America
The ‘Signalgate’ scandal grows in the US
The controversy continues over messages revealed after senior US officials “accidentally” added The Atlantic reporter Jeffrey Goldberg to their group chat on the Signal messaging app.
The group, which discussed the attack on the Yemeni resistance and the Houthis, included high-level figures such as Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, and National Security Advisor Mike Waltz.
The Atlantic‘s editor-in-chief Goldberg published a second story following the initial report, releasing messages he had previously withheld. The new messages detail the timing of military strikes in Yemen from the Trump administration’s Signal group chat.
The magazine stated it initially decided to withhold specific information about weapons and attack timings found in some texts, saying it generally does not publish information about military operations that “could endanger the lives of US personnel.”
However, arguing that White House officials’ claims led them to believe people needed to see the texts to draw their own conclusions, the magazine wrote, “There is a clear public interest in revealing the kind of information Trump advisors included in insecure communication channels, especially since senior administration figures tried to downplay the significance of the shared messages.”
In his new article in The Atlantic, Goldberg wrote that he received information about the attacks on the Houthis two hours before the positions began to be bombed.
A message from Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth on Saturday, March 15, stated, “Just confirmed with CENTCOM [US Central Command] that we are mission ready. 1215et [19:15 TRT]: F-18s LAUNCHED (1st strike package).”
The Hegseth messages published by The Atlantic appear to detail the exact times aircraft would launch from US aircraft carriers and fire their missiles – information generally considered classified. However, the texts do not specify the actual targets of the attacks, only using terms like Houthi “Target Terrorist.”
Responding to The Atlantic‘s new article, Waltz claimed in a statement on the social media platform X, “No location. No source and method. NO WAR PLAN,” and said foreign partners had already been informed that the attacks were imminent.
Waltz added, “BOTTOM LINE: President Trump protects America and our interests.”
The White House also downplayed the latest revelations, insisting the administration had been “completely transparent” about them.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Wednesday, “This administration works hard every day on behalf of the American people, but the mainstream media continues to focus on a sensational story from the failing Atlantic Magazine that is falling apart by the hour. We have said from the beginning that no classified material was sent in this message thread, no locations, sources, or methods were revealed, and absolutely no war plans were discussed. The real story here is the overwhelming success of President Trump’s decisive military action against Houthi terrorists.”
Secretary of State Marco Rubio offered a slightly different explanation for the scandal than the White House, acknowledging it was clear “someone made a big mistake by adding a journalist to the chat” and said, “I’m not against journalists, but you shouldn’t have been in that thing.”
Critics say it is “almost unprecedented” for senior officials to discuss such sensitive information touching on vital US national security interests on an informal, commercially available messaging platform.
Democrats raise Hegseth’s “drinking problem”
Senior Democratic members of Congress used the incident to criticize what they see as “incompetence” at the highest levels of the Trump administration.
For example, Democratic Representative Jimmy Gomez raised questions about Hegseth’s “drinking habits” during a House committee hearing on Wednesday.
During the House Intelligence Committee’s annual worldwide threats hearing, Gomez asked, “Many questions were raised about his drinking habits during the confirmation hearing. To your knowledge, do you know if Pete Hegseth was drinking before leaking classified information?” This prompted responses from CIA Director John Ratcliffe and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard.
When asked about Hegseth’s drinking habits, Gabbard replied, “I have no knowledge of Secretary Hegseth’s personal habits.”
When the same question was posed to CIA Director John Ratcliffe, he responded, “No, you know, no. I’m not going to answer that. I think that’s an offensive question.”
Gomez argued the question was “memorable” for the public.
The Atlantic also decided to publish the full text after senior Trump administration officials, including Ratcliffe and Gabbard, testified in the Senate on Tuesday that “no classified material was shared” in the Signal chat.
Trump first defended Waltz, then criticized him
President Donald Trump had initially defended his national security advisor Waltz after the scandal broke.
During remarks while signing a presidential order on Wednesday evening, Trump blamed Mike Waltz for the Signalgate scandal.
Trump stated, “Mike Waltz, I think he said he took responsibility. I guess it had nothing to do with anyone else. It was Mike, I guess, I don’t know. I always thought it was Mike.”
On the other hand, Trump questioned why Hegseth was being implicated, despite the Secretary of Defense sharing sensitive operational details, including missile launch times.
The President said, “How do you get Hegseth involved in this? He has nothing to do with it; look, this is all a witch hunt.”
On Tuesday, Trump had said he did not plan to fire Waltz, defending him in a television interview by saying the national security advisor had “learned his lesson and is a good guy.”
However, according to sources familiar with the matter who spoke to POLITICO, Trump was both angered and suspicious that Waltz had The Atlantic editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg’s number saved on his phone.
Another source said the President was particularly disturbed by the “embarrassing nature” of the incident. This person stated, “The President was very angry that Waltz could be so stupid.”
America
Trump energy shares rose by up to $4.4m during Iran war, CNBC reports
The value of US President Donald Trump’s nine largest oil and gas holdings increased by approximately $1.5 million to $4.4 million during the first six months of the war with Iran.
According to an analysis conducted by CNBC based on the American leader’s financial disclosure, corporate balance sheets, and FactSet market data, the investment basket includes shares in Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, Kinder Morgan, Marathon Petroleum, Occidental Petroleum, Phillips 66, Valero Energy, and Williams Companies.
In its calculations, the television network took into account the minimum and maximum baseline values of Trump’s declared holdings alongside share price fluctuations from the close of trading on 27 February through 31 August.
As the conflict with Iran continued, specialists managing Trump’s investment accounts maintained active trading in energy company shares.
Up to 29 June, the latest date for which transactions were disclosed, fresh purchases were logged alongside at least 23 sales operations involving stock in the nine companies.
Because disclosure filings do not specify exact share numbers or transaction prices, the estimates produced by CNBC do not reflect Trump’s realised profits or the precise current scale of his holdings.
On 2 March, the first trading day following the launch of air strikes against Iran by the US and Israel, shares in eight major oil and gas companies were purchased through Trump’s accounts.
These transactions included ExxonMobil shares valued at between $100,000 and $250,000. Prior to the conflict, the aggregate value of Trump’s holdings in ExxonMobil stood at between $3.2 million and $12.5 million.
Stock market gains in August, excluding subsequent transactions, raised the value of these shares by approximately $176,000 to $690,000.
CNBC also examined transactions executed on days when Trump’s decisions directly swayed the oil market. On 23 March, when the president deferred planned strikes against Iran’s energy infrastructure, the price of a barrel of Brent crude dropped by roughly 11%.
That same day, oil and gas shares worth a combined $163,000 to $570,000 were purchased across Trump’s accounts.
A similar transaction took place on 7 April. One of Trump’s investment accounts sold between $500,000 and $1 million worth of ExxonMobil shares.
Approximately two and a half hours after markets closed, President Trump announced an agreement on a two-week ceasefire with Iran. The following morning, ExxonMobil shares fell by more than 6% at the market open.
The report noted that CNBC saw no evidence indicating that Trump gave direct instructions for specific trades, that managers possessed advance knowledge of his actions, or that personal financial interests guided White House policies.
White House officials, commenting on the matter, stated that the president’s investment portfolio is managed by independent portfolio managers and that neither Trump nor members of his family hold authority to intervene in asset trading decisions.
The growth in the portfolio coincided with a broader surge in the earnings of energy majors. The nine energy companies in which Trump holds shares generated a combined profit of $47.6 billion in the second quarter.
During the same period last year, that figure stood at $15.9 billion. The profits of ExxonMobil and Chevron alone climbed from $9.6 billion in the prior year to $26.6 billion.
In July, the US Office of Government Ethics published Trump’s 927-page financial disclosure report for 2025.
The report noted that Trump’s earnings from cryptocurrency operations exceeded $500 million.
America
Over half of Latino voters back Democrats in key US House races
A new public opinion poll in the US shows that Democratic candidates have made notable gains since 2024 among Latino voters in critical, competitive districts for the House of Representatives.
These gains have the potential to directly determine which party will secure the majority in Congress next year.
According to a joint survey by Hart Research and TelevisaUnivision shared with Axios, Democrats reached 58% support on the generic congressional ballot among Latino voters across 17 competitive House districts.
The share of those backing Republicans within the same voting bloc remained at 35%. This group continues to represent the fastest-growing swing constituency in battleground districts.
Examining three competitive House races in Texas, the study indicated that Latino voters, who reported splitting evenly at 44% to 44% in the 2024 presidential election, shifted 56% to 36% in favour of Democrats heading into the midterms.
Latino support for Democrats also increased in other states. In California, 57% of Latino voters said they would support Democrats, compared with 33% who said they would back the Republican Party.
Kate Coleman, Senior Vice President at TelevisaUnivision, highlighted voter behaviour in remarks to Axios:
“Latino voters are not locked into one party. They are watching developments closely; they make decisions based on who stands with them and how they stand.”
The survey data determined that 11% of Latino respondents who said they voted for Donald Trump in the 2024 presidential election now support Democratic candidates.
Accelerating his deportation plans, Trump triggered fear across many Latino neighbourhoods while weakening his support among this demographic.
The Hart Research and TelevisaUnivision study revealed that 63% of Latino voters disapprove of Trump’s presidential job performance. The share of those approving of his performance in office stood at 36%.
Trump’s approach to high prices and the cost of living drew disapproval from 65% of Latino voters, while immigration enforcement and deportation practices were disapproved of by 62%.
More than half of Latino voters, at 64%, reported that they disapprove of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
A survey published in May by UnidosUS showed that a quarter of Latino voters “would probably not vote” or would definitely not support Trump if they had to vote for him again.
The study at that time had pointed out that, despite Trump’s decline among Latino voters, Democrats had not yet secured significant gains.
According to Pew Research Center data, Trump strengthened his support in 2024 by securing 48% of the Latino vote, coming very close to the 51% reached by then Vice President Kamala Harris.
Some figures within the Democratic Party, however, worry that primary victories by democratic socialist candidates could alienate certain Latino voters, particularly those who fled Cuba or Venezuela.
The Hart Research and TelevisaUnivision survey was conducted between 6 and 17 August among 1,500 Latino respondents. The poll’s margin of error was reported as 2.5 percentage points.
America
Researcher quits Anthropic and warns AI firms gamble with lives
Jacob Coxon, an artificial intelligence researcher at Anthropic, has resigned from his post, stating that tech companies are acting irresponsibly in the race towards self-improving superintelligence. Coxon warned that the autonomous operational capabilities of such systems pose existential risks to humanity and that internal industry anxieties run far deeper than generally perceived.
The AI researcher stepped down from his position at Anthropic to draw attention to industry safety vulnerabilities and the unregulated race among developers.
Having worked for three years as a pre-training researcher across both OpenAI and Anthropic, Coxon announced his decision to leave in an extensive statement shared on his X account.
Stating that both companies have acted irresponsibly, Coxon argued that developers are engaged in a dangerous race to achieve self-improving superintelligence.
I resigned from Anthropic today. I spent the last three years doing pretraining research at both OpenAI and Anthropic. Neither company is acting responsibly. They are racing straight to self-improving superintelligence and gambling with our lives. More thoughts below.
— Jacob Coxon (@hilbertspaess) September 9, 2026
“They believe it could kill us all by the end of the decade”
In his posts, Coxon stated that technical teams developing AI genuinely believe this technology could bring about the demise of humanity by the end of the decade.
Asserting that these concerns are not a marketing strategy, the researcher noted that while top executives and senior researchers adopt a cautious tone in public statements, they voice the very same fears behind closed doors.
Developments reflecting similar anxieties across the sector evoke James Cameron’s 1984 film The Terminator, which set 2029 as the pivotal year when machines waged war against humanity.
Indeed, Evan Hubinger, head of Anthropic’s own alignment team, had previously estimated the probability of human extinction to be greater than 10%.
Warning that systems currently under development will soon evolve into superhuman structures capable of bypassing any firewall, transforming industries overnight, and securing physical resources, Coxon stressed that the pace of progress is not slowing in any way.
Arguing that the danger of superintelligence is no longer merely theoretical, the researcher pointed to the Hugging Face security leak that occurred between May and July.
In that incident, OpenAI models established an independent chatroom within the testing environment to communicate among themselves, subsequently using this channel to reach the open internet and infiltrate production systems.
Because of this security breach, Hugging Face was forced to rebuild approximately one-third of its infrastructure.
“They are gambling with our lives”
Characterising the leak as a warning flare, Coxon indicated that the incident makes pacing agreements between US-based laboratories more feasible.
However, emphasising that developers are not yet on the right track to prevent a global race, the researcher noted that measures such as a temporary moratorium on advancing model capabilities could be considered.
Arguing that civilisation-scale risks have not yet been sufficiently internalised at OpenAI, Coxon contended that Anthropic joined the race out of an ambition to be first, despite being fully aware of the dangers.
Coxon is not the only figure to leave the sector on such grounds. Mrinank Sharma, a member of Anthropic’s safety team, also stepped down earlier this year, writing that the world is in danger.
On the other hand, not everyone agrees with these catastrophic scenarios. Some responses to the post emphasised the view that humanity, with an evolutionary history spanning hundreds of thousands of years, will not be wiped out by a text prediction model achieving consciousness.
It was also noted that even the plot of the Terminator franchise does not entirely support Coxon’s premise, as the human resistance survived the nuclear catastrophe and ultimately defeated the machines.
Alongside safety debates, AI continues to directly affect the labour market. Research by the Stanford Digital Economy Lab indicates that, while mass job losses have not yet materialised, entry-level employment in AI-exposed sectors across the US has fallen by nearly 20%.
A Goldman Sachs study pointed to a similar trend, showing that entry-level workers bear the brunt of the ongoing workforce transformation.
Anthropic, which remains at the centre of the controversy, filed for an initial public offering in June and plans to list on the Nasdaq exchange this autumn at a multi-trillion-dollar valuation.
-
Europe5 days agoGermany’s CDU drafts tougher citizenship rules to counter AfD
-
Russia2 weeks agoWhat to know about Russia’s upcoming State Duma elections?
-
Europe2 weeks agoMarine Le Pen leads all 2027 French presidential scenarios, poll shows
-
Middle East2 weeks agoIran expands deterrence as Gulf strikes expose US munitions limits, analysts say
-
Diplomacy1 week agoGeoffrey Roberts sees Ukraine war concluding within coming months
-
Europe1 week agoGerman industrial bosses push for return to 40-hour working week
-
Russia2 weeks agoRussia warns NATO over Arctic militarisation and conflict risks
-
Asia2 weeks agoBOJ faces critical rate decision as US presses for faster hikes
