Now, Prime Minister Starmer hopes to put an end all accusations, and release the witness statements.

During Prime Minister’s Questions today [15th October] Sir Keir Starmer committed to releasing key witness statements amid accusations of a cover-up.

What is the China spy case?

The case in question centres around two British men: 29-year-old Christopher Cash and 32-year-old Christopher Berry.

Cash, a former parliamentary researcher and Berry, a teacher, were both charged with espionage offences under the century-old Official Secrets Act. Cash reportedly had close ties to Tory MPs Tom Tugendhat and Alicia Kearns. The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) alleged that they provided the Chinese state with sensitive information.

Last month, following their arrest in 2023 and charges in 2024, the case fell apart. Since its collapse, the case has sparked a bitter blame game between the government and the opposition.

Prosecutors cited a “lack of evidence” to prove that the Chinese state posed a threat to British national security as their reason for dropping the charges.

Starmer’s recent announcement

In the House of Commons today, Starmer said: “The government will publish the witness statement it submitted as part of the China spy case. I am going to disclose it.”

He said so while emphasising the opposition’s claims of cover-up were a “red herring.”

He continued: “If the Conservatives had acted more quickly in updating our legislation, this wouldn’t have happened.”

The Opposition’s response

Opposition and Tory leader, Kemi Badenoch, challenged the PM and said that his government was: “Too weak to stand up to Beijing on a crucial matter of national security.”

She also accused them of seeking to “appease China.”

Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philip demanded transparency and stated: “The government should urgently release Matt Collins’s witness statements and the correspondence related to them in the interest of full transparency.”

Philip also questioned what the Labour government wanted to “hide.”

Starmer defended the government’s position and highlighted inconsistencies in the Tories’ previous stances.

Former Foreign Secretary James Cleverly said that it is “impossible, impractical, and most importantly unwise” to sum up China as a threat in a single word. In 2023, Badenoch said, “We should certainly not be describing China as a foe.”

Liberal Democrats’ foreign affairs spokesperson Callum Miller also echoed support for the release of the files. He said: “If ministers have nothing to hide, they have nothing to fear. Failure to come clean will only confirm public suspicions of a cover-up and that ministers are more concerned about cosying up to China than protecting our national security.”

What happens next?

Although prosecutors initially said it would be “inappropriate” to release such files to the public, this was dismissed as insufficient in a court of law.

Later, they released a statement, saying: “The statements were provided to us for the purpose of criminal proceedings, which are now over. The material contained in them is not ours, and it is up to the government, independently of the CPS, to decide whether to make that material public.”

China’s embassy in London have dismissed all allegations. They instead have urged “certain individuals in the UK to stop this kind of self-staged anti-China political farce.”

Former MI6 chief Sir Richard Dearlove expressed his concerns around the situation, stating: “I can list the reasons why China is a threat: hostile cyber activity, crucial support for Russia’s war in Ukraine, and spying on Parliament.”

Cash provided a limited public reaction immediately after charges were dropped on September 15, 2025, expressing relief but highlighting the personal toll. Berry has not issued direct public quotes, with his lawyer instead voicing frustration over the lack of explanation for the case’s collapse.

Featured image via House of Commons / Flickr.

First imposed in 1992 by the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), the embargo was intended to promote peace and stability. It was designed to prevent weapons from fuelling the Nagorno-Karabakh regional dispute, which has seen two wars and decades of tensions. With recent progress, the British government argues the original reason for the ban no longer applies.

“Given the significant progress made in advancing peace, and the historic outcomes of the recent summit in Washington hosted by President Trump, the UK considers that the rationale underpinning the OSCE’s 1992 recommended arms embargo… has fallen away,” says Stephen Doughty, the Minister of State for Europe, North America & Overseas Territories, when he outlined his rationale.

Doughty also added that the UK will “fully lift its arms embargo on Armenia and Azerbaijan,” enabling security partnerships to “evolve in a rapidly changing context” and support both countries against “conventional and hybrid threats from other states and non-state actors.”

The announcement also upgrades UK relations with both nations, to include strategic partnerships and annual ministerial meetings, to bolster talks on trade, security, and defence. During Doughty’s August 2025 visit to Yerevan and Baku, discussions with Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan and his counterpart, Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev, focused on steps to de-escalate conflict and lasting peace.

Image: President of Azerbaijan Republic Ilham Aliyev – World Economic Forum / Elmar Mustafayev

Armenia has welcomed the enhanced ties, with officials agreeing to the strategic partnership during those talks. Azerbaijan has similarly hailed the decision as a sign of recognition for the peace process. In a report on the development, Azerbaijani media described it as “a significant diplomatic shift, reflecting London’s recognition of the progress made in the Armenia-Azerbaijan peace process.”

The government in Baku has been investing heavily in military modernisation, and the lift is seen as an opportunity to diversify its defence partnerships beyond traditional suppliers like Russia and Turkey.

However, the move has drawn mixed reactions, with some praising it as a step towards stability and others warning it could upset the delicate balance in the region. Supporters argue it rewards diplomatic efforts and allows the UK to play a constructive role. As Doughty noted, the UK “warmly welcomes the progress made by Armenia and Azerbaijan towards peace,” calling it “a pivotal moment in efforts to secure lasting peace and stability in the region.”

Image: David Lammy, Deputy Prime Minister and Stephen Doughty, Minister of State for Europe, North America and Overseas Territories – No 10 Downing Street / Simon Dawson

Critics, however, fear the decision favours Azerbaijan, which holds a military advantage after regaining control of Nagorno-Karabakh in 2020, leading to the exodus of over 100,000 ethnic Armenians. Russian political scientist and military expert Pyotr Kolchin said the lift “will undoubtedly benefit Baku,” pointing out that “Azerbaijan is increasing its military budget and investing heavily in army modernisation,” while Armenia under Pashinyan is cutting defence spending. He described it as “a move by Britain in favour of Azerbaijan.

Human rights groups have voiced stronger concerns. Action on Armed Violence (AOAV), a UK-based NGO monitoring the impact of weapons, called the policy “Britain’s gamble in the Caucasus.” In their analysis, they warned that “a resumption of arms exports, particularly if tilted toward Baku, risks entrenching that imbalance” and could make the UK “complicit in arming a country accused of using starvation and displacement as tools of war.” They urged a phased approach tied to accountability for past abuses, arguing that “peace built on procurement is a peace easily broken.”

Featured Image via Lauren Hurely / Number 10 Downing Street

UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer announced the decision on Sunday, describing it as essential to “revive the hope of peace” for both Palestinians and Israelis.

This brings the number of UN member states recognising Palestine to 156. A figure that is representative of over 80 per cent of the international community.

While supporters hail it as a vital push towards ending the violence that has claimed tens of thousands of lives since October 2023, critics, including Israeli officials, argue it rewards terrorism and undermines direct negotiations.

Starmer emphasised that the move is “not a reward for Hamas,” insisting the group has “no future, no role in government, no role in security.”

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas welcomed the announcements, stating they pave the way for “the State of Palestine to live side by side with the State of Israel in security, peace and good neighbourliness.”

However, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu condemned the decision, saying, “You are giving a huge reward to terrorism,” and warning that a Palestinian state “will not happen.”

The US, a key Israeli ally, expressed reservations, with officials noting it breaks from Washington’s stance. Yet, the wave of recognitions reflects growing frustration with the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, where reports of starvation and devastation have horrified the international community.

UK Deputy Prime Minister David Lammy acknowledged the limitations, saying, “Will this feed children? No, it won’t. That’s down to humanitarian aid.”

The recent wave of recognition by France, Andorra, Belgium, Luxembourg, Malta, and Monaco were c loosely followed by that of Britain, Canada and Australia’s.

This reflects widespread concern over the conflict in Gaza, with the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF,) having claimed 65,000 lives over the span of just under 2 years. However, what is the entire story?

1967 – The 6-day War & UN Res. 242

Following Israel’s participation in the 1956 Suez crisis, and the Palestinian refugee crisis that came about after British allotment of land to displaced Jews following WW2, a devastating 6-day war broke out in June 1967.

This saw Israeli settlers occupy the West Bank, The Gaza Strip, East Jerusalem, Sinai Peninsula and the Golan Heights. This caused the displacement of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians and prompted the United Nations to adopt resolution 242, which called for Israel’s withdrawal from “territories,” in exchange for lasting peace and a settlement for refugees. The vague language of “territories,” has fuelled much of the conflict since.  

The 1970s – Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), and Observer Status

Fuelled by hopes of retaliation following the Arabic coalition’s loss to Israel in 1967, October 1973 saw the 19-day war between Israel, and an Arabic coalition led by Egypt and Syria. Dubbed the Yom Kippur War, after the suspicious day for those of the Jewish faith, the conflict claimed the lives of an estimated 8000 to 18,000 people, although that number is disputed based on the publication.

The aftermath of the war resulted in the UN’s adoption of Res. 3236, which affirmed Palestine’s right to self-govern, independence and return of the land that was occupied. This resolution also granted the PLO observer status in the United Nations.

Chairman Yasser Arafat addressed the assembly, declaring: “Today I have come bearing an olive branch and a freedom-fighter’s gun. Do not let the olive branch fall from my hand.”

This era saw rising support for the state of Palestine despite terrorist attacks like those of the 1972 Munich Olympic bombings that hindered diplomatic efforts and claimed the lives of 9 hostages and was carried out by Black September, a militant organization.

The 1980s and 90s – Independence, Intifadas & The Oslo Accords

The dawn of the decade saw Israel’s invasion of Lebanon in 1982 to eliminate PLO bases, which instigated the Sabra and Shatila massacres. The first Intifada erupted in December of 1987 against Israeli occupation, and captured the world’s attention till its eventual culmination in September of 1993.

With alliances made between various Palestinian organisations like the PLO, the Popular Front for Liberation of Palestine, Democratic Front of Palestine, Hamas, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

The end of the Intifada saw the PLO declare independence and enshrining Algiers as the centre of the Palestinian state, while hoping to achieve pre-1967 borders. 

The 1990s saw the PLO’s support of Iraq during the reign of Saddam Hussein, further alienating their cause and straining diplomatic ties with the permanent members of the UNGA and UN Security Council.

The 1991 Madrid peace talks amidst the Intifada hoped to achieve lasting peace by enforcing UN resolutions 242 and 338.

It was closely followed by the 1993 Oslo Accords, where Israel and the PLO mutually recognised each other, which allowed for the Palestinian Authority to “self-govern in a limited capacity” in Gaza and the West Bank.

Arafat and Israeli PM Yitzhak Rabin shook hands at the White House with then US President Bill Clinton as the mediator. However, Rabin’s eventual assassination in 1995 saw negotiations falter.

The Noughties – 2 State Road Map & UN Upgrades

The dawn of the millennium saw the UN Security Council endorse a two-state solution in 2002. In 20023, they endorsed the “Quartet Road Map,” which outlined steps to statehood for Palestine and the “Arab Peace Initiative,” which offered normalization for withdrawal.

Israel eventually unilaterally disengaged in Gaza, which preceded THE 2006 Hamas election victory. By 2010, 122 countries had recognized a Palestinian state. 2011 saw UN voting Palestine into the organisation with membership with 120 supporters.

This also led to Palestine gaining UNESCO’s non-0member observer status in 2012, which enabled access to institutions like the International Criminal Court.

2010s and 20s – “The deal of the century!”, October 7^th and Accusations of Genocide and Starvation

UN resolution 2334 in 2016 declared Israeli settlements on Palestinian land illegal. The Trump administration in the US brokered the “Deal of the Century,” which favoured Israel.

This era also brought with it, allegations of corruption, with some accusations levied against Israel for conducting a backdoor Oil deal with Emirati states as part of the 2021 Abraham accords. 

The October 2023 Hamas attacks that claimed the lives of nearly 2000 lives in Israel and saw hundreds of hostages being taken, some being kept in Gaza to this day.

However, major political figures from various countries have called Israel’s response disproportionate, as it has claimed the lives of anywhere between 60,000 to 65,000 Palestinians.

The International Criminal Court, to which neither America nor Israel are members, ruled that the occupation was illegal in 2024, demanding immediate withdrawal. 

Arrest warrants were issued for Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu, cabinet member Yoav Gallant and leaders of Hamas, Mohammed Diab Ibrahim Al-Masri, also known as Mohammed Deif.

Recognitions surged to 139 by 2020, then to 151 by September 21, 2025, with Norway, Spain, Ireland, and Slovenia in 2024.

Featured image via Sco_Bra / Shutterstock.

According to a Siena College poll released today, Cuomo leads at 35% and Mamdani at 31% in first-choice votes. Online rhetoric reflects this, with some claiming that Mamdani may lead in early voting. Particularly, his supporters cite a flyer scandal and an Islamophobia row as factors that have hurt Cuomo. Over 75% of New Yorkers believe the city is headed in the wrong direction, the poll has indicated. This tightening contest sets the stage for a pivotal election, complicated by past controversies and the independent candidacy of incumbent Mayor Eric Adams.

The Democratic primary began with a crowded field, but it has now narrowed to a two-person race. Andrew Cuomo has outlined key proposals, including hiring over 34,000 NYPD officers, accelerating housing construction, and using state funds to reduce classroom sizes. He has received support from major labour unions, such as 32BJ, which represents nearly 200,000 members. At the same time, wealthy donors like Michael Bloomberg have backed him, contributing millions of dollars.

“The Democratic primary’s winner is favoured to win the general election”

Support and supporters aside, why does Andrew Cuomo want to take the demotion? As a former governor, the mayoral office is at least a few steps below. Could it be the 2021 sexual harassment allegations that led to this? Could it be due to the allegations of mishandling the COVID-19 pandemic? Or the alleged fudging of mortality rates due to the pandemic?

A YouGov poll from 2021 found that nearly 50% of respondents were acutely aware of the controversies. A separate poll from April 2025 found that nearly 32% of respondents “disliked him,” while just over 26% “liked” him, and a majority were “neutral”. However, the allegations of corruption and harassment have certainly played a role in Assemblyman Zohran Mamdani’s increased popularity.

Zohran Mamdani, a democratic socialist, focuses on affordability, pledging free buses, rent freezes, and city-owned grocery stores, funded by a $10 billion tax hike on the wealthy. Endorsed by the Working Families Party, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), and, recently, Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WT), Mamdani appeals to progressives and working-class voters. His cross-endorsements with fellow candidates Brad Lander and Michael Blake aim to consolidate progressive support. However, his “globalise the intifada” remarks have drawn criticism from Jewish leaders, potentially alienating moderates. However, he rebuts the allegations of antisemitism as “holding Israel accountable,” and urges voters not to conflate antisemitism with anti-Zionism. With $2.8 million in small-donor and party funds, Mamdani’s grassroots campaign is gaining traction, particularly in Brooklyn, where he polls at 36%.

Brad Lander, the city comptroller, runs as a progressive technocrat, advocating for ending street homelessness, building 500,000 housing units, and closing Rikers Island. His arrest on June 17, 2025, while escorting a migrant past ICE agent, boosted his visibility, though he remains third with 7-9% in polls. Supported by progressives and unions, Lander’s $3.67 million in party funds and budget reallocation plans underscore his viability.

Curtis Sliwa, the unopposed Republican nominee, emphasises law and order, proposing to expand the NYPD by 7,000 officers and repeal bail reforms. Endorsed by all NYC Republican County parties and backed by former Governor George Pataki, Sliwa’s $8.18 million in funds positions him for the general election. His past fabrication of Guardian Angels stories may undermine his credibility. In a Democratic-leaning city, Sliwa’s chances depend on vote splits, with Adams’ independent run and potential third-party bids by Cuomo or Mamdani complicating the November 4, 2025, general election.

With early votes drawing to a close and over 384,000 ballots cast, the race’s outcome hinges on turnout, particularly among Mamdani’s youth base, the Democratic primary’s winner is favoured to win the general election, but controversies, endorsements, and ranked-choice voting dynamics make this contest unpredictable, with national implications for urban governance.

To read more about each candidate, go to our detailed coverage of each candidate’s policy platform, historic polling data and more details on their controversies.

Although first patented nearly a century ago by Joseph Robinson in the US, electronic cigarettes, or vaporizers (vapes) have become a mainstay in the public consciousness as an alternative to smoking following the introduction of flavoured disposable vapes in 2019.

Since then, vapes have been the subject of public scrutiny for several reasons. Some say their colourful packaging and wide array of flavour choices are intended to bag a younger demographic of customers. Others say that the departure from naming them based on their ownership is deceptive and intended to wash away the bad reputations of “big tobacco.”

June 1, 2025 marks the official disposable vape ban in the UK. However, Westminster’s stance on the matter was not always so rigid. It seems not long ago under the Tory-Lib Dem coalition that then PM David Cameron encouraged the use of vapes.

Famously, a 2015 independent report commissioned by the government claimed that vaping was “95 per cent less harmful,” than smoking. The Tory stance on the matter did not shift under Prime Minsters Theresa May or Boris Johnson. It was not until 2020, under PM Truss’ brief leadership that vapes were under scrutiny. This coincided with the mass-market release of disposable vapes in a wide range of flavours.

But it was not until Prime Minister Sunak’s leadership that any legislative efforts were made to address the problem. The Tory government from 2023 introduced the Tobacco & Vapes Bill, aimed at further regulating the industry.

However, the snap-election was called, campaigning was underway and the bill did not make it during the “wash-up” period following the election’s announcement. It appeared to be tabled, indefinitely. As the dust settled on the election, the King’s speech that opened parliament re-introduced the Tobacco & Vapes bill.

This time however, their goals went beyond just banning disposable vapes, 260 million of which are thrown out annually in the UK. They intend on curbing the packaging, flavours available and points-of-sale, in an effort to make the whole affair less attractive to consumers.

But – will these steps actually curb vaping? With corner shops selling vapes that retail for nearly £5.99 at a fraction of the price, consumers can hoard vapes to skirt the ban, at least until their personal supply runs out.

They cannot go back to disposables after; they will have to settle for refillable vapes available only in a few flavours. Some researchers warn that this sudden tightening of regulations may lead to users turning to more dangerous cigarettes to get their nicotine fix.

Despite the act of vaping mostly being associated with younger Gen-Z consumers, research from tobacco free nicotine retailer Haypp, suggests that 89 per cent of middle-aged male vapers will be stockpiling the banned substance.

While not illegal, it brings into question the aspect of black-market retailers. This is a common problem in countries like Bhutan, where a total tobacco ban (cigarettes or otherwise,) came into effect in 2010, but resulted in a fledgling black market for the products. Is this the future for the UK’s vapers too?

This vape ban could not come at a worse time for the tobacco industry either. British American Tobacco (BAT), one of the world’s largest tobacco manufacturers, reported in late 2024 that they were on track to make more profits from selling vapes than any other tobacco product.

BAT also sponsored research in Toxicology Letters, which resulted in a favourable analysis of vapes as containing “fewer harmful substances,” than cigarettes. BAT is not the only one taking part in this shady practice. The aforementioned 2015 report commissioned by PM Cameron’s government was also alleged to be biased, and authored by those with ties to tobacco giants.

The Lancet Journals criticized the report as a guesstimate at best. They wrote that the PHE report suffered from a “lack of hard evidence for the harms of most products on most of the criteria.”

Retailers like off-license shops and product-specific vape shops are also to blame for selling vapes to underage customers. A University of Edinburgh report showed that the profit margin for vapes was nearly 4 times higher than that of tobacco products.

The number of products sold has also increased nearly tenfold in the three years they studied. The Met Police recently conducted a raid on one such corner shop only to find several thousands of pounds worth of illegal vapes hidden away behind the shops.

What stops stockpilers from doing the same and creating a vast black market beyond the vape ban?

The harms of vape are obvious and abundant. Teenagers end up in hospital on what seems to be a weekly basis with vaping-related conditions, be they a collapsed lung or a life-threatening lung infection. The government’s steps to address youth overconsumption of vaping may end up a success, but, what about the issue’s source? Tobacco companies like Philip Morris International (PMI), or R.J.

Reynolds and British American Tobacco who sponsor major sports teams like McLaren Motorsports in the UK or British American Tobacco sponsoring Tomorrowland, a music festival popular with the younger generations?

How effective will the vape ban really be: If big tobacco can change their product’s name and wipe their reputation clean and appeal to a younger generation once, can’t they do it again? It was disposable vapes yesterday; might it be heated tobacco tomorrow? And vape Juices for refillable vapes the day after?

Featured image via B..Robinson / Shutterstock.

Author: Adithya Dattatreya

When a Chinese hedge-fund-owned AI called DeepSeek r1 caught investors’ attention, with reports that training it cost less than $6 million, it sent the market into a tailspin. Nvidia lost $600 billion in market cap, and reports of tech billionaires losing up to $100 billion are still pouring in. But while users flocked to the free-to-use model, which performs on par with American technology that costs $200, the result wasn’t unexpected.

Nvidia’s secret chip & Chat GPT’s role in DeepSeek

What are some of the costs of running a Large Language Model (LLM,) be that in the US or China? – Large data servers, several engineers constantly teaching, evaluating, and moderating responses from the model – this is important as large data servers often run on the top-of-the-line AI Chips made by the likes of Nvidia – often costing between $32000 and $40000 per chip.

These chips are proprietary and by law not to be sold to China. But the Chinese AI Model Deepseek r1, is a model that mostly runs on the last generation of Nvidia chips, but through proxy importation by the likes of Singapore, China still has access to the same chipset as the United States. Now – although trained on mostly Chat GPT outputs, the technology is available for free, and competes with OpenAI’s $200 offering, at no cost.

The Cost of LLMs & The Political Class’s Reaction

The economic costs of maintaining such large data servers aside, the number of engineers meant to work the back end of such systems to make sure they run smoothly. The new administration is closely associated with Elon Musk, CEO of X, which saw large layoffs to boost “efficiency,” when he took over the social media company in 2022. And what took a hit as these layoffs came into effect? Moderation and fact-checking took a downturn resulting in all advertisers pulling out.

While LLM and AI systems do not have advertisements (yet?) that entire endeavor was indicative of a loss in legitimacy and trust. Should the new administration follow in Musk’s footsteps in an effort to cut costs rapidly to reassure investors that the model’s Chinese counterpart’s efficiency is achievable, it may lead to the same loss in legitimacy and trust that users have in these AI models.

While touring the country and on a pit stop in Florida, President Donald Trump remarked, “The release of DeepSeek AI from a Chinese company should be a wake-up call for our industries that we need to be laser focused on competing.” However, did not comment on the substantial questions around the platform, such as American users’ data protection, and competition to the domestic platforms. This is following the President’s launch of the $500 Billion Stargate project to further America’s standing in the AI industry.

Less than a month after American users flocked from TikTok to RedNote to protest the government’s potential ban on TikTok, the more advanced and free-to-use Chinese AI has attracted a lot of attention. Not all of which has been good for it.

What makes a Chinese product as cheap as it is?

Be it a one-to-one copy of a designer clothing piece or replicas of technology of computer parts, the Chinese manufacturing industry delivers products at a fraction of the price. But what are the hidden costs?

This week the world’s leading cloud security service platform, wiz.io, released a report where their engineers uncovered users’ sensitive data available readily – “Within minutes, we found a publicly accessible ClickHouse database linked to DeepSeek, completely open and unauthenticated, exposing sensitive data… This database contained a significant volume of chat history, backend data and sensitive information, including log streams, API Secrets, and operational details.”

 Without getting into the weeds of the technical aspects of LLM technology, OpenAI ’sChat GPT API, or the code that lets a user access the company’s servers to use the AI, is a closed source. Meaning, it is OpenAI’s private property. On the other hand, DeepSeek’s API is open source, meaning it is in the public domain. Anyone can access it, at no cost. However, when using the domestic Chinese servers to access DeepSeek’s Chinese servers, domestic Chinese content guidelines are enforced, in other words, censorship. Users across the internet have tried asking the model questions about Taiwan, Hong Kong, and the ongoing Indo-Chinese border disputes, to no avail.

The effect of AI on the environment

The Washington Post reported that asking the latest LLM to generate 100 words of text requires just over a full bottle of water. That is exponentially more than the amount of water required for several google searches on the same topic. By 2030, AI servers will account for just under 4% of the world’s electricity consumption. Increasing energy demands in the AI sector have led giant tech corporations like Nvidia and Microsoft to begin procuring their nuclear energy facilities. This doesn’t account for the present. Chat GPT and other large data servers that power models like it emitted nearly 4% of the world’s greenhouse gases, per a 2023 report from Columbia University.

So – much like how more people started traveling more when electric cars made fuel cheaper, more people will continue to use more AI when electricity for these models is readily available. This doesn’t align with any realistic goals regarding preserving environmental health. This does however align with the new President’s executive order, pulling America out of the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement, the threshold of which the world inches closer by the day.  

America and the world lie in a delicate balance, but especially in the world of AI, because it is no longer the world with AI. Each day it seems closer to an AI’s world, of which we are a part. Proper regulations, with users’ data protection, and transparent model training practices will make or break the technology that is all set to shape the coming years and the way in which future generations will work, learn, and live.

TikTok’s downfall may mean the rise of domestic competition, like Meta’s Instagram, Facebook, or Snapchat, and Elon Musk’s X (Twitter.) Some of these domestic interests have also been in hot water recently, but not over the protection of their server farms and users’ data. Instead, Congress grilled them over the alleged lack of safety measures on their platforms, causing harm to various marginalized groups including children.

This is what prompted the famous clip of Meta (then Facebook’s) CEO Mark Zuckerberg to turn around during a congress session and apologize to families of children who harmed themselves due to poor content moderation on their platforms.

The nature of TikTok’s congressional hearing was quite different, focusing primarily on accusations related to its Chinese ownership. The central question discussed was whether TikTok would provide user data to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) if requested. This concern is significant, given that China holds a 1% golden share in TikTok’s parent company, ByteDance, which grants them a board seat and voting rights within the company.

Protecting Americans? Or American Interests?

American news platform Issue One reported in October of 2024 – that Facebook and Instagram’s parent company, Meta spent over 18 million Dollars in their lobbying efforts – and TikTok’s parent company, ByteDance spent nearly 10 million dollars in 2024 lobbying Congress. Both companies have spent significantly more this year than last.

The move to ban TikTok if it wasn’t sold was seen as controversial – especially from the progressive wing of the Democratic party – with critics like Rep. Jamaal Bowman of New York – arguing that the motivations are based on “anti-Chinese sentiments,” that will do more harm than good on a diplomatic stage.

The Security Threats that it poses

Leaving aside the harmful content like Self Harm, Suicide Ideation, and eating disorders that are pushed to young users across all social media – Congresspeople like Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida and Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia expressed security concerns, They believe that American users’ data has been compromised since they have been stored in server farms in China – which could lead to exploitation and manipulate content to influence public opinion.

Let’s break this down – firstly, contrary to what some might have you believe, China is not in fact an unsafe place to store user’s data – at least not any more than the US. The United States boasts the unfortunate statistic of having the most data breaches worldwide over the past 2 decades, with Russia coming in. a close second and China following Russia. This immediately dispels any myths about American data being physically less secure due to being in China.

Secondly – manipulation of public opinion by gathering users’ data is as much an American habit as it is a Chinese one. Think of the 2016 Cambridge Analytica data Scandal – where more than 30 million Facebook users’ data was leaked/ sold to the British Political Research company, Cambridge Analytica. What was it used for? To create highly targeted and specific advertisements based on users’ political beliefs to win their votes.

All of this is considered – the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) controlled Chinese government is no stranger to using Chinese users’ data gathered in secret against them. For instance, users’ data collected from platforms like Weibo (the Chinese equivalent of Twitter,) and WeChat (the Chinese Equivalent of WhatsApp,) led to severe surveillance, censorship, and a crackdown on activism – in both Hong Kong and the mainland.

The Privacy Policies & Data handling

When signing up to any social media platform, users famously scroll through what looks like an endless stream of contractual agreements only to click “accept,” and start using the platforms. Upon analysis of Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and TikTok’s Privacy Policies, there are no major differences – all of them collect extensive data, nearly making an online profile of the user, claim not to sell the data to anyone, but have said that they will give the government access to users’ data if required by law.

Here’s where the water gets murky – none have specified which government. They could refer to the government of the country where their company is incorporated – the USA for Meta and X, and China for TikTok, or they could mean the governments of countries where their users are based – which could be just about any country with internet access.

In conclusion – there’s no real difference between what these companies claim to do and what they end up doing. The United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS,) has repeatedly been under fire for tracking users’ data to “investigate,” and “identify threats,”, especially after the 2001 9/11 attacks.

The politics of the Ban/ and the future of TikTok

From as early as 2018 – American lawmakers were concerned that a Chinese product was gaining severe traction in the states. They feared the app’s influence on young users – of which TikTok has the most in the states. In 2020, then President Trump’s first administration issued an executive order to ban TikTok unless it was sold to an American company, a controversial move that was dismissed in a Supreme Court case.

Surprisingly in 2021, President Biden’s administration kept with the project and sought to investigate TikTok’s data handling practices and raised concerns about the CCP’s easy access to American Users’ data. Culminating in legislation forcing the sale of TikTok in the states or risk being banned across all application stores.

Conversely, however, in 2024 – President-Elect Trump completely reversed his position on the Ban on the Chinese social media giant. Some claim this is to prevent the growth of Facebook’s market share – the owner was famously nicknamed “Zuckerschmuck,” by the former and future president. Others – like conspiracy theorist Steve Bannon, and reports from MSNBC suggest that his flip-flopping on the situation can be attributed to Republican mega-donor and billionaire -Jeff Yass – who owns a multi-billion-dollar stake in TikTok.

The only question that persists is – will ByteDance sell?

In short – probably not. TikTok has over 750 million daily users in China, which is nearly double the population of the United States. Its revenue streams in China are also substantially larger in China, where all American social media is banned. ByteDance is probably as unlikely to sell TikTok to an American company as Meta is to sell its products to a Chinese company.