not only for the people, but also the arts, liberating all those who were despised, sidelined or silenced by the corrupt regime. Hungary has rich artistic traditions and we’re thrilled to wake up from this nightmare.”
Another Hungarian filmmaker, Ildikó Enyedi, whose “On Body and Soul” was Oscar nominated, told Variety, “I am in Hong Kong with my last film ‘Silent Friend,’ so, because of the time difference I was one of the first to vote. It was still the middle of the night in Hungary… It is such a euphoria to see that despite all the wounds and distortions, the democratic system works and is able to fulfill its main function – to represent the true intentions of the citizens. The healing can start – and, I am sure, we all will be much more attentive while observing how the politicians, our public servants work.”
Hungary is a major destination for Hollywood and other big budget international shoots, ranking number two in Europe as a production hub. This position relies on its 30% tax rebate, whose future had been in doubt under the government of Viktor Orbán.
That doubt has been swept away with Magyar’s victory, according to Adam Goodman, managing partner of Hungarian production company Mid Atlantic Films, which has worked on numerous Hollywood films and series including the “Dune” franchise, “F1” and “Ballerina.”
He told Variety: “Since June 2025 the outgoing administration cast doubt on the reliability of the Hungarian incentive program. There have been discussions with the incoming administration during the election cycle, in which they pledged to fix the uncertainty and added the film industry to their policies platform.
“It will take some time for the incoming government to appoint new ministers of culture and finance and work through all the issues that need their attention, but we expect the current issues regarding the security of the incentive and the registration procedures will be rectified.”
When it comes to the media sector in Hungary more broadly, the new government faces a mammoth task. According to the media freedom lobbying group Reporters Without Borders, Orbán supporters control 80% of the country’s media through organization like KESMA, which has a stranglehold on private television, and MTVA, which controls the public broadcasting network.
This control is enshrined in law so Magyar’s first objective will be a legislative overhaul. The size of his majority allows him to make amendments to the constitution, should those be required. Magyar’s Tisza party took 138 seats, with Orbán’s Fidesz on 55 and the far-right Our Homeland on six.
United States President Donald Trump’s blockade of the Strait of Hormuz after talks in Islamabad between Washington and Tehran ended without a deal is a substantial escalation in the war on Iran, analysts say.
In a social media post on Sunday, Trump said the US Navy “will begin the process of BLOCKADING any and all Ships trying to enter, or leave, the Strait of Hormuz”.
Recommended Stories
list of 3 itemsend of list
The blockade began at 10am Washington, DC, time (14:00 GMT) on Monday.
Trump’s comments have raised concerns about the status of the two-week ceasefire between the US and Iran announced last week.
Chris Featherstone, a political scientist at the University of York, told Al Jazeera that Trump’s threat to blockade the Strait of Hormuz is “absolutely an escalation” in the US and Israel’s war on Iran.
“Trump is using the threat of the blockade as a tool in the negotiations with Iran. Trump has said Iran holds no cards, and this attempt to leverage a blockade on Iran would constitute an attempt to further pressure Iran to comply with US goals in the negotiations,” he said.
What could the blockade look like? Here’s what we know:
What sort of blockade is the US threatening?
Shortly after the US and Israel began strikes on Iran on February 28, Iran essentially took control of the Strait of Hormuz, a vital chokepoint for the global energy market. Before the war began, 20 percent of the world’s oil and liquefied natural gas (LNG) supplies were shipped through the strait.
After the Pakistan-brokered ceasefire came into force on Wednesday, Tehran confirmed it would allow shipping through the Strait of Hormuz for the duration of the two-week agreement, easing a disruption that had sent global oil and gas prices soaring.
However, it has been unclear whether Iran has been collecting fees for passage during the ceasefire. During the war, only a few ships from specific countries considered friendly to Iran and those that paid tolls were granted safe passage.
After weekend talks in Pakistan ended without a deal, Trump threatened to blockade the Strait of Hormuz and also accused Iran of “extortion”. He added that the US Navy would hunt down and interdict ships in international waters that had paid Iran a toll to traverse the strait.
Later, the US military said it would block all maritime traffic entering and exiting Iranian ports, including those in the Gulf and the Gulf of Oman.
The US military’s Central Command (CENTCOM), which has responsibility for operations in the Middle East, told the Reuters news agency that the US military will enforce a blockade in the Gulf of Oman and the Arabian Sea east of the Strait of Hormuz and it will apply to all vessels regardless of flag.
“Any vessel entering or departing the blockaded area without authorisation is subject to interception, diversion and capture,” it said.
“The blockade will not impede neutral transit passage through the Strait of Hormuz to or from non-Iranian destinations.”
Iran’s armed forces, however, said the US “imposition of restrictions on the movement of vessels in international waters is an illegal act and amounts to piracy”.
Jason Chuah, professor of maritime law at City St George’s, University of London, and the Maritime Institute of Malaysia, told Al Jazeera that Washington’s actions wouldn’t be a classic blockade but a case of “sanctions with warships doing the bidding of President Trump”.
“It would be much more like a steady pattern of stopping, boarding and seizing vessels thought to be linked to Iran, essentially sanctions enforcement at sea,” he said.
(Al Jazeera)
Is this legal under international maritime law?
Chuah said the legality of such a blockade by the US is “tricky”.
“The United States is not a party to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, but that does not mean it is free to blockade as it sees fit,” he said. “The basic rules about freedom of navigation and passage through key waterways are widely accepted as customary international law, so they bind states whether they’ve signed the treaty or not.”
He added: “Now, if you want to call something a blockade in legal terms, you’re really in the territory of the law of armed conflict at sea – think the San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea. That, however, assumes you’re in an actual armed conflict, that you’ve declared the blockade, that it’s effective and that it’s applied even-handedly to neutral ships. That framework sets a high lawfulness bar for blockades.”
Chuah said that even if Trump uses sanctions as a justification for Washington’s actions regarding Iranian ports, it does not fully resolve the legal issues.
“Even quite robust domestic sanctions don’t automatically give you the right under international law to stop foreign ships on the high seas without consent or backing from the United Nations Security Council. At best, sanctions may justify why you act but not always where you can act,” he said.
Will other countries join the US in the blockade?
So far, only the United Kingdom has clearly stated that it will not join Trump’s blockade of Iranian ports.
In an interview with BBC 5 Live on Monday, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said he is focusing on reopening the Strait of Hormuz “as quickly as possible” to reduce global energy prices.
“We’re not supporting the blockade, and all of the marshalling diplomatically, politically and capability, … that’s all focused, from our point of view, on getting the strait fully open,” he said.
Meanwhile, China has urged calm on all sides.
Keeping the critical waterway safe, stable and unimpeded serves the common interests of the international community, Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesperson Guo Jiakun said, adding that China stands ready to work with all sides to safeguard energy security and supplies.
Featherstone noted that one of the standout features of the US-Israel war on Iran has been how many US allies, such as the UK, have been unwilling to get involved.
“Given this blockade would be occurring in the midst of the negotiations over a ceasefire, risking the talks falling apart, it’s unlikely any allies would want to get involved now,” he said.
“As with other elements of this war, the [US] administration hasn’t outlined the purpose of this potential blockade. US allies will likely want to know the purpose of the blockade before they commit and risk reprisals,” he added.
How could a US blockade hurt Iran?
Even though Iran has become accustomed to US sanctions and has continued to function during the war, a blockade like this could inflict more damage on Iran’s economy.
The unified command of the Iranian armed forces has said ports in the Gulf and the Sea of Oman are “either for everyone or for no one”, state broadcaster IRIB reported.
“The Armed Forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran consider defending the legal rights of our country a natural and legal duty and, accordingly, exercising the sovereignty of the Islamic Republic of Iran in the territorial waters of our country is the natural right of the Iranian nation,” IRIB quoted Iran’s military as stating.
“Enemy-affiliated vessels” will not have the right to pass through the Strait of Hormuz while other vessels will be allowed passage, subject to regulations by Tehran, the statement said.
“The criminal US’s imposition of restrictions on the movement of vessels in international waters is an illegal act and amounts to piracy.”
If the security of the ports is threatened, no port in the region “will be safe”, the statement said.
Reporting from Doha, Qatar, Al Jazeera’s diplomatic editor James Bays said Washington’s blockade may seek to hit the Iranian economy, which has been doing well despite the war by continuing to get its oil supply through the Strait of Hormuz.
“It’s almost a race to the damage on Iran’s economy, a country that’s had sanctions since 1979, that’s very economically resilient although it has deep economic problems,” he said.
Featherstone said Iran is relatively used to the US having a stranglehold on its economy.
“Iran has experienced enormous US sanctions for decades, and for most of that time, the US sanctions regimes have prevented any nation that trades with the US from trading with Iran,” he said.
“However, after the extent of the US and Israeli strikes on Iran, this would impact their ability to rebuild,” he added.
What will happen to Iranian mines in the strait?
On Wednesday, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) released a map of the Strait of Hormuz showing a safe route for ships to follow through the strait, avoiding mines it has laid.
The map appears to direct ships farther north towards the Iranian coast and away from the traditional route closer to the coast of Oman.
In a statement, the IRGC said all vessels must use the new map for navigation due to “the likelihood of the presence of various types of anti-ship mines in the main traffic zone”.
In his Truth Social post on Sunday about the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, Trump said US forces will begin clearing the mines that Iran has placed in the strait and added that NATO countries like the UK would help in the process.
But on Monday, Starmer told BBC 5 Live that while the UK has “minesweeping” capacities, it would not get involved in “operational matters”.
Meanwhile, Japan said it has yet to decide whether to deploy its Self-Defence Forces for minesweeping operations in the Strait of Hormuz.
Chief Cabinet Secretary Minoru Kihara told reporters that Japan is urging progress towards a comprehensive understanding between the US and Iran.
“What is most important is that de-escalation, including securing the safety of navigation through the Strait of Hormuz, is actually achieved,” Kihara said, according to the Kyodo News agency.
‘Safe’ routes through the Strait of Hormuz have been announced by Iran’s IRGC, providing new entry and exit pathways for maritime traffic [Screengrab/Al Jazeera]
What does Trump’s blockade mean for shipping in the strait?
During the US-Israel war on Iran, Tehran has allowed a small number of ships from certain countries it considers “friendly nations”, such as India, China, Japan, Turkiye and Pakistan, to pass through the strait.
Some vessels that also paid a toll to Iran were allowed to pass. At least two tolls for ships are believed to have been paid in Chinese yuan in what appears to be a strategy to weaken the US dollar and avoid US sanctions. China, which buys 80 percent of Iran’s oil, already pays Tehran in yuan.
On Friday, Iran said it was considering a proposal to charge future tolls in its own currency, the rial.
Chuah told Al Jazeera that the effects of Washington’s blockade of Iranian ports would spill over quickly to Indian, Chinese, Japanese, Turkish and other countries’ shipping.
“You don’t have to be Iranian to get caught up in it [the blockade]. If there’s any Iranian link in the cargo, financing or ownership chain, you’re suddenly in the risk zone,” he said.
He warned that insurance premiums will likely rise, making global banks nervous. He said the global tanker market will also start to fragment into separate risk tiers.
“The moment interdictions begin, neutral shipping starts to feel a lot less neutral,” he said.
He added that the bigger picture of such a blockade is also worrying.
“If major powers start routinely stopping ships based on who they’re linked to rather than where they are or what they’re doing, that chips away at the stability of the whole system. The real issue isn’t just Iran – it’s what this does to the rules everyone else relies on,” he said.
President Donald Trump‘s Truth Social account removed an image depicting him as a Christ-like figure, after the post generated a wave of outrage from those across the political spectrum including some conservatives who deemed it blasphemous.
The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Late Sunday evening, Trump posted an apparently AI-generated photo of himself dressed as Jesus, healing a sick man as doctors and members of the military watch in pride. That came after the president had blasted Pope Leo in a tirade on Truth Social as “weak” for opposing the Iran war.
Some major supporters of Trump had objected to the Jesus Christ imagery and called for the president to remove it.
Picture this: You’re a senior Meta employee looking for feedback from the CEO. But, instead of hearing from the real Mark Zuckerberg, you get a response from a Zuckerberg AI character. As absurd as that sounds, it could eventually be a reality.
Meta is reportedly working on such an AI character, training it on Zuckerberg’s mannerisms, tone and publicly available statements, according to the Financial Times. The character is also learning about the CEO’s thoughts on recent company strategy, with the idea that it could offer advice to Meta employees.
The company has reportedly, for some time, been working on creating photorealistic, 3D animated AI characters that can manage interactions. However, it now appears to be focusing on this Zuckerberg AI character, which would interact with employees when the CEO can’t or doesn’t want to.
This additional AI tool follows last month’s news that Zuckerberg is creating an AI agent to help him do his job, first reported by the Wall Street Journal. It would reportedly do things like finding answers for him, but there aren’t many details of the still developing AI agent.
OpenAI CEO Sam Altman’s house may have been the target of a second attack after San Francisco Police Department arrested two suspects for a reported shooting in the Russian Hill neighborhood. The SFPD said in a press release that police officers responded to a “suspicious occurrence of possible shots fired” at around 5:56 AM ET / 2:56 AM PT on Sunday, April 12.
SFPD’s Special Investigation Division took over the case and have since detained both 25-year-old Amanda Tom and 23-year-old Muhamad Tarik Hussein, seizing three firearms in the process with the help of a warrant. The two suspects were charged with negligent discharge.
According to the initial police report, as reported by The San Francisco Standard, two people inside a Honda sedan stopped in front of Altman’s property that spans from Chestnut Street to Lombard Street. The police report also noted that the passenger appeared to fire a round at the Lombard Street side of Altman’s property. The property’s security personnel reported hearing a gunshot and there was surveillance footage that recorded the incident, according to the report.
This could be the second instance of violence targeting Altman and his residence in a matter of days. On Friday, a 20-year-old man allegedly hurled a Molotov cocktail at Altman’s home, which caused a fire on one of the property’s exterior gates, according to SFPD. The San Francisco Standard reported that there were no injuries in either incident.
The slide that began Saturday night, after Vice President J.D. Vance left Pakistan without securing a peace deal in Iran, has, for the moment, somewhat reversed.
After falling to as low as $70,500 at one point Sunday, the price of bitcoin has bounced back to $72,100 during U.S. Monday morning trading hours. Helping were reports suggesting Iran was considering the abandonment of its enriched uranium as a concession towards ending the war.
U.S. stocks have also reversed big early losses, the Nasdaq now higher by 0.3% after sliding more than 1%.
Meanwhile, the promised U.S. blockade of the Strait of Hormuz — scheduled for 10 am ET — has apparently gone into effect.
“Security in the Persian Gulf and the Sea of Oman is either for everyone or for NO ONE,” the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting reported Monday. “NO PORT in the region will be safe,” based on a statement from Iran’s military and the Revolutionary Guards.
Crypto-related stocks are on the move higher as well, led by a 8.3% gain for stablecoin issuer Circle (CRCL). Coinbase (COIN) is up 3.1% and Strategy (MSTR) by 1.5%.
Read more: Strategy buys 13,927 bitcoin for $1 billion, entirely through STRC
Does lightning strike twice?
Bitcoin has now been consolidating for 67 days since its local bottom on Feb. 5 at $60,000, almost identical to the 68-day consolidation period between Nov. 21 and Jan. 28, which preceded a sharp drop from roughly $90,000 to $60,000 in the span of a week. Bears anticipate a similar outcome, which may include a retest of the 200-week moving average around $60,000.
Strategy continues its Bitcoin accumulation strategy without slowing down. According to a statement by the company’s founder and chairman, Michael Saylor, the firm purchased 13,927 Bitcoins between April 6 and 12 at an average price of $71,902. This purchase, worth approximately $1 billion, was one of the company’s largest weekly transactions in 2026.
With this latest purchase, Strategy’s total Bitcoin holdings have reached 780,897 BTC. This amount has a current market value of approximately $55.4 billion, while the company’s average cost is stated to be around $75,577.
This indicates an unrealized loss of approximately $3.6 billion based on current prices. The Bitcoins held by the company represent about 3.7% of the total supply.
Strategy largely financed these acquisitions with proceeds from its equity and preferred stock sales programs. The company is known to have targeted a total capital increase of $84 billion by 2027 under its “42/42” plan. A significant portion of these resources is planned to be used for Bitcoin purchases.
In his statement to investors, Michael Saylor emphasized the long-term nature of the strategy, urging them to “think bigger.” He also argued that Bitcoin would continue to appreciate in value over the long term.
On the other hand, the company reported an unrealized loss of $14.46 billion in the first quarter of 2026 due to its Bitcoin assets. Despite this, Strategy continues its aggressive buying policy and remains one of the largest institutional investors in the crypto market.
More than 1,050 people form human shamrock in Dublin, Ohio
March 18 (UPI) — The city of Dublin, Ohio, unofficially broke a Guinness World Record by arranging more than 1,050 people into the shape of a massive shamrock.
