Top US defence officials, including Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth, are at the centre of a brewing security scandal after sensitive operational details were reportedly shared over Signal, an encrypted messaging platform.

The messages, which concerned forthcoming strikes on Houthi targets in Yemen, were inadvertently sent to journalist Jeffrey Goldberg, the editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, who had been mistakenly added to the group chat.

The incident has raised concerns about the use of unsecured communication tools by President Donald Trump’s national security team, particularly by Hegseth, whose previous experience was as a Fox News host before his appointment.

Pete Hegseth texted Yemen strike plans

The leak surfaced after Goldberg revealed that he had been included in a group chat titled “Houthi PC small group” on Signal.

The group, initiated by National Security Adviser Mike Waltz, included high-level US officials such as Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, and Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth.

According to Goldberg, Hegseth shared details of the military strike on March 15 at 11:44 am, about two hours before the US launched airstrikes targeting Iran-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen.

The information reportedly included operational plans such as strike sequencing, target locations, and weapons to be deployed.

Signal, while encrypted, is not classified and is not approved for transmitting military plans, making the exchange a potential violation of protocols related to national defence information.

The Atlantic withheld some of the more sensitive content.

Trump, who was questioned about the breach hours after publication, claimed he was unaware of it and later mocked the report, amplifying a satirical take on social media.

He criticised The Atlantic as “not much of a magazine” and suggested its readership was too small to constitute a real breach.

Fallout continues as Pete Hegseth defends

Pete Hegseth responded to the revelation shortly after landing in Hawaii for his first official trip to the Indo-Pacific.

When asked by reporters about the messages, he denied that “war plans” were shared and dismissed Goldberg as a “discredited” journalist.

He made no effort to explain why Signal was used or how the journalist had been added to a private conversation involving national security strategy.

Since assuming the role, he has vowed to crack down on leaks, reportedly considering polygraph tests for personnel suspected of unauthorised disclosures.

Meanwhile, The Atlantic’s Goldberg described the experience as unprecedented.

The chat reportedly included casual emojis and celebratory remarks from senior officials like Waltz and Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe after the strike.

Goldberg eventually left the group voluntarily after recognising the serious implications of the ongoing conversation.

Lawmakers demand answers

The breach has triggered strong reactions on Capitol Hill.

Senator Jack Reed said the situation represented one of the “most egregious failures” of operational security in recent memory.

He criticised the use of unsecured channels to discuss military operations and said he would seek immediate answers from the administration.

Senator Chuck Schumer echoed these concerns, calling the incident a “stunning breach” and demanding a full investigation.

Connecticut Representative Jim Himes, ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said if a lower-level official had done what Hegseth did, they would likely face criminal investigation and loss of clearance.

Some Republicans also acknowledged the seriousness of the situation.

Senate Armed Services Committee Chair Roger Wicker called for bipartisan scrutiny, while Senate Majority Whip John Thune said he wanted to “run it to the ground” to understand how it happened.

However, House Speaker Mike Johnson took a more lenient stance, suggesting those involved were simply doing their jobs.

The Espionage Act governs the handling of national defence information and includes clauses about gross negligence.

Though it is still unclear whether the information Hegseth shared was formally classified, the use of an unclassified app is expected to be a key focus of any investigation.

Internal debate and platform use reveal policy contradictions

Aside from the leak, the conversation on Signal revealed an internal policy debate among Trump’s top national security officials.

Vice President JD Vance reportedly questioned the rationale behind the timing of the Yemen strike, expressing concern that it could cause a “moderate to severe spike in oil prices” and disproportionately benefit Europe rather than the US.

He also raised doubts about whether the operation aligned with Trump’s “America First” doctrine.

Hegseth reportedly responded to Vance with strong words against European allies, saying, “I think we should go.”

This revealed not only internal disagreement but also the informal and combative tone used within the group, despite the high stakes.

The choice to use Signal, a platform run by a nonprofit and not approved for classified communication, has raised questions.

During the Biden administration, Signal use was permitted under strict circumstances for logistical alerts or meeting coordination, not operational planning.

According to former national security officials, Biden’s senior leadership never used Signal for military strategy discussions.

Critics argue that the Trump administration’s reliance on unofficial tools and underqualified appointees, like Hegseth, has created risks that go beyond political optics.

Although the breach is under review by the National Security Council, no formal disciplinary measures have been announced yet.

The post US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth under fire after texting US military strike plans appeared first on Invezz

One of the Palestinian co-directors of the Oscar-winning documentary No Other Land, Hamdan Ballal, was hospitalised and later detained by Israeli forces in the occupied West Bank on Monday, as per several media reports.

The incident occurred in the village of Susiya, part of the disputed Masafer Yatta region, following a violent confrontation involving masked Israeli settlers and soldiers.

Activists and witnesses reported that Ballal was beaten, suffered head and stomach injuries, and was taken into custody alongside two other Palestinians. His current whereabouts remain unknown.

Violent clash in Susiya

The confrontation unfolded shortly after sunset as residents of Susiya were ending their Ramadan fast.

According to witnesses and activist accounts, a group of approximately 20 people, many of them masked and armed, entered the village and began attacking residents. Some of them wore Israeli military uniforms.

Hamdan Ballal, who lives in the village and co-directed No Other Land, sustained a bloody head injury and was reportedly heard screaming “I’m dying” by his wife.

The activist group Center for Jewish Nonviolence confirmed the assault and stated that Ballal was later detained by Israeli soldiers, handcuffed, blindfolded, and removed from the scene.

Another Palestinian man was also detained.

Basel Adra, a fellow co-director of the documentary, witnessed the incident and said the settlers threw stones while the soldiers pointed their guns at the Palestinians.

Adra said the same settler who often leads attacks in the area arrived with the Israeli military and that gunfire was heard in the air.

He later saw Ballal’s blood on the ground outside his home and said the village has faced regular assaults since their return from the US.

The Israeli military confirmed that three Palestinians were detained for allegedly throwing rocks and that one Israeli civilian was removed for medical attention.

The statement has been contested by multiple witnesses, including activists on the ground.

Video and witnesses contradict claims

A video shared by the Center for Jewish Nonviolence showed masked settlers attacking activists in the area.

The clip, filmed at night in a dusty field, shows the settlers swinging fists and throwing rocks while activists flee to their car.

One of the activists, Josh Kimelman, reported that the settlers also slashed tyres and smashed windows to force them out of the area.

The attack on Susiya came just days after the team behind No Other Land returned from the Oscars, where their film won Best Documentary Feature.

The film documents the systematic displacement of Palestinians in Masafer Yatta by Israeli military orders, particularly since the region was designated a live-fire zone in the 1980s.

Despite the designation, about 1,000 Arab Bedouin residents remain in the area.

‘No Other Land’ sparks global controversy

The film No Other Land is a collaborative work between Palestinians and Israelis, including Ballal, Adra, Israeli journalist Yuval Abraham, and director Rachel Szor.

It has gained global recognition since premiering at the Berlin International Film Festival in 2024, where it won major awards. Its recent Oscar win further spotlighted the ongoing struggles in the West Bank.

However, the documentary has also provoked political backlash. In the US, a proposal was introduced to terminate the lease of a cinema that screened the film in Miami Beach.

Critics of the documentary argue that it presents a one-sided view of the conflict, while supporters say it sheds light on rarely documented human rights concerns in occupied territories.

The post Oscar-winning No Other Land co-director Hamdan Ballal detained after West Bank assault appeared first on Invezz

Foreign institutional investors (FIIs) are returning to Dalal Street as net buyers, ending their prolonged selling streak and driving a strong rally in the stock market.

Global funds have emerged as net buyers of Indian equities on a weekly basis for the first time since December, as optimism returns to the market.

Data compiled by Bloomberg shows that foreign investors purchased a net $515 million worth of stocks in the week ending March 21.

This influx, driven in part by passive flows linked to FTSE’s All World Index rebalancing, helped the NSE Nifty 50 Index erase its year-to-date losses.

While the inflows remain modest compared to the $15 billion in outflows seen since January, the shift in sentiment marks a positive turnaround.

The Nifty 50 is poised to record its first monthly gain in six months, supported by the Reserve Bank of India’s liquidity measures and more attractive stock valuations after a steep selloff.

However, despite the recent gains, the index remains about 10% below its September peak.

Single-day inflows hit highest in four months

On Friday alone, foreign investors injected Rs 7,470 crore ($897 million) into Indian equities—the highest single-day inflow in four months.

Analysts attribute the renewed interest to improving macroeconomic indicators, fair stock valuations, and expectations of a tempered US trade tariff policy.

“Improving macros of the Indian economy and fair valuations have turned FIIs from sellers to buyers,” said Dr. VK Vijayakumar, Chief Investment Strategist at Geojit Investment Services.

He noted that the influx of funds has triggered a wave of short covering, further propelling market gains.

Global and domestic factors at play

Market experts believe the shift in foreign investor sentiment is driven by a combination of global and domestic factors.

One key catalyst is the expectation that the next round of US tariffs, set to be announced on April 2, will be less aggressive than initially feared.

“The next round of US tariffs could be more measured than previously suggested. This optimism is reflected in the buoyancy of US index futures,” said Devarsh Vakil, Head of Prime Research at HDFC Securities.

Additionally, the US Federal Reserve’s slower pace of quantitative tightening has eased global liquidity concerns, making emerging markets like India more attractive.

A weakening dollar and the resultant foreign inflows have also strengthened the rupee, which recently touched 85.97 against the US dollar, its strongest level in over two months.

Nifty 50 nearing 24,000 amid shifting global capital flows

The Nifty 50 has shown strong performance over the last ten trading sessions, nearing the 24,000 mark.

Market expert Ajay Bagga believes this momentum could be sustained as capital flows continue to shift away from the US

“The big change is that FIIs are moving towards inflows. Globally, the rotation has started on the margin,” Bagga told the Economic Times.

“Last year, if 80% of all equity investments were going into the US markets, it has now dropped to about 70%. Sentiment towards the US economy and policy-making has been eroded, though behaviour has yet to fully reflect this.”

As the global investment landscape diversifies, India is emerging as a beneficiary of shifting capital flows.

While the road to sustained foreign investor interest remains uncertain, the recent inflows signal renewed confidence in Indian equities.

The post Are foreign investors returning to Indian equities? Here’s what experts say appeared first on Invezz

New research from the University of Birmingham shows that the United Kingdom’s discourse on irregular migration is a battleground of numbers, stereotypes, and political manoeuvring.

Titled The Narrative Construction of Migrant Irregularity in the United Kingdom: Representation and Narratives in Media, Politics, and Civil Society, the study dissects how media, politicians, and advocacy groups shape public perceptions and policies around migration.

Drawing on an extensive analysis of 5,987 media articles from major UK newspapers (The Guardian, The Times, The Daily Mail, and The Daily Mirror), 218 political documents including parliamentary debates and party manifestos, and 611 civil society texts such as NGO reports, the research spans 2019 to 2023—a period marked by Brexit fallout and rising anti-migrant sentiment.

The findings paint a stark picture: irregular migration is framed as a crisis through dehumanising statistics and an outsized focus on small boat crossings, despite there being a minority of arrivals.

This narrative, the study argues, sidelines the human realities of migrants’ lives, entrenches deterrence policies like deportations and offshore processing, and skews debate toward security over rights.

As the UK navigates its identity and economic needs, this analysis explores how these narratives take root, why they endure, and their broader implications.

How numbers fuel the migration crisis narrative

Statistics dominate the migration conversation, with media and politicians fixating on numbers to portray an overwhelmed system.

Dr. Stefano Piemontese, the report’s author from the University of Birmingham, explains,

This numerical fixation does not only strip away the human realities of migration, reducing people to mere items in logistics processes of crossings and deportations. It also creates an illusion of measurability and control in public opinion, especially for a phenomenon long framed as requiring increased regulation, providing anti-immigration rhetoric with benchmarks against which political promises can be measured.

The study highlights how this focus dehumanises migrants, particularly men, who are often depicted as faceless masses rather than individuals with stories.

Migrant men are frequently constructed as young, single, and racialised—a stereotype that casts them as potential security threats, while women are portrayed as vulnerable mothers or trafficking victims.

This gendered lens, reinforced across the 5,987 articles analysed, amplifies a sense of threat over empathy.

Small boats overshadow structural realities

The research reveals an overwhelming emphasis on small boat crossings in the English Channel, despite this accounting for only a minority of irregular arrivals.

Most irregular migrants enter or remain in the UK through visa overstays, bureaucratic hurdles, or policy shifts—pathways that receive far less attention.

Professor Nando Sigona, Chair of International Migration and Forced Displacement at the University of Birmingham and coordinator of the I-CLAIM study, notes,

By framing migration primarily as an issue of border enforcement, the debate is skewed toward security concerns rather than addressing migrants’ rights, contributions, and long-term integration.

This disproportionate focus fuels a crisis mentality.

The study’s analysis of political documents and media shows boat arrivals dominating headlines and debates, justifying restrictive measures like the 2023 Illegal Migration Act and stalled Rwanda deportation plans.

The result is a public narrative that ignores structural causes—like lengthy visa processing or restrictive legal pathways—in favour of emergency responses.

Political rhetoric: criminals or victims?

Politicians craft a dual narrative, portraying irregular migrants as both criminals and victims—a framing that serves multiple ends.

The study finds political discourse, across 218 documents, oscillates between these poles.

Irregular migrants are labelled threats, justifying tough policies, while also cast as victims of smuggling networks, allowing governments to claim humanitarian intent.

Piemontese observes,

This dual framing enables governments to position themselves as both tough on migration and humanitarian in their interventions—particularly through deterrence-based policies like deportations and offshore processing.

This rhetoric instrumentalises “illegal migration” to bolster restrictive measures.

The study notes how political narratives separate “illegal” migrants from “legal” or “skilled” ones, using notions of deservingness and desirability.

Conservative rhetoric often pairs deterrence—like visa restrictions—with selective openness to “desirable” workers, shielding skilled migrants from backlash while vilifying others.

This approach undermines asylum rights by conflating refugees with criminals, shifting public focus from compassion to control.

Media mirrors government lines

The media, even liberal outlets, often amplify government rhetoric.

The University of Birmingham study found that across the 5,987 articles from The Guardian, The Times, The Daily Mail, and The Daily Mirror, small boat crossings and enforcement themes overshadowed rights or structural causes.

Left-leaning papers like The Guardian and The Daily Mirror frequently echoed state priorities, while The Daily Mail leaned heavily into security framing, often using dehumanising terms.

The Times offered a mix of crisis reporting and policy critique but still operated within the enforcement narrative.

“Even critical voices get trapped,” Sigona says.

The media doesn’t just report—it reproduces the state’s logic.

This echo chamber shapes public perception. Polls show Brits overestimate irregular migrant numbers and link them to crime, despite evidence to the contrary.

Civil society’s constrained counter-narrative

Civil society groups—represented in 611 texts from NGOs, advocacy bodies, and research organisations—push back, highlighting migrants’ rights and contributions.

Yet, their efforts often respond to government and media framings rather than setting a new agenda.

The study finds economic and humanitarian arguments prevailing, but rarely challenging the underlying “deservingness” framework.

“They’re boxed in,” Piemontese says.

Advocates argue within a state-centric logic—‘migrants are good for us’—instead of questioning why rights depend on utility.

This reactive stance limits their ability to reframe the debate.

Today’s migration narrative has deep roots. The 1971 Immigration Act tied entry to economic value, while the 1999 Asylum and Immigration Act tightened asylum rules.

Brexit amplified this, with the 2020 points-based system favouring “skilled” migrants over others.

Historically, foreign-born workers rebuilt post-war Britain and today sustain sectors like healthcare, yet political expediency casts irregularity as a scapegoat.

Impact and alternatives

The consequences are profound.

Dehumanising narratives erode public compassion, while policies drain resources—Rwanda deportations, for instance, remain costly and unimplemented.

Migrants face limbo, with thousands awaiting asylum decisions in dire conditions.

Sigona calls for change:

“Rather than treating irregular migration as a ‘problem to be solved,’ we suggest a shift toward narratives that acknowledge migration as a natural and historical phenomenon that requires a human-centred and rights-based approach.”

This means addressing visa delays and legal pathways, not just bolstering borders.

A nation’s mirror

The Birmingham study reflects the UK grappling with its identity.

Irregular migration, a small fraction of inflows, looms large in the public psyche—a crisis constructed by numbers, boats, and fear.

“It’s a narrative trap,” Piemontese says, “sustained by media and politics.”

As these voices dominate and civil society struggles, the human cost rises—rights curtailed, lives stalled.

Changing this narrative requires seeing migrants as individuals, not threats—a shift the UK has yet to make.

The post Irregular migration in the UK: dehumanising narratives fuel a crisis mindset, finds report appeared first on Invezz

British oil major Shell announced plans on Tuesday to increase shareholder distributions and cut expenditures as it sharpens its focus on liquefied natural gas (LNG).

The company said it would raise shareholder payouts to 40-50% of cash flow from operations, up from the previous range of 30-40%.

Progressive dividend growth of 4% per year will continue, with a target of increasing free cash flow per share by over 10% annually through 2030.

In a bid to enhance efficiency, Shell will lower its annual spending to $20-22 billion through 2028.

This marks a reduction from its earlier spending target of $22-25 billion for 2024 and 2025, first set in 2023.

Additionally, Shell aims to deepen cost reductions, increasing its structural cost-cutting goal from $2-3 billion by the end of 2024 to a cumulative $5-7 billion by the end of 2028 compared to 2022 levels.

Shell’s share price was higher by close to 2% on Tuesday after the announcement.

LNG focus and steady oil production

As the world’s largest LNG trader, Shell plans to expand output across its upstream and integrated gas businesses by 1% annually through 2030.

It expects LNG sales to rise by 4-5% per year in the same period.

Meanwhile, the company will maintain its liquid production at 1.4 million barrels per day until the end of the decade.

Despite the growing emphasis on LNG, Shell will dedicate only 10% of its capital spending to low-carbon businesses by 2030.

CEO Wael Sawan emphasized Shell’s strategic direction, stating, “We want to become the world’s leading integrated gas and LNG business and the most customer-focused energy marketer and trader, while sustaining a material level of liquids production.”

Shell stock performance and analyst outlook

Shell’s stock performance has remained tepid, with shares gaining just over 4% in the past year.

However, long-term investors have seen strong returns, with Shell shares rising nearly 115% over the last five years, bolstered by dividends.

The company faced turbulence during the COVID-19 pandemic, with oil prices plummeting below $30 per barrel in early 2020.

A subsequent energy price surge following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine provided a significant boost, but oil prices have since retreated to around $70 per barrel due to sluggish global economic growth and increased supply.

Despite lower LNG margins contributing to a 16% decline in full-year 2024 profits to $23.7 billion, Shell remains committed to shareholder returns.

It recently announced a 4% increase in its quarterly dividend and a $3.5 billion share buyback program.

Analysts remain optimistic, with 19 forecasting an 18% upside in Shell’s stock price to 3,247p from its current level of 2,765p.

Additionally, 23 analysts rate Shell as a Strong Buy, with no recommendations to sell, signalling continued confidence in the company’s long-term strategy.

The post Inside Shell’s new strategy to boost investor returns, increase focus on LNG appeared first on Invezz