Read the daily news to learn English

British man arrested in Ecuador after woman’s body found in suitcase in Colombia

A British man has been arrested in Ecuador after the body of a woman was found inside a suitcase in Colombia. Matthew Ashley Foster-Smith is alleged to have caused the death of 36-year-old Natalia Villalba in an apartment in the Chicó neighbourhood of Bogotá on 18 June, local authorities said. Foster-Smith, from Bournemouth, Dorset, reportedly phoned the Sun a day before his arrest and said he had been watching an England World Cup match on television at the time of the incident. “I was watching England versus Croatia on a big screen in an Irish bar so it wasn’t me,” the 46-year-old told the newspaper. “After the match I went in to the shopping centre, I mooched about, bought an ice-cream, and came back later for the later games.” England’s opening World Cup match took place in Dallas, Texas on 17 June. The Sun reported that the suspect made a second call to the newspaper on Friday prior to his arrest, with a source telling the newspaper he had been located via the phone calls he had made. A post on the official X account of the attorney general’s office in Colombia said Foster-Smith was accused of beating Villalba to death before placing her body in a suitcase, trying to conceal what happened, and fleeing the scene. Dorset police are said to have been among the authorities that assisted with locating him before he was held at Quito international airport in Ecuador’s capital. An arrest warrant had been obtained by prosecutors in Colombia and an Interpol red notice issued, local authorities said. Carlos Fernando Galán, Bogotá’s mayor, said Dorset police had assisted with the operation. “This painful case will not go unpunished,” he said. A spokesperson for the UK’s Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office said: “We are supporting a British man who has been detained in Ecuador and are in touch with the local authorities.” Dorset police were approached for comment on Sunday.

Ukraine’s targets in Russia are fully justified | Letters

Prof Christian Enemark’s letter (‘Morale’ bombing Moscow is not justified, 25 June) articulates a position of admirable moral consistency, but one that risks being fatally disconnected from the strategic and moral realities that Ukraine faces. The professor rests his argument on a bright-line distinction between combatants and civilians – a distinction that has genuine force in international humanitarian law, but which becomes considerably more complicated when Russian civilians fund, staff and politically sustain a war machine that has systematically targeted Ukrainian hospitals, schools, apartment blocks and energy infrastructure. The notion that Russian civilians are entirely without moral agency in relation to a war prosecuted in their name, with their taxes, and – polls suggest – with their substantial approval, is one that deserves more scrutiny than it receives here. Furthermore, Prof Enemark conflates two distinct categories of infrastructure targeting. Strikes on oil refineries and energy facilities are not “morale bombing” in the sense associated with the discredited area bombing campaigns of the second world war. They are attacks on dual-use industrial infrastructure that directly enables the Russian war effort – precisely the kind of target that international humanitarian law has long recognised as potentially legitimate, provided proportionality is observed. That civilians are inconvenienced, or even harmed incidentally, does not automatically render such strikes indiscriminate. The professor’s closing maxim – that “two wrongs do not make a right” – is philosophically tidy but strategically hollow. Ukraine is not retaliating for its own satisfaction; it is attempting to shorten a war in which its own civilian population continues to suffer grievously. If bringing the costs of that war home to Russian society accelerates its end, the calculus of harm may well favour such a strategy, not undermine it. The legitimate concern is proportionality and intent – not whether Ukraine must forever absorb punishment without responding in kind. Tim Dee-McCullough Windsor, Berkshire • In his letter, Prof Christian Enemark uses language that hides the clear moral reasoning and justification for Ukraine’s defence strategy, which is clearly targeting Russia’s ability to fuel its continued attacks on Ukraine. Videos on social media show that the injuries and private property damage caused in Ukraine’s strike on the Moscow oil refinery on 18 June probably arose due to air defences missing targets, or drone debris. In many past attacks, Russia maintained that the injuries arose due to the debris of drones intercepted by Moscow’s air defences. If Russia wants to protect its civilians, it should let Ukraine hit targets or, even better, the most moral act would be to withdraw from Ukraine’s territory entirely. Further, it is not reasonable to suspect Ukraine of deliberately targeting civilians when the Ukrainian president speaks of bringing the war closer to ordinary Russians. In this context, “ordinary Russians” does not include activists speaking out against the war, and probably refers to middle-class Russian urbanites. In the past few months, “ordinary Russians” have been vocal on social media about internet restrictions and now fuel shortages. Prior to this, “ordinary Russians” rarely spoke about the consequences of the war, and some even cheered the killings of Ukrainian civilians. Further, Russia’s mobilisation deliberately targets prisoners and ethnic minorities from remote regions, and exploits the global south. The Moscow regime shields “ordinary Russians” as a political strategy against any uprisings. Prof Enemark ignores not only the political strategy but the battlefield and defensive strategy of these attacks. Moving air defence systems to Moscow will leave gaps that Ukraine can now exploit to liberate occupied territories. Moreover, hitting strategic military and fuel installations in Russia prevents their use in Ukraine. These attacks save thousands of lives for every “ordinary Russian’s” shoulder injury. Bombing Moscow influences morale, but morale does not serve as the primary motivation for the attacks. Nonetheless, allies could have helped to defend Ukraine in a more ethical manner. Political will to end our global addiction to fossil fuels would have stopped the west from continuing to economically support Russia’s war machine after the 2014 invasion. Instead, Europe continues to import Russian energy. The west could have “closed the skies” over Ukraine at any point since February 2022. This moral act would have prevented the deliberate killing of children in Mariupol in March 2022. Ukraine already pays deeply for the moral failings of Russia; do not make it pay for the moral failings of allies. Dr Natalie Kopytko Lecturer, Sustainability Research Institute, University of Leeds • The main target of Ukraine’s largest-ever drone attack on Moscow was very clearly the Moscow oil refinery located in the Kapotnya district of the capital. One drone did not reach its target, hitting a nearby residential area, but there are no indications this was intentional, and the strike’s proximity to the Moscow refinery indicates that the drone probably missed its target or was driven off course due to Russian electronic warfare. Despite this, Prof Christian Enemark argues that “a strategy of ‘morale bombing’ a city’s residents is one that suffers from being inherently unjust”, writing that “Ukraine does not gain any moral permission to retaliate against Russia by launching indiscriminate attacks”. Yet Ukraine’s attack was highly discriminate, with nearly all drones that made it through Russia’s dense missile defence network – comprised of multiple rings of defensive systems – hitting the Moscow oil refinery. Enemark further argues that the “desired effect of such action is to increase [Russian] civilians’ sense of insecurity”, thus anchoring his objections to the attack. But if Ukraine’s aim was simply to increase a sense of insecurity in Moscow, many other less well-defended targets could have been hit. Or targets with more civilians in the immediate vicinity. The fact is that Ukraine chose to strike – with great precision – a key source of fuel and revenue for Russia’s ongoing illegal war against Ukraine. Enemark’s arguments also rely on a false moral equivalency between Russia and Ukraine, treating the two states as potentially acting on a par with one another – he remarks that “two wrongs do not make a right” – despite the widespread documentation of Russian soldiers targeting civilians, torturing civilians and prisoners of war, kidnapping children, and using rape as a method of war. The simple fact is that the Russian military has carried out a dizzying array of war crimes throughout its illegal and immoral war, and Ukraine precisely striking core pillars of the Russian economy that directly feed into ongoing wartime efforts is exactly what Volodymyr Zelenskyy says they are, “long-range sanctions” on the Russian war machine. Nathan Gabriel Wood Executive director, International Society for Military Ethics in Europe • Have an opinion on anything you’ve read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.

Israel’s actions are fuelling antisemitism around the world | Letters

The leaked letter signed by significant figures in the Israeli political and cultural establishments, including former prime ministers and heads of the security services, threatening legal action over an “ideology of ethnic cleansing” in the occupied West Bank, is an important intervention (Israeli former leaders and security chiefs threaten legal action over ‘Jewish terrorism’, 24 June). Notably, while making comparisons with European anti‑Jewish pogroms in the 19th and 20th centuries, they also draw attention to the way in which Israel’s actions have fuelled antisemitism around the world. In his resignation speech, Keir Starmer praised himself for “ripping out the poison of antisemitism” in the Labour party. By waging factional war, while failing to draw any real distinction between genuine antisemitism and opposition to Israel’s policies, he contrived to expel disproportionate numbers of Jewish Labour party members who felt strongly about Israel’s war crimes and breaches of international law. While fighting antisemitism and all forms of racism remains critical, the Israeli intervention should finally put to rest the notion that appeasing Israel in its perpetration of war crimes contributes to a reduction of antisemitism, when the truth is the reverse. Dr Anthony Isaacs London • Have an opinion on anything you’ve read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.

Mortuary in Caracas ‘overwhelmed’ as Venezuela struggles to respond after earthquakes

The bodies turn up on motorcycles, in the backs of cars or the load beds of pickup trucks: victims of a natural disaster that has shaken an already fragile nation to its core. “[Yesterday], the entire street was packed with people arriving with deceased relatives,” said Camila Rodríguez, a psychology student who is offering emotional support to grieving families at the Bello Monte mortuary in Venezuela’s capital, Caracas. At least 1,430 lives were lost when back-to-back earthquakes rattled the country’s Caribbean coast last Wednesday, toppling hundreds of buildings and leaving tens of thousands missing. Many of those fatal victims have ended up at Bello Monte, as have relatives of the dead, who gather there hoping to identify their loved ones. One of those waiting outside the pastel yellow facility was Marjorie Cedeño, who lost her mother, father and brother to Venezuela’s worst earthquake event in more than 125 years. The trio were trapped beneath the rubble when their four-floor building, Residencias Obelisco, collapsed in Los Palos Grandes, an upmarket neighbourhood at the foot of the El Ávila mountain. By 9pm on Friday, Cedeño had only managed to identify her brother, José Ruiz, 44, through a photograph shown to her by forensic police. Her mother, Zoila Cedeño, 72, who worked as the building’s superintendent, and her father, Jacinto Ruiz, 74, remain buried beneath the debris. “When the earthquake started, my brother was just entering the building. We believe his instinct was to go inside and rescue my parents, who were still there. He had just come back from the beach with a friend, who also died,” said Cedeño, who believed another 25 people remained trapped in the building’s ruins. “It’s horrible in there,” she said of the mortuary. “You can’t imagine how overwhelmed it is … This is something you wouldn’t wish on anyone. It’s an unimaginable tragedy.” Another woman, Belkis Cedeño, no relation, had come to the swamped facility hoping to find her sister-in-law, 56-year-old María Elena Moreno, who had been a resident of La Guiara, the coastal region worst affected by the quakes. “Their building was completely destroyed. A 10-storey building was reduced to the ground floor. They managed to pull her out early this morning. She was alone because her son had gone to the supermarket with his girlfriend,” Cedeño said. Cedeño said she had heard that her relative was rescued alive at about 2am on Thursday. But a false tsunami alert that spread across social media triggered panic and she was left exposed outside. “When they finally transferred her to the hospital, she arrived dead,” Cedeño said. Edgar Hernández, the former president of Venezuela’s National Funeral Homes Association, said undertakers across the country had donated more than 200 coffins, body bags and other supplies, while supporting colleagues responding to the disaster. “Many people have recovered bodies and transported them in their private vehicles to Bello Monte because it’s less congested and easier to access than the … mortuary [in La Guaira], which has completely collapsed under the pressure of the emergency.” On Saturday, Venezuela’s acting leader, Delcy Rodríguez, tried to comfort shell-shocked citizens. “Today we have managed to save 33 people who were still alive and I want to thank you,” she told a group of foreign rescue workers during a televised broadcast. “Every life means hope for Venezuela,” Rodríguez later tweeted, announcing that an 11-year-old boy had been found alive in the town of Caraballeda, along the devastated northern coast. Venezuela’s communications ministry has also sought to project an image of unity and diligence in the face of the tragedy, posting social media videos of government rescue teams using sledgehammers and stretchers to pluck dust-caked survivors from the rubble. But on the streets, there is growing anger at what many perceive as the sluggish response of a government unprepared for a crisis of this scale, and the way many feel they were abandoned to their own fate in the hours after disaster struck. Rodríguez was heckled by frustrated locals while touring one badly hit part of the capital. “The government isn’t doing anything for the people!” shouted one critic. Outside the mortuary, the relentless work of volunteers offering water, coffee and trauma counselling contrasted with the lethargic official reaction, which experts blame on years of underinvestment in emergency services, as well as the sheer scale of the natural disaster. Similar scenes could be seen all across the traumatised city, as tents, mattresses and food were delivered to hundreds of families sleeping out on the streets because they were too frightened to return home, many with young children. If there is one thing not lacking in Caracas, it is the food provided by volunteers. “I thank God because Venezuelans have such enormous hearts … The people have been extraordinary,” Marjorie Cedeño said as she waited for news of her parents. “There may be no government response,” she added. “But there are so many good people helping.”

Fresh hostilities in Gulf suggest US-Iran memorandum was too broadly worded

The sudden eruption of fresh hostilities in the Gulf – just 10 days after Iran and the US signed a memorandum of understanding to end the conflict – threatens to put the two countries back on the path to war. It appears the deliberately opaque wording in the memorandum has been unable to withstand the pressure of conflicting interpretations, and as a result supporters of the deal inside Tehran are on the back foot. Statements to the effect that Iran’s government should never have agreed to reopen the strait of Hormuz are proliferating – and not just among the country’s hardliners. The wording of the 14-point document was deliberately broad on two of the most vexed issues, the Lebanon ceasefire and the strait, in the hope that as trust developed between the two sides, a modus vivendi could be found. Instead, the agreement is crumbling under the pressure, with each side accusing the other of violating its terms. In Lebanon, the difficulty is that two ceasefire agreements had been agreed – and they are pulling against each other. The first ceasefire, mentioned in the memorandum and developed at the Lucerne talks attended by the US vice-president, JD Vance, gave a new role in Lebanon for Iran, and hence its proxy Hezbollah. Iran was to join a new deconfliction mechanism, and it seemed as if Israel was being squeezed out. The second, fuller, ceasefire signed by the Israel and Lebanese government in Washington on Friday and overseen by the US secretary of state, Marco Rubio, reverses all that, by excluding Iran and Hezbollah. It allowed for Israel to remain in southern Lebanon until the complete disarmament of Hezbollah – a condition the Shia force could never accept. The agreement – signed by Nawaf Salam, the Lebanese prime minister and a former head of the international court of justice – also contained a clause stating that both sides would cease all hostile actions in all legal fora, leaving Israel immune from prosecution for any alleged war crimes committed in Lebanon. The Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, responded to that deal triumphantly, saying: “We will stay in the area until Hezbollah’s weapons and those of the remaining terrorist groups are dismantled.” But it is very hard to see how the ceasefire signed by the Lebanese government could ever be remotely acceptable to Hezbollah or Iran. The agreement is framed as reinforcing Lebanese sovereignty – but makes that sovereignty entirely conditional. The memorandum of understanding has also proved equally ineffective in opening the strait of Hormuz. The document states that Iran will “make arrangements using its best efforts for the safe passage of commercial vessels” through the strait with no charge for 60 days. It left “arrangements” and “best efforts” undefined, and made no reference to any other action to clear the strait, leaving the impression that Iran was the dominant actor. For the future, the memorandum said, Iran would hold a dialogue to define the future administration and maritime services in the strait, “in discussion with other Persian Gulf littoral states in line with the applicable international law and the sovereign rights of coastal states of the Strait of Hormuz”. Although it could seem that Iran had interpreted that language to mean that it alone can determine which route ships must take, Tehran had last week been working with the UN’s International Maritime Organization and Oman on an evacuation plan to allow hundreds of ships through the strait. The IMO secretary general, Arsenio Domínguez, felt he had Iran’s agreement to launch that plan, offering a northern and southern route throught the strait. Yet on Thursday morning the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps Navy said ships could only use the northern route to exit the strait and in the afternoon, the Ever Lovely, a Singapore-flagged, 2015-built Evergreen container ship, was struck while transiting a southern route close to Oman. Domíngues halted his scheme, saying the IMO would not put seafarers at risk, but despite Thursday’s attack, ships have continued to venture through the strait. Behind that incident may be an Iranian fear that the southern route, along the coast of Oman, will give the US a way to end the Iranian chokehold. Behind that is a further Oman-Iran discussion about a long-term solution for management of the strait that Iran might yet accept. Oman will want to frame any proposals in the context of Unclos, the UN convention on the law of the sea, and so will rule out tolls. But Article 41 of Unclos allows strait states to designate sea lanes and set up traffic separation schemes. Article 43 would allow for Oman in consultation with the IMO to ask stakeholders with a shared interest in navigational aids in the strait to contribute to a funded “cooperative mechanism” to help with these maritime services. In theory, charges could be levied by Oman for specific navigational safety services if they conferred a direct benefit on a ship, but there could be no general levy. For now, however, as the bombing recommences, creative legal ideas appear to have been put to one side as the men of war return to centre stage.

Donald Trump threatens to annihilate Iran after crossfire over Hormuz – as it happened

We will soon be closing this liveblog, but you’ll be able to stay up-to-date with our ongoing coverage of the Middle East here. Here is a summary of today’s events: Iran launched drone and missile attacks Sunday targeting Bahrain and Kuwait in response to US airstrikes that hit the Islamic Republic, and threatened a “complete halt” in negotiations to end the war if Washington continues its attacks. US president Donald Trump accused Iran of violating the ceasefire agreement in a post of social media and said the US may be “forced to militarily complete the job”. Iran also accused the US of violating the ceasefire agreement. JD Vance continued to reiterate the administration’s triumphant line on the war with Iran hours before the latest round of strikes were exchanged. “America wins either way,” he said. Iran’s foreign minister Abbas Araghchi was in Baghdad for a meeting with his Iraqi counterpart. He called for a security framework to be established with the Gulf nations after it struck US bases in Kuwait and Bahrain in retaliation to US strikes. The Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps IRCG has said on state-run SNN TV that it will respond with more force if there are any more blow-for-blow attacks from the US. Countries including Jordan, the UAE and Italy all condemned Iran’s attacks.

Escalating US-Iran strikes threaten interim peace agreement

A new round of escalating strikes between Iran and the US has continued, further undermining the fragile interim peace agreement between the two countries, and prompting Donald Trump to threaten violence that would ensure Iran “will no longer exist”. On Sunday, Tehran launched drone and missile attacks against Bahrain and Kuwait after new US strikes on sites in southern Iran, and threatened a “complete halt” to negotiations to end the war. Trump said that a moment might come soon when he abandoned talks and the US would “militarily finish the job”. The US president posted on social media: “If that happens, the Islamic Republic of Iran will no longer exist!” Kuwait, which hosts a major US army base, said it had intercepted two ballistic missiles and that there were no reports of injuries or damage, while Bahrain’s interior ministry said the Iranian strikes had damaged a residential building near the international airport and that no one had been killed. Qatar’s interior ministry ⁠said one Qatari national had been killed and second person injured by shrapnel from “military operations ⁠in the area”. The two were on a boat that went missing on Saturday and was located early on Sunday. The ministry did not give the location of the incident and did not ⁠say whether the shrapnel was linked to the Iranian drone attacks. The latest violence has been triggered by efforts to reopen the strait of Hormuz to all shipping without Iran’s direct oversight. The strategically critical waterway, which carried a fifth of the world’s oil and liquid gas supplies before the war, has long been considered an international passageway. US Central Command said in a statement that its strikes were “in direct response to continued Iranian aggression against commercial shipping” and had targeted Iranian military surveillance, communications, air defence, drone storage and mine-laying facilities. Washington has been promoting a southern lane along the coast of Oman, while Tehran, which ultimately aims to charge fees for use of the strait, wants ships to ‌use a northern route through its waters and under its control. Hundreds of vessels, including tankers laden with oil, have been blockaded inside the Gulf by the closure of the strait since war broke out. Some have chanced the passage through the past two weeks, leading oil prices to drop to close to prewar levels and bringing relief to economies around the world. The US military accused Iran of violating the ceasefire on Saturday by attacking the Panama-flagged tanker Kiku, which carried crude oil for the state-run energy company of Qatar. According to ship-tracking websites, the Kiku appeared to be attempting to use the southern corridor near the coast of Oman. A Singapore-flagged container ship was struck by an Iranian drone while transiting the same route last week. Abbas Araghchi, Iran’s foreign minister, restated Tehran’s claim to sole control of the waterway during a state visit to Iraq on Sunday. He said in Baghdad: “Any interference in this matter, any attempt to establish new or separate arrangements from those currently being carried out by the Islamic Republic of Iran, will only lead to further complications, delay the reopening of the strait of Hormuz, and increase the level of tension.” Observers say Iran is using its ability to threaten shipping in the strait not just as leverage in negotiations with the US, but to intimidate neighbouring countries and establish a more dominant role in the region. Aragchi also called for the establishment of a security framework with Gulf countries that would exclude the US. He said: “We should reach a new framework that includes all countries in the region and without the presence or interference of any country from outside the region.” Mediators from Qatar and Pakistan successfully brought representatives of Washington and Tehran together in Switzerland earlier this month but have been unable to bridge wide gaps on contentious issues such as the future of the strait of Hormuz, sanctions relief for Tehran, and the future of Iran’s nuclear programme. Under the memorandum of understanding signed earlier this month, the two countries have 60 days to work out the details before signing a final agreement. Leaders in Tehran and Washington face domestic political pressures to avoid a return to conflict and appear committed to a ceasefire for now, despite frequent bellicose rhetoric. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps claimed responsibility for both new attacks on Sunday. It said: “Let the enemy know that violating the ceasefire … will lead to a complete halt of ongoing processes.” The IRGC, which controls Iran’s ballistic missile arsenal, has gained influence in Iran in recent months. Its navy command said American bases in the region would “experience hell in the coming days”. Bahrain’s foreign ministry denounced the attacks, which it called “a dangerous escalation that reveals that what Tehran is doing is not a passing act, nor an isolated incident, but rather a deliberate approach and a systematic pattern of repeated aggression against the sovereignty of the kingdom, and the security of its citizens and residents”. Bahrain is home to the US navy’s 5th Fleet, whose base there came under repeated attack during the war. Violence has also continued in Lebanon, further threatening the agreement between Iran and the US to end their own conflict. Israeli military officials said a soldier had been killed on Sunday when soldiers encountered a “Hezbollah terrorist after entering a suspicious structure in the area of Deir Seryan in southern Lebanon”. The Lebanese state news agency reported a new Israeli attack targeting the outskirts of the towns of Deir Seryan and Taybeh in southern Lebanon. The fresh clashes in Lebanon come two days after Israel and Lebanon signed an agreement aimed at ending hostilities. The deal calls for Israeli forces to begin an initial withdrawal from the south of the country and their replacement by the Lebanese armed forces who will assume responsibility for local security and dismantling the military infrastructure of Hezbollah. They will also further undermine prospects for any durable peace agreement between Iran and the US, which Tehran has insisted is dependent on a ceasefire in Lebanon. Israel, which is not a party to the US deal with Iran, invaded southern Lebanon in March in a new offensive against Hezbollah, which is supported by Iran. Israel and Lebanon have repeatedly agreed to US-brokered ceasefires, the latest on Friday, but these have had only limited effect, with Israel insisting it will not withdraw from Lebanese territory it has seized, and Hezbollah repeatedly rejecting calls to give up its arms as long as Israeli troops remain in place. With reporting by Reuters and Associated Press

‘Tech firms are losing the public’: social media age bans near tipping point

Arturo Béjar, a former employee turned whistleblower at Mark Zuckerberg’s Meta, has talked to parents around the world. He says they share the same perspective: they dread the day their children are old enough to go online. Governments appear to be listening too. This month the UK became the latest country to state that it would set a minimum age of 16 for accessing major social media platforms. Social media bans are becoming a legislative trend after the precedent set by Australia last year, when it imposed an age limit on platforms including Meta’s Instagram and Facebook, Google’s YouTube, Elon Musk’s X, TikTok and Snapchat. “I’ve spoken to parents from several countries, and I have yet to meet a parent of young kids who is not dreading when they’re old enough to go online. Or a young person who has not experienced something awful and preventable,” Béjar said. Béjar, 55, was a senior engineer and consultant at Meta. He was a witness at recent trials in the US that ruled Meta was liable for deliberately designing addictive products and had misled consumers about the safety of its platforms. The trial in California in particular received coverage that will not have dissuaded politicians around the world from taking action. “They [social media platforms] keep showing the world why we can’t trust them,” he said. Meta said it disagreed with the verdicts and would appeal, and said the “profoundly complex” issue of teenagers’ mental health could not be reduced to a single cause, adding that it remained committed to building “safe, supportive environments for young people”. People’s lack of trust is manifesting itself in action. Indonesia and Malaysia have introduced bans for under-16s on certain platforms, while Austria, France and Norway are also looking at age restrictions. Brazil has introduced a blanket mobile phone ban in schools, and children under the age of 16 are allowed to access social media only if it is linked to a parent’s account. The UK plans to have a ban in place by spring 2027, while Canada is also going to bar under-16s from platforms unless those apps implement adequate safeguards. In the US, the home of the big powers in social media and of the first amendment, there is no prospect of a federal-level ban. But the US aside, it seems the debate over whether social media causes harm, and what should be done about it, has swung decisively. The UK government had appointed an independent academic expert panel to look at the effect of social media on teenagers and, so far, its findings are “nuanced”. Nonetheless, Keir Starmer chose to take action. A source at one tech company affected by the UK ban expressed frustration that some rivals had worked harder on safety than others, making what they viewed as rushed and disproportionately heavy regulation more likely. “It’s hard to sell your safety measures to politicians when there is not enough consistency among your peers,” said the source, adding that the end result was a situation such as the ban in Australia, which they said did not encourage safer platform design and had high levels of circumvention. “You’re throwing the baby out with the bathwater.” Meanwhile, a tech industry flush with cash continues to lobby against restrictions. In the European Union, big tech companies spent approximately €150m (£130m) on lobbying last year, an increase of a third in just two years, with social media high on the agenda – although AI was the biggest focus for tech meetings with the European Commission. Meta was the biggest spender at €10m, according to the campaign groups Corporate Europe Observatory and LobbyControl. One EU lawmaker said tech companies were “bombarding” Brussels with messages challenging social media age bans. In the US, tech companies have been lobbying against the Kids Online Safety Act (Kosa), which is under consideration in the Senate and would require ⁠social media platforms to put in place measures to prevent certain harms to children, such as from compulsive use of their platforms. Meta is the highest spending tech lobbyist in the US, according to the campaign group Issue One, and has one lobbyist for every six members of Congress. Between 2020 and 2024 big tech companies spent a combined $260m on federal lobbying. Commenting on its lobbying for a change to Kosa that would reportedly give tech companies immunity from certain lawsuits alleging child harm, Meta said it wanted “uniform national standards for online youth safety”. Donald Trump’s White House has been consistently critical of tech regulation abroad, including the prospect of a “disproportionate” social media age ban in the UK. A ban seems extremely unlikely on big tech’s home turf, given the combination of political gridlock, the legal barrier of the first amendment and big tech’s status as part of the US economic establishment. Darrell West, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, a US thinktank, said state bans were “not likely on a widespread basis” and at a federal level the possibility was low “because too many legislators oppose government regulation of technology”. Theo Bertram, the director of the Social Market Foundation thinktank and a former TikTok executive, as well as a former adviser to two former UK prime ministers, said tech companies should view the UK announcement as a global “tipping point”. “The history of legislation is you have one or two outliers. And then when you start to get countries that have a regulatory influence in the world, like the UK, joining countries like Australia – then it becomes a tipping point.” The normal pattern with legislation, said Bertram, was that you have a cycle of calls for change, followed by careful consultation and then a law being implemented. And that’s it for five to 10 years. Populism had not only sped up the process, he said, but it had made the cycle seemingly endless. “In an age of populism these companies are suffering criticism as well, not just mainstream politicians. Tech companies are losing public opinion and politicians are going to move on that.” He added: “A fundamental worry that tech companies have is that tech regulation is becoming a topic that’s driven by public sentiment rather than expert and evidence-led policymaking.” Summarising the work so far of its expert panel, the UK government said there were “known harms” from social media, particularly to “high-risk” individuals, but there were also benefits. Nonetheless, it is not the only country that has decided the risks outweigh the benefits for under-16s. “Young people deserve online spaces that are designed for them,” said Béjar. But patience is running out. Increasingly, there is one policy of choice for dealing with social media platforms and teenagers: closure.