Families of Duterte's drug war victims eye Hague hearing with hope

Pam Castro and Cecil Morella
Fri, February 20, 2026 



Roman Catholic priest Father Flavie Villanueva (R) talks to Mary Ann Pajo as they move the remains of her son Joewarski Pajo, a victim of former Philippine president Rodrigo Duterte's war on drugs, into a body bag during an exhumation at a cemetery in Manila on February 16, 2026 (Ted ALJIBE)(Ted ALJIBE/AFP/AFP)More

Mary Ann Pajo watched quietly as cemetery workers opened her son's tomb in Manila this week and removed his body for examination by a forensic pathologist.

Accused of dealing drugs, 30-year-old Joewarski Pajo was shot dead while playing a game on his phone, one of thousands of extrajudicial killings alleged to have taken place under former Philippine president Rodrigo Duterte.

A hearing begins at the International Criminal Court (ICC) on Monday that will determine whether Duterte will stand trial over at least 76 of those deaths.

"This hearing is what we have been waiting for," Father Flavie Villanueva said after saying a prayer over Joewarski's remains, the 126th body his non-profit group has exhumed as potential evidence.

"It is important that (Duterte) faces the court in person, physically, for us to see if there is remorse on his part," said Villanueva, a fierce critic of the former president's so-called drug war.

However, the hope that Duterte would appear in person disappeared on Friday when ICC judges ruled that the octogenarian could waive his right to attend the hearing.

"I am old, tired, and frail," Duterte had said in a filing making the request days earlier.

Villanueva called Duterte's request cowardly when reached on Thursday, noting the former president had already been declared fit to stand trial.

"Accountability is something this person has no concept of," he said.

- 'They are not God' -

At a Manila coffee shop staffed by family members of those killed in the drug war, three employees told AFP they believed justice would not have been possible in the Philippines.

"No one in the Philippines can lay hands on Duterte, much less file cases against him," said Lydjay Acopio, whose three-year-old daughter Myca was killed in a police raid on the home she shared with her father.

Fellow barista Rosalie Saludo agreed: "As long as his daughter (Vice President Sara Duterte) is in office, as long as his allies are in office, he can still find a way to twist and distort justice."

Sara Duterte announced her 2028 presidential candidacy on Wednesday.

Mary Grace Garganta, manager of the coffee shop, said she had been forced to move after police without a warrant shot and killed her father in 2016. She was afraid of what might happen to family members "now that I'm speaking up".

"I won't deny that my father was involved in drugs, but that was not a reason to kill him," she said.

"They are not God to take away a life."

- 'Things were better' -

The number of Filipinos who believe Duterte should be tried at the ICC has slipped to 44 percent, a November survey by Manila-based WR Numero showed, down from 62 percent in April.

While the new numbers still indicate a shift from the historically high approval rates he enjoyed in office, a significant percentage of his countrymen maintain Duterte did nothing wrong.

"If Duterte committed a wrongdoing... he only did it for the good of the country," Jovel Manzano, 34, told AFP on a busy Manila street this week.

"What's the point of our courts here if we're always relying on other countries?" he said of the looming ICC hearing.

"If a Filipino commits a crime, he should be tried here," he said.

Jessa Cangayaw, a 30-year-old massage therapist, said she had no qualms about Duterte's crackdown, provided those being killed were "bad people".

"Things were better then than they are now," she said, adding that she felt less safe when walking home.

But Sheerah Escudero, whose teenage brother's bullet-riddled body was found in 2017, said Monday's hearing marked a step towards "accountability".
"We have a broken judicial system," the 28-year-old told reporters this week, saying Philippine authorities had mounted "no credible investigation" into the allegations against Duterte.

"It has been dark for a very long time, but now we are seeing the light."

pam-cgm-cwl/pbt/abs

Osaka city stunned by anonymous gold bar gift worth $3.6M to fix aging water pipes

MARI YAMAGUCHI
Fri, February 20, 2026 

ASSOCIATED PRESS

This aerial photo shows City Hall in Osaka, western Japan, in January 2026.

 (Kyodo News via AP)


TOKYO (AP) — Osaka has received a hefty gift of gold bars worth 560 million yen ($3.6 million) from an anonymous donor asking for its specific use: to fix the Japanese city's dilapidated water pipes.

The gold bars weighing 21 kilograms (46 pounds) in total were given to the Osaka City Waterworks Bureau in November by the donor who wants to help improve aging water pipes, Mayor Hideyuki Yokoyama told reporters Thursday.

“It's a staggering amount and I was speechless," Yokoyama said. “Tackling aging water pipes requires a huge investment, and I cannot thank enough for the donation.”

The mayor said his city will respect the donor's wishes and use the gift to improve waterworks projects.

Concern over the safety of Osaka's waterworks systems grew after a massive sinkhole swallowed a truck and killed the driver last year. It was linked to a damaged sewer in Saitama, north of Tokyo. Osaka had 92 cases of water pipe leaks under city roads in the fiscal year ending March 2025, the city’s waterworks official Eiji Kotani told The Associated Press on Friday.

With the population of 2.8 million, Osaka is the country's third-largest city that serves as a western Japanese capital.

Most of Japan’s main public infrastructure was built during the rapid postwar economic growth.

Urban development in Osaka, a regional commercial hub, started earlier than many other cities and its water pipes and other infrastructure are also aging earlier, Kotani said.

Osaka needs to renew a total of 259 kilometers (160 miles) of water pipes, he said. Renewing a 2-kilometer (1.2 mile) segment of water pipes would cost about 500 million yen ($3.2 million), Kotani said.

Year of the Horse? The tiny petrol engine that could save EVs in 2026

Jesse Crosse
Thu, February 19, 2026



Horse engine


Shortly after revealing its plans for 'off-the-shelf' range-extender and hybrid powertrains, Horse Powertrain unveiled its Future Hybrid Powertrain solution late last year.

The "all-in-one" powertrain is aimed at enabling a vehicle manufacturer to easily convert a BEV platform to a hybrid by replacing a front-mounted BEV drive motor and transmission with a petrol-electric powertrain - making it a potentially cost-effective means of repackaging a pure-electric car as a hybrid.

Two different versions will be available: the 740mm wide Performance, which incorporates two electric motors one on the engine output shaft and another on the transmission output shaft; and the 650mm wide Ultra-Compact, which has an electric motor between the engine and transmission.

Horse is also looking at a three-cylinder version, which cuts 70mm from the total width of the unit compared with the new four-cylinder set-up.

The Performance and Ultra-Compact form part of Horse Powertrain's X-Range family, which the firm calls a "category of solutions designed to enrich EV platforms with combustion and hybrid technology".

Both variants use the same 1.5-litre four-cylinder engine combined with a hybrid transmission and a full suite of power electronics that can integrate with other electrical systems, such as a DC/DC converter for stepping high voltage down to low voltage to power the usual vehicle ancillaries, an on-board charger and an 800V charging booster.

The units are installed transversely and have a slimline profile at the top and a wider profile at the bottom to comply with crash regulations. They can be used simply to convert a BEV to hybrid front-wheel drive, or combine with a rear-axle-mounted electric motor to create all-wheel drive. Both the Performance and Ultra-Compact can be employed to create a full hybrid, plug-in hybrid or range-extended EV.

The packaging of the units has been designed to reduce the front overhang by up to 150mm compared with a conventional hybrid powertrain. The unit is mounted on the existing vehicle subframe in the same way as the electric drive units it would replace, the aim being to use as many of the original BEV parts as possible and streamline manufacturing.

Horse says the compact design of the units allows ancillaries like heating, ventilation and air-con systems often located in the front motor compartment of an EV but not in a hybrid due to the size of a conventional hybrid powertrain to remain in place.

Both hybrid engines can run on petrol, E85 ethanol flex fuels, M100 methanol or synthetic fuels. Dedicated EV platforms modified by adding hybrid drives would not originally have been designed to accommodate fuel tanks, but Horse says a tank could be packaged into the space liberated by substituting an EV battery for a much smaller HEV or PHEV battery.

UN touts panel for 'human control' of AI at global summit

Katie Forster
Fri, February 20, 2026 


India's Prime Minister Narendra Modi (C), Brazil's President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva (centre L) and France's President Emmanuel Macron (centre R) and other world leaders and representatives at the AI Impact Summit in New Delhi on February 19, 2026 (Stephane LEMOUTON)(Stephane LEMOUTON/POOL/AFP)More

A UN panel on artificial intelligence will work towards "science-led governance", the global body's chief said Friday as leaders at a New Delhi summit weighed their message on the future of the booming technology.

But the US delegation warned against centralised control of the generative AI field, highlighting the difficulties of reaching consensus over how it should be handled.

The flip side of the gold rush surrounding AI is a host of issues from job disruption to misinformation, intensified surveillance, online abuse and the heavy electricity consumption of data centres.

"We are barrelling into the unknown," UN chief Antonio Guterres told the AI Impact Summit in New Delhi. "The message is simple: less hype, less fear. More facts and evidence."

To cap the five-day summit, dozens of world leaders and ministers are expected to deliver on Friday a shared view on the benefits of AI, such as instant translation and drug discovery, but also the risks.

It is the fourth annual global meeting focused on AI policy, with the next to take place in Geneva in the first half of 2027.

Guterres said the United Nations General Assembly has confirmed 40 members for a group called the Independent International Scientific Panel on Artificial Intelligence.

It was created in August, aiming to be to AI what the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is to global environmental policy.

"Science-led governance is not a brake on progress," Guterres said. "When we understand what systems can do -- and what they cannot -- we can move from rough measures to smarter, risk-based guardrails."

"Our goal is to make human control a technical reality -- not a slogan."

White House technology adviser Michael Kratsios, head of the US delegation, warned that "AI adoption cannot lead to a brighter future if it is subject to bureaucracies and centralised control".

"As the Trump administration has now said many times: We totally reject global governance of AI," he said.


- 'Shared language' -

The Delhi gathering is the largest AI summit yet, and the first in a developing country, with India taking the opportunity to push its ambitions to catch up with the United States and China.

India expects more than $200 billion in investments over the next two years, and this week US tech titans unveiled a raft of new deals and infrastructure projects in the country.

Sam Altman, head of ChatGPT maker OpenAI, has called for oversight in the past but said last year that taking too tight an approach could hold the United States back in the AI race.

"Centralisation of this technology, in one company or country, could lead to ruin," he said Thursday, one of several top tech CEOs to take the stage.

"This is not to suggest that we won't need any regulation or safeguards. We obviously do, urgently, like we have for other powerful technologies."

The broad focus of the summit, and vague promises made at its previous editions in France, South Korea and Britain, could make concrete commitments unlikely.

Even so, "governance of powerful technologies typically begins with shared language: what risks matter, what thresholds are unacceptable," Niki Iliadis, director of global AI governance at The Future Society, told AFP.

Discussions at the Delhi summit, attended by tens of thousands of people from across the AI industry, have covered big topics from child protections to the need for more equal access to AI tools worldwide.

"We must resolve that AI is used for the global common good," Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi told the event on Thursday.

Urgent research needed to tackle AI threats, says Google AI boss

Zoe Kleinman - Technology editor;

 Philippa Wain - technology producer

BBC
Fri, February 20, 2026 


Sir Demis Hassabis of Google DeepMind spoke to the BBC at the AI Impact Summit in Delhi [Getty Images]


More research on the threats of artificial intelligence (AI) "needs to be done urgently", the boss of Google DeepMind has told BBC News.

In an exclusive interview at the AI Impact Summit in Delhi, Sir Demis Hassabis said the industry wanted "smart regulation" for "the real risks" posed by the tech.

Many tech leaders and politicians at the Summit have called for more global governance of AI, ahead of an expected joint statement as the event draws to a close.

But the US has rejected this stance, with White House technology adviser Michael Kratsios saying: "AI adoption cannot lead to a brighter future if it is subject to bureaucracies and centralised control."

Sir Demis said it was important to build "robust guardrails" against the most serious threats from the rise of autonomous systems.

He said the two main threats were the technology being used by "bad actors", and the risk of losing control of systems as they become more powerful.

When asked whether he had the power to slow down the progress of the tech to give experts more time to work on its challenges, he said his firm had an important role to play, but was "only one player in the ecosystem".

But he admitted keeping up with the pace of AI development was "the hard thing" for regulators.

Sam Altman, the boss of OpenAI, also called for "urgent regulation" in a speech at the AI Summit, while Indian Prime Minster Narendra Modi said countries had to work together to benefit from AI.

However, the US has taken the opposite view. "As the Trump administration has now said many times: We totally reject global governance of AI," said the head of the US delegation Michael Kratsios.

Sir Demis won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 2024 [BBC]

Delegates from more than 100 countries, including several world leaders, are attending the event. Deputy Prime Minister David Lammy MP represented the UK government.

Mr Lammy said the power wasn't just with tech firms when it came to safety of AI and politicians need to work "hand in hand" with tech adding, "security and safety must come first and it must be of benefit for the wider public".

Sir Demis believes the US and the west are "slightly" ahead in the race with China for AI dominance but added that it could be "only a matter of months" before China catches up.

He said he felt the responsibility to balance being "bold and responsible" about deploying AI systems out in the world.

"We don't always get things right," he admitted, "but we get it more correct than most".
Science education 'still very important'

In the next 10 years the tech would become "a superpower" in terms of what people would be able to create, Sir Demis, who won the 2024 Nobel Prize in Chemistry, said.

"I think it's still very important to have a Stem (science, technology, engineering and maths) education," he added.

"If you have a technical background, I think it will still be an advantage in using these systems."

He thinks AI writing code would open up the number of people who could build new applications, "and then maybe the key thing becomes taste and creativity and judgement".

The AI Impact Summit is the largest ever global gathering of world leaders and tech bosses.

It ends on Friday with companies and countries expected to deliver a shared view of how to handle artificial intelligence.

‘I’m deeply uncomfortable’: Anthropic CEO warns that a cadre of AI leaders, including himself, should not be in charge of the technology’s future

Sasha Rogelberg
Thu, February 19, 2026 
FORTUNE

Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei(Chance Yeh—Getty Images for HubSpot)

Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei doesn’t think he should be the one calling the shots on the guardrails surrounding AI.

In an interview with Anderson Cooper on CBS News’ 60 Minutes that aired in November 2025, the CEO said AI should be more heavily regulated, with fewer decisions about the future of the technology left to just the heads of big tech companies.

“I think I’m deeply uncomfortable with these decisions being made by a few companies, by a few people,” Amodei said. “And this is one reason why I’ve always advocated for responsible and thoughtful regulation of the technology.

“Who elected you and Sam Altman?” Cooper asked.

“No one. Honestly, no one,” Amodei replied.

Anthropic has adopted the philosophy of being transparent about the limitations—and dangers—of AI as it continues to develop, he added. Ahead of the interview’s release, the company said it had thwarted “the first documented case of a large-scale AI cyberattack executed without substantial human intervention.”

Anthropic said last week it had donated $20 million to Public First Action, a super PAC focused on AI safety and regulation—and one that directly opposed super PACs backed by rival OpenAI’s investors.

“AI safety continues to be the highest-level focus,” Amodei told Fortune in a January cover story. “Businesses value trust and reliability,” he says.

There are no federal regulations outlining any prohibitions on AI or surrounding the safety of the technology. While all 50 states have introduced AI-related legislation this year and 38 have adopted or enacted transparency and safety measures, tech industry experts have urged AI companies to approach cybersecurity with a sense of urgency.

Earlier last year, cybersecurity expert and Mandiant CEO Kevin Mandia warned of the first AI-agent cybersecurity attack happening in the next 12 to 18 months—meaning Anthropic’s disclosure about the thwarted attack was months ahead of Mandia’s predicted schedule.

Amodei has outlined short-, medium-, and long-term risks associated with unrestricted AI: The technology will first present bias and misinformation, as it does now. Next, it will generate harmful information using enhanced knowledge of science and engineering, before finally presenting an existential threat by removing human agency, potentially becoming too autonomous and locking humans out of systems.

The concerns mirror those of “godfather of AI” Geoffrey Hinton, who has warned AI will have the ability to outsmart and control humans, perhaps in the next decade.

The need for greater AI scrutiny and safeguards lay at the core of Anthropic’s 2021 founding. Amodei was previously the vice president of research at Sam Altman’s OpenAI. He left the company over differences in opinion on AI safety concerns. (So far, Amodei’s efforts to compete with Altman have appeared effective: Anthropic said this month it is now valued at $380 billion. OpenAI is valued at an estimated $500 billion.)

“There was a group of us within OpenAI, that in the wake of making GPT-2 and GPT-3, had a kind of very strong focus belief in two things,” Amodei told Fortune in 2023. “One was the idea that if you pour more compute into these models, they’ll get better and better and that there’s almost no end to this … And the second was the idea that you needed something in addition to just scaling the models up, which is alignment or safety.”

Anthropic’s transparency efforts

As Anthropic continues to expand its data center investments, it has published some of its efforts in addressing the shortcomings and threats of AI. In a May 2025 safety report, Anthropic reported some versions of its Opus model threatened blackmail, such as revealing an engineer was having an affair, to avoid shutting down. The company also said the AI model complied with dangerous requests if given harmful prompts like how to plan a terrorist attack, which it said it has since fixed.

Last November, the company said in a blog post that its chatbot Claude scored a 94% political evenhandedness rating, outperforming or matching competitors on neutrality.

In addition to Anthropic’s own research efforts to combat corruption of the technology, Amodei has called for greater legislative efforts to address the risks of AI. In a New York Times op-ed in June 2025, he criticized the Senate’s decision to include a provision in President Donald Trump’s policy bill that would put a 10-year moratorium on states regulating AI.

“AI is advancing too head-spinningly fast,” Amodei said. “I believe that these systems could change the world, fundamentally, within two years; in 10 years, all bets are off.”
Criticism of Anthropic

Anthropic’s practice of calling out its own lapses and efforts to address them has drawn criticism. In response to Anthropic sounding the alarm on the AI-powered cybersecurity attack, Meta’s then–chief AI scientist, Yann LeCun, said the warning was a way to manipulate legislators into limiting the use of open-source models.

“You’re being played by people who want regulatory capture,” LeCun said in an X post in response to Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy’s post expressing concern about the attack. “They are scaring everyone with dubious studies so that open-source models are regulated out of existence.”

Others have said Anthropic’s strategy is one of “safety theater” that amounts to good branding but offers no promises to actually implement safeguards on the technology.

Even some of Anthropic’s own personnel appear to have doubts about a tech company’s ability to regulate itself. Earlier last week, Anthropic AI safety researcher Mrinank Sharma announced he had resigned from the company, saying, “The world is in peril.”

“Throughout my time here, I’ve repeatedly seen how hard it is to truly let our values govern our actions,” Sharma wrote in his resignation letter. “I’ve seen this within myself, within the organization, where we constantly face pressures to set aside what matters most, and throughout broader society, too.”

Anthropic did not immediately respond to Fortune’s request for comment.

Amodei denied to Cooper that Anthropic was taking part in “safety theater” but admitted on an episode of the Dwarkesh Podcast last week that the company sometimes struggles to balance safety and profits.

“We’re under an incredible amount of commercial pressure and make it even harder for ourselves because we have all this safety stuff we do that I think we do more than other companies,” he said.

A version of this story was published on Fortune.com on Nov. 17, 2025.
More on AI regulation:

Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei’s 20,000-word essay on how AI ‘will test’ humanity is a must-read—but more for his remedies than his warnings


America’s AI regulatory patchwork is crushing startups and helping China


AI could trigger a global jobs market collapse by 2027 if left unchecked, former Google ethicist warns


Sam Altman says the quiet part out loud, confirming some companies are ‘AI washing’ by blaming unrelated layoffs on the technology

Sasha Rogelberg
Thu, February 19, 2026
FORTUNE


OpenAI CEO Sam Altman said “AI washing” is a reality for some companies, but real displacement from the technology is on its way.

Prakash Singh—Bloomberg/Getty Images

As debate continues over AI’s true impact on the labor force, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman said some companies are engaging in “AI washing” when it comes to layoffs, or falsely attributing workforce reductions to the technology’s impact.

“I don’t know what the exact percentage is, but there’s some AI washing where people are blaming AI for layoffs that they would otherwise do, and then there’s some real displacement by AI of different kinds of jobs,” Altman told CNBC-TV18 at the India AI Impact Summit on Thursday.

AI washing has gained traction as emerging data on the tech’s impact on the labor market tells a muddied, inconclusive story about how the technology is destroying human jobs—or if it has yet to touch them.

A study published this month by the National Bureau of Economic Research, for example, found that of thousands of surveyed C-suite executives across the U.S., the U.K., Germany, and Australia, nearly 90% said AI had no impact on workplace employment over the past three years following the late-2022 release of ChatGPT.

However, prominent tech leaders like Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei have warned of a white-collar bloodbath, with AI potentially wiping out 50% of entry-level office jobs. Klarna CEO Sebastian Siemiatkowski suggested this week the buy-now, pay-later firm would reduce its 3,000-person workforce by one-third by 2030 in part because of the acceleration of AI. Around 40% of employers expect to follow Siemiatkowski’s lead in culling staff down the line as a result of AI, according to the 2025 World Economic Forum Future of Jobs Report.

Altman clarified he anticipates more job displacement as a result of AI, as well as the emergence of new roles complementing the technology.

“We’ll find new kinds of jobs, as we do with every tech revolution,” he said. “But I would expect that the real impact of AI doing jobs in the next few years will begin to be palpable.

Signs of AI washing

Data from a recent Yale Budget Lab report suggests Altman and Amodei’s vision of mass worker displacement from AI is not certain and is not yet here. Using data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Current Population Survey, the research found no significant differences in the rate of change of occupations’ mix or length of unemployment for individuals with jobs that have high exposure to AI from the release of ChatGPT through November 2025. The numbers suggested no significant AI-related labor changes at this juncture.

“No matter which way you look at the data, at this exact moment, it just doesn’t seem like there’s major macroeconomic effects here,” Martha Gimbel, executive director and cofounder of the Yale Budget Lab, told Fortune earlier this month.

Gimbel attributed the practice of AI washing to companies passing off diminished margins and revenue from a failure to effectively navigate cautious consumers and geopolitical tensions to AI. WebAI cofounder and CEO David Stout also wrote in a commentary piece for Fortune that tech founders are facing increased pressure to justify exorbitant and continued investment in AI, which is the reason why many have created narratives of AI disrupting labor and the economy through predictions of mass worker displacement.

This era of toe-tapping in wait for the effects of AI to take hold rhymes with the 1980s IT boom, according to Apollo Global Management chief economist Torsten Slok. Nearly 40 years ago, economist and Nobel laureate Robert Solow observed little productivity gains in the PC age, despite prognostications of a productivity surge, and Slok sees a similar pattern today.

“AI is everywhere except in the incoming macroeconomic data,” he wrote in a blog post last week

Evidence of AI’s impact on jobs

Slok also said this lull in AI-driven economic impact could follow a J-curve of an initial slowdown in performance obscured by early mass spending before an exponential surge in productivity and labor changes.

Economist and Stanford University’s Digital Economy Lab director Erik Brynjolfsson said in a Financial Times op-ed recent labor data may be telling a new story of AI indeed impacting productivity and labor. He noted a decoupling of job growth and GDP growth reflected in the latest revised job numbers: Last week’s jobs report revised down job gains to just 181,000, despite fourth-quarter GDP tracking up 3.7%. Brynjolfsson’s own analysis revealed a 2.7% year-over-year productivity jump last year, which he attributed to AI’s productivity benefits beginning to peek through.

Brynjolfsson published a landmark study last year showing a 13% relative decline in employment for early-career employees with jobs with high levels of AI exposure. Most experienced workers, meanwhile, saw employment levels that remained stable or grew.

“The updated 2025 U.S. data suggests we are now transitioning out of this investment phase into a harvest phase,” he wrote in the FT, “where those earlier efforts begin to manifest as measurable output.”

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

THE EPSTEIN CLASS

Opinion

King Charles exposes Pam Bondi’s shame

Amanda Marcotte

SALON
Fri, February 20, 2026 



Photo illustration by Salon / Getty Images / Dan Kitwood / Tom Williams / Tim Graham


Donald Trump is very pleased with himself for being president during the 250th anniversary of the American Revolution. Hijacking a Black History Month event on Wednesday, he gloated that, along with the Olympics and the World Cup, “I get the 250th year.” This wasn’t just the latest in a series of tacky gestures toward the nation’s semiquincentennial from a man the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein claimed as his “best friend.” It ended up being another disturbing reminder that Trump is on a mission to destroy everything the revolutionaries fought for, and not just because he continued to push his belief that he was entitled to steal the 2020 election. Because a few hours later, the literal British Crown took a stand for equality under the law and elite accountability that Trump and Pam Bondi, his lackey attorney general, have been doing everything they can to avoid.

On Thursday morning in the United Kingdom, Thames Valley Police took the unprecedented move of arresting Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, the younger brother of King Charles III and son of the late Queen Elizabeth II, on what was his 66th birthday. Theaction was historic. The former Prince Andrew is the first senior royal in the modern era to be arrested by law enforcement. The last was Charles I, who was arrested in 1646 and executed three years later for treason.

Mountbatten-Windsor has already been stripped of his titles, styles, public role and home due to the fallout from his lengthy relationship with Epstein, including accusations of sexual abuse of minors. The ex-prince was arrested on suspicion of misconduct in public office in the wake of newly-released Epstein files from the American Justice Department that showed he may have been sharing confidential government documents with Epstein while serving as a British trade envoy. Held in police custody for 11 hours, which would have included questioning under caution, Mountbatten-Windsor was released while the investigation into his conduct continues.

What is truly remarkable is how Charles immediately came out in support of the notion that his younger brother is not above the law. “What now follows is the full, fair and proper process by which this issue is investigated in the appropriate manner and by the appropriate authorities,” the king said in a statement issued by Buckingham Palace. “In this, as I have said before, they have our full and wholehearted support and cooperation. Let me state clearly: the law must take its course.”

On the other side of the pond, Trump was, unsurprisingly, unwilling to take a hard stand against a fellow close associate of Epstein’s. “I think it’s very sad,” he told reporters aboard Air Force One. “I think it’s so bad for the royal family.” The president did not express sympathy for the victims or explain what was sad — the alleged crime itself, or that Mountbatten-Windsor may eventually face prosecution, trial and punishment for what he reportedly did.

Charles also strongly diverged from Bondi, who is supposed to be the top law enforcement official in a nation founded on the rejection of monarchy and the belief that rule of law should apply equally to all.

To state this more plainly: The literal throne America rebelled against is now honoring the nation’s constitutional principles and ideals better than those who swore an oath to uphold them.

That Bondi is using her power to shield Trump and his rich friends from accountability was underscored yet again last week when the attorney general testified in front of the House Judiciary Committee about the department’s failure to release all of its files on the Epstein case as required by law. She was repeatedly asked — mostly by Democrats, but also by GOP Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky — about the withheld documents and seemingly illegal redactions of the names of potential Epstein co-conspirators. Instead of explaining these discrepancies, many of which work to hide information about Trump and his wealthy allies — including some members of his very administration — Bondi deflected by yelling, filibustering and calling members of Congress names.

One thing is certain: The cover-up isn’t being conducted in the shadows. When Lex Wexner, the former Victoria’s Secret CEO and massive political donor, was deposed last week by the House committee in an effort to examine his extensive relationship with Epstein, no Republican representatives bothered to show. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick was recently forced to admit that, after claiming he had cut off contact with Epstein in 2005, he was in fact involved with the financier for years later. The White House shrugged this off, just as they did with Epstein’s ties to multiple administration officials including Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Commissioner Mehmet Oz, Deputy Defense Secretary Stephen Feinberg and Secretary of the Navy John Phelan.

Want more Amanda Marcotte on politics? Sign up for her free newsletter, Standing Room Only, now also on YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts.

Then there’s Trump himself, whose name appears thousands of times in what has been released of the documents, including one time when he reportedly told Florida law enforcement that “everyone has known” about Epstein’s crimes following the sex offender’s first arrest. (It’s also important to remember that Epstein got an infamous sweetheart deal from federal prosecutor Alex Acosta, who later served as labor secretary under Trump in his first administration.) Then there are the redactions that seem to be about Trump. These include at least one photo from the lengthy time period he was partying constantly with Epstein. According to Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., a search of the unredacted Epstein files revealed “more than a million” references to the president. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche denied that the Justice Department is covering up mentions of Trump, but from an administration that appears to lie about everything, his statement means nothing.

The actions taken by British police — which also included raids on residences belonging to former U.S. ambassador Peter Mandelson, a Labour Party stalwart with deep links to Epstein — only makes the Justice Department’s inaction look worse by comparison. Before he died in jail in 2019, Epstein had friends all over the world, but he was an American. Most of his alleged crimes took place in the U.S., and most of the people suspected of being involved were also Americans. Yet while top federal officials appear to be shielded from consequences in what is purported to be the world’s oldest democracy, real accountability can be seen overseas. Norway’s former Prime Minister Thorbjørn Jagland has been indicted on corruption charges. The son of the country’s crown princess is awaiting trial on 38 charges, including four counts of rape. Top officials from the UK, Sweden, France and Slovakia have all lost their jobs due to having Epstein connections. But only a handful of people in American business or academia have faced professional consequences, and aside from Epstein’s associate and convicted sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell, there have certainly no legal consequences.

Trump built his political career on laughable claims that he is an anti-elite actor who wants to drain Washington’s swamp and serve the interests of everyday Americans. To his detractors, who tend to engage real news at much higher rates than Trump voters, this was always an obvious lie. The president is the heir of a massive real estate fortune who spent his whole life defrauding investors and the government, as was proved in court, in a lifelong bid to buy his way into fancy New York circles. As the Epstein files definitively show, it worked. Trump spent years as Epstein’s shadow while the sex criminal hobnobbed his way through the world of the rich and powerful — and yet he managed to hoodwink millions into thinking he isn’t the living embodiment of a corrupt elite.

When organizers of the nation’s biggest anti-Trump protests landed on the “No Kings” branding, they got a lot of criticism from those who argued it was both hyperbolic and weirdly old-fashioned to suggest Trump wants to be a king. But it’s increasingly obvious that “king” — even more than “dictator” — captures Trump’s view on what he should be. By running the Justice Department like it’s a royal spy agency serving a 16th century king and his court rather than a civilian-controlled law enforcement agency, Bondi is reinforcing Trump’s anti-democratic ambitions.

“If a Prince can be held accountable, so can a President,” tweeted Rep. Melanie Stansbury, D-N.M. According to the Constitution and the values that fueled the American Revolution, this is an understatement. The president is supposed to be a citizen representative held to the rule of law, not a medieval monarch placed above it.

But now, in our topsy-turvy world, the literal King of Great Britain and Northern Island is standing against his own brother to uphold equality under the law, while the attorney general of the United States runs cover for a whole mess of wannabe aristocrats in what is supposed to be a democracy. Trump may gloat about being the president on our country’s 250th anniversary, but his presence there is a travesty that will resonate through history.

The post King Charles exposes Pam Bondi’s shame appeared first on Salon.com.

Investigation into Andrew could be complex and long

Dominic Casciani - Home and legal correspondent

BBC
Fri, February 20, 2026 


Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor was arrested and released on suspicion of misconduct in public office. [PA Media]


If anyone thought that Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor would be leaving a police cell and going to court, they were seriously wrong.

That's because he is now under investigation for misconduct in public office. The offence, essentially an allegation of corruption, is one of the most difficult crimes to investigate, charge, prosecute and convict.

We do not know what Thames Valley Police put to Andrew during the 11 hours he was under arrest, but highly involved legal questions over whether an offence may have been committed will be at the heart of the investigation.

Detectives will be going through a four-step process, assessing which actions, if any, by the former prince amounted to misconduct in public office.

First, was the suspect a public officer?

Second, did they wilfully neglect to perform their duty and/or wilfully misconduct themselves?

Third, was that neglect or misconduct so bad that it amounted to "an abuse of the public's trust" in the office holder?

Peter Stringfellow of Brett Wilson, a firm that works on complex criminal cases, says that a case last year underlined the challenges that any investigation into alleged misconduct faces.

In that prosecution, a man who worked in the Metropolitan Police pound was accused of taking pictures of human remains found in a crashed vehicle.

A judge concluded the man had not committed misconduct in a public office because the man was not a public officer carrying out a role involving public trust.

"Even though [the defendant] worked for the police, he did a very menial job," Stringfellow says.

"The judge had to look at what position the defendant held and what duties were attached to that position.

"Did those duties amount to a responsibility of government, in which the public has a significant interest beyond those directly affected?"

The allegations being levelled in public at the former prince concern claims that he passed confidential documents to Jeffrey Epstein - while working as a trade envoy.

Detectives may now be looking in close detail at what precisely that role involved and line by line and the nature of the information he passed to the sex offender.

"A public office is primarily defined by its functions, not its status," Stringfellow says. "It does not need to be an 'office' in any technical sense or be a permanent position.

"The position does not need to be subject to specific rules of appointment, and does not need to be directly linked, by way of appointment, employment or contract, in terms of status, to either the Government or the 'state'."

This level of complexity means that if someone is convicted, each case is sentenced differently, even though in theory the maximum is life imprisonment.

"The problem that you have with this type of offence is it's incredibly wide - it covers all manner of public offices," Stringfellow adds.

"It equally would cover all manner of offences. Some of them could be deemed much more serious than others. Sentences will be incredibly varied."

The reason why this offence is so complicated is an accident of history - and the Law Commission, the body that advises government on big legal changes, called five years ago for the offence to be completely reworked.

Misconduct in Public Office is part of England's "common law" - which means judges came up with it hundreds of years ago, rather than Parliament.

Back in the 13th Century, there was a law that said local sheriffs should not receive "for favour borne to such misdoers".

That developed along with other ideas about corruption - arriving at a turning point in 1783.

That year, Lord Mansfield, one of the most celebrated chief justices in English legal history, reviewed the conviction of Charles Bembridge, a government accountant, who was accused of knowingly cooking the books.

The defendant had appealed, saying he had committed no identifiable crime. But the judge said Bembridge had a public role and had failed to carry out his duties on behalf of the King for a corrupting motive.

That, he said, was a crime.

The rules in force today - the four tests being followed by detectives - were set out in an important Court of Appeal judgment in 2003. In the centuries between the Mansfield ruling and that, the offence was sparingly used - maybe as few as 72 times, according to the Law Commission's research.

That meant the crime was little understood by the lawyers and courts dealing with it - and that led to a very modern controversy.

From 2011 the offence was used to pursue journalists and the public officials they were said to have paid for stories in the wake of the closure of the News of the World.

The then Lord Chief Justice eventually stopped the pursuit of some journalists , saying they were being unjustly treated like criminal conspirators, concluding the law was ancient and difficult.

As a result, only 34 of the 90 people arrested in relation to payments from newspapers to officials were ultimately found guilty.

That led the Law Commission to propose a complete rewrite to make sure the offence was only used when appropriate. It suggested that Parliament should make clear that misconduct must include proof that someone has used their position to improperly benefit from their action.

The last government did not act on that 2020 recommendation, but Sir Keir Starmer's government is now, coincidentally, putting that plan through Parliament.

Assuming the law passes, the ancient offence will be confined to history, and the investigation into the King's brother may be the last chapter in a very messy and contested legal saga.

5 takeaways from the arrest of Britain’s Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor

Niall Stanage
Thu, February 19, 2026

THE HILL

Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, formerly Prince Andrew, was arrested by British police Thursday morning local time, in an investigation focused on his links with Jeffrey Epstein.

The former prince was released after about 12 hours. No charges were pressed for now, but a police statement said he remained “under investigation.”

Mountbatten-Windsor has always been among the most famous of Epstein’s associates.

The late Virginia Giuffre alleged that she had been trafficked and forced into sex with then-Prince Andrew on three occasions, including when she was 17. Mountbatten-Windsor has always denied this. He settled a civil lawsuit Giuffre brought against him in 2022.

The arrest Thursday was not in relation to any alleged sexual matters, but instead focused on suspicions that Mountbatten-Windsor had disclosed sensitive information to Epstein, apparently while he was serving as a trade envoy for the U.K.

President Trump told reporters on board Air Force One on Thursday that the arrest of Mountbatten-Windsor was “a shame” and “a very sad thing.”

Here are the main takeaways.

The arrest was a historic moment

Until police came calling for Mountbatten-Windsor, no British royal had been arrested in almost 400 years.

It will be cold comfort to the former prince that he is not at risk of suffering the same fate as King Charles I, who was arrested during the English Civil War. Charles was arrested in 1647, convicted of treason, and beheaded in 1649.

Still, it is a seismic moment for any modern-day royal to be arrested.

To be sure, cultural deference to the monarchy has been on the decline for decades, driven in part by personal drama, lurid media coverage, and some landmark moments — including the popular perception that the royal family was overly cold in its response to the death of Princess Diana almost 30 years ago.

Still, the prospect of a man who remains eighth-in-line to the British throne potentially facing criminal charges is of a different order of magnitude.

King Charles III released a statement reacting to his younger brother’s arrest in which he said he had learnt about it “with the deepest concern.”

The monarch added that the authorities “have our full and wholehearted support and co-operation” and continued, “Let me state clearly: the law must take its course.”

But there could yet be more troubles ahead for the royals, especially if information suggesting they tried to protect Mountbatten-Windsor were to emerge.

It has been reported that the family, including the late Queen Elizabeth II, helped finance Mountbatten-Windsor’s settlement with Giuffre, for example.
Democrats sharpen questions about lack of US accountability

The arrest of such a high-profile figure drew questions about whether adequate scrutiny had also been applied to figures in the United States with a connection to Epstein.

Rep. Melanie Stansbury (D-N.M.) put that case especially sharply when she wrote on social media, “If a Prince can be held accountable, so can a President.”

Trump last year resisted a full release of the Epstein files until it became clear congressional pressure would force his hand.

Trump also often notes that he cut off a previous friendship with the disgraced financier roughly two decades ago. The president has always vigorously denied any wrongdoing or specific knowledge of Epstein’s crimes.

The latest batch of the Epstein files, however, did include a reference to a 2019 FBI interview with a former Palm Beach, Fla., police chief who apparently said Trump had called him in 2006 to thank him for investigating Epstein, adding “everyone has known he’s been doing this.”

The new files also include lurid and uncorroborated accusations against Trump.

During his Thursday remarks on Air Force One, Trump claimed of the Epstein matter generally, “I’m the expert in a way because I’ve been totally exonerated. That’s very nice.”

The issue isn’t just Trump, however.

The latest files forced Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick to acknowledge he and his family visited Epstein on his island in 2012. Lutnick had previously indicated he had cut ties with Epstein in 2005.

Lutnick has not endured any real pressure to surrender his government role.
The list of foreign figures to suffer Epstein consequences grows

The Epstein matter has had more far-reaching consequences, so far, in the U.K. and elsewhere in Europe.

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer has come under serious pressure because of his decision to appoint Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the U.S. in late 2024, even though it was known Mandelson had some past connection to Epstein.

Mandelson, a central figure in the ruling British Labour Party since the mid-1980s, was fired in September after new details of his friendship with the disgraced financier came to light.

There is no suggestion Mandelson was involved in, or aware of, Epstein’s sexual predations. But he faces investigation under the same law as Mountbatten-Windsor: alleged misconduct in public office. Mandelson, like Mountbatten-Windsor denies wrongdoing.

Meanwhile, a former prime minister of Norway, Thorbjørn Jagland, has been charged with corruption over his dealings with Epstein, an ambassador from the same nation resigned, and so too did the national security adviser to the prime minister of Slovakia.
Giuffre family claims vindication

Even though the current investigation is into Mountbatten-Windsor’s communications with Epstein, rather than anything of a sexual nature, Giuffre’s family claimed vindication from the arrest.

“Today our broken hearts have been lifted at the news that no one is above the law, not even royalty,” Giuffre’s siblings said in a statement shared with several news outlets. They also expressed “gratitude” to British police and added, “He was never a prince. For survivors everywhere, Virginia did this for you.”

Virginia Giuffre died by suicide last year, aged 41.

Even before Thursday’s arrest, Mountbatten-Windsor had faced fresh questions after the latest batch of Epstein files included photos that appear to show him kneeling over an unidentified woman.
New demands for Mountbatten-Windsor to testify to Congress

Demands that Mountbatten-Windsor testify to Congress have been sharpened by his arrest.

Rep. Suhas Subramanyam (D-Va.), who sits on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, told Sky News that Mountbatten-Windsor could testify from the U.K. if he wished. “He can testify remotely, he can testify in person — and in the U.K.,” the congressman said.

In a separate interview with the U.K.’s Channel Four, Subramanyam acknowledged the U.S. Congress had no subpoena power over a foreign national, but said of Mountbatten-Windsor, “We’ve been wanting him to come to us and tell us what he knows.”

On social media, the congressman wrote that it was the committee investigation that had “let to real accountability of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor in the UK. Now, we need that justice and accountability here in the United States.”

Copyright 2026 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved.

Former Prince Andrew was arrested. Bill Gates backed away from a speech. For these power players, the Epstein walls are closing in

Eva Roytburg
Thu, February 19, 2026 
FORTUNE

A photo of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor is displayed as U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi testifies before the House Judiciary Committee, Feb. 11, 2026.

(Win McNamee—Getty Images)

Since the Justice Department released the latest tranche of Jeffrey Epstein’s emails, a number of political and business leaders have come under renewed scrutiny for maintaining contact with him long after his 2008 conviction for soliciting prostitution from a minor.

From the arrest of a former royal to billionaires, diplomats, and academics stepping away from public roles, here are the most significant figures facing fallout.

Prince Andrew

British police on Thursday arrested the king’s younger brother, former Prince Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, on suspicion of “misconduct in public office.” Authorities said they carried out searches at properties in Berkshire and Norfolk, an escalation from what had previously been described as a review of claims arising from the latest tranche of Epstein-related documents released by the DOJ.

Andrew has long faced allegations tied to his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, most notably from Virginia Giuffre, one of Epstein’s most outspoken accusers, who died by suicide last April. In her posthumously published memoir, Giuffre alleged she was trafficked to have sex with Mountbatten-Windsor when she was 17. “He believed having sex with me was his birthright,” she wrote, recalling that afterward Ghislaine Maxwell allegedly told her, “You did well. The prince had fun.” Andrew has repeatedly denied wrongdoing and previously reached a civil settlement with Giuffre without admitting liability.

But the current arrest is not centered on those allegations. Instead, investigators are examining whether Mountbatten-Windsor improperly shared sensitive government material during his tenure as British trade envoy. Emails released by the U.S. Justice Department appear to show him forwarding confidential trip reports and investment briefs to Epstein soon after receiving them. King Charles has signaled that there will be no royal intervention, saying, “The law must take its course.”

Bill Gates

Microsoft cofounder and philanthropist Bill Gates abruptly withdrew from a keynote appearance at India’s high-profile AI Impact Summit just hours before he was set to speak, citing a desire to “ensure the focus remains” on the summit itself.

The latest DOJ tranche includes emails and communications showing that Gates met with Epstein multiple times between 2011 and 2014, several years after Epstein’s Florida conviction. The two discussed philanthropy, including a proposed fund that would have pooled money from Gates and other billionaires to support global health initiatives. That plan ultimately collapsed, and Gates has said he cut off contact after concluding Epstein’s ideas were a “dead end.”

The document release also includes a series of inflammatory claims—including allegations about Gates’ extramarital conduct with “married women” and drug use—that appear in emails Epstein sent to himself. Gates, through the Gates Foundation, has categorically denied those accusations, calling them “absolutely absurd and completely false.” No documents released to date allege that Gates was involved in Epstein’s criminal activity or had knowledge of sex trafficking.

Peter Mandelson

Peter Mandelson’s Epstein exposure, like the former Prince’s arrest, has triggered political fallout in Britain. The former British ambassador to the United States lost his diplomatic post, resigned from the Labour Party, and stepped down from the House of Lords after details of his buddy-buddy relationship with Epstein became clearer after the release of the files.

The DOJ tranche revealed that contact between the two continued for years after the financier’s 2008 prison term, with Mandelson referring to Epstein’s release as “liberation day.”

As with the former Prince Andrew, London’s Metropolitan Police have opened a criminal investigation into whether Mandelson improperly shared confidential government information with Epstein.

Larry Summers

Larry Summers, former U.S. Treasury Secretary and Harvard president, stepped back from multiple public roles after the newly released emails showed he continued communicating with Epstein after the late financier faced sex trafficking charges, often asking him for advice on romantic relationships.

A 2019 email to Epstein showed Summers discussing interactions he had with a woman, writing: “I said what are you up to. She said ‘I’m busy.’ I said awfully coy u are.”

Epstein replied, “You reacted well … annoyed shows caring … no whining showed strength.”

Summers resigned from the board of OpenAI and took leave from Harvard while the university reviewed the ties. He also stepped down from positions at think tanks and saw his contract as a contributing writer at the New York Times end.
Kathryn Ruemmler

Kathryn Ruemmler stepped down as lead counsel of Goldman Sachs last week after the Epstein emails showed she shared nonpublic White House communications with the disgraced financier.

The emails indicate that Ruemmler, who served as White House counsel under President Barack Obama, forwarded Epstein internal material related to the administration’s handling of the 2012 Secret Service prostitution scandal, asking for his input in communicating with reporters. She wasn’t in government at the time, but was still managing the fallout.

Her spokesperson said she “has done nothing wrong” and emphasized that, knowing what she knows now, she would not have interacted with Epstein.
Joichi Ito

Joichi Ito’s resignation as director of MIT’s Media Lab served as an early template for the fallout that has since resurfaced across institutions. In 2019, Ito admitted to concealing financial ties to Epstein and stepped down amid backlash over how donations were handled and characterized.

He resigned from multiple boards and academic posts, setting an early standard for accountability in elite academic circles.

Thomas Pritzker

Thomas Pritzker announced on Feb. 16 that he would retire as executive chairman of Hyatt Hotels Corp., acknowledging what he described as “terrible judgment” in maintaining ties to Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell.

The latest Justice Department files detail years of cordial correspondence between Pritzker, Epstein, and Maxwell after Epstein’s 2008 conviction. In one message, Pritzker wrote to Epstein about a meeting at the Louvre.

Casey Wasserman

Casey Wasserman announced on Feb. 13 that he has begun the process of selling his talent agency after his name surfaced in the latest Epstein files, triggering defections from high-profile clients like singer Chappell Roan.

The Justice Department documents show that Wasserman flew on Epstein’s private jet at least once, alongside a group that included former President Bill Clinton. The files also contain flirtatious emails exchanged between Wasserman and Maxwell in 2003. In a memo to staff announcing the sale, Wasserman said he regretted that his correspondence with Maxwell had become “a distraction.”

Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem

Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem was replaced as chairman and CEO of Dubai-based logistics giant DP World on Feb. 13 after emails between him and Epstein surfaced, showing a close relationship. DP World, owned by Dubai’s royal family, operates one of the world’s largest port and logistics networks, including Jebel Ali, the Middle East’s busiest port.

The newly released emails show Epstein describing bin Sulayem as a “close personal friend” in a 2010 message, and that they often talked about women.

Bill Gates pulls out of India's AI summit over Epstein files controversy

Cherylann Mollan; 

Liv McMahon - technology reporter BBC

Fri, February 20, 2026

Gates is currently in India and there was speculation over whether he would attend the summit amid a renewed scrutiny of his ties to Epstein [Getty Images]

Bill Gates will not deliver his keynote address at the India AI Impact Summit in Delhi, his philanthropic organisation said hours before the Microsoft co-founder was due to speak.

The Gates Foundation said the decision was made after "careful consideration" and "to ensure the focus remains on the [summit's] key priorities", but did not elaborate.

Gates's withdrawal comes amid a controversy over his ties to the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein after he was named in new files released by the US Department of Justice in January.

Gates's spokesperson has called the claims in the files "absolutely absurd and completely false", and the billionaire has said he regretted spending time with Epstein.

Gates has not been accused of wrongdoing by any of Epstein's victims and the appearance of his name in the files does not imply criminal activity of any kind.

The Gates Foundation said Ankur Vora, president of its Africa and India offices, would speak at the summit instead of Gates.

The organisation added that it remained "fully committed" to its work in India to advance "shared health and development goals".

Gates's decision to not speak to the summit came after days of uncertainty over whether he would attend.

He is currently in India and had visited the southern state of Andhra Pradesh on Monday, where he reportedly discussed initiatives for boosting health, agriculture, education and technology.

After media reports speculated he would pull out of the summit, his foundation said on Tuesday he would deliver the address as scheduled.

Gates's withdrawal is a blow for the summit, which India has pitched as a flagship gathering to position the country as a global AI hub.

The five-day summit features policy discussions, start-up showcases and closed-door meetings on AI governance, infrastructure and innovation.

The event has also seen investment pledges by companies, including Microsoft, to expand AI access and infrastructure in countries such as India.

Delegates from more than 100 countries, including several world leaders, are attending the event.

But it has already been marked by some controversies over mismanagement on the first day and an Indian university's claims to have developed a robot dog - which turned out to be made in China.

AI democratisation calls

Though Gates is not attending, other big names are appearing at the Summit.

OpenAI boss Altman said in a speech the world should "urgently" look to regulate AI.

"Democratisation of AI is the best way to ensure humanity flourishes," he said, adding that centralising the tech in one company or country "could lead to ruin".

"This is not to suggest that we won't need any regulation or safeguards," Altman added.

"We obviously do, urgently, like we have for other powerful technologies."

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and French President Emmanuel Macron made similar calls for AI's democratisation and for a shared approach to innovation.

Modi and Macron are among many world leaders and tech executives speaking at India's AI Impact Summit [Reuters]

Addressing the Summit, Modi said there was a need to share technology "so that humans don't just become a data point for AI or remain a raw material for AI".

"AI must become a medium for inclusion and empowerment, particularly for the Global South," he said.

Macron, who earlier held bilateral talks with Modi, said there was a need to change the discussion around AI from "let's do more" to "let's do better together".

This theme was addressed by other speakers as well, including UN chief Antonio Guterres - who stressed the future of AI should not be "decided by a handful of countries" or left to the "whims of a few billionaires".

Google's chief executive Sundai Pichai underscored India's growing role in the AI landscape.

He said his firm was working on establishing an AI hub in the southern city of Vishakhapatnam, which he said would help bring jobs and cutting-edge AI to Indians.

Billionaire Mukesh Ambani meanwhile pledged to invest $110bn (£81.4bn) over the next seven years to build India's AI ecosystem, while Anthropic boss Amodei said it would like to work with India on "testing and evaluation of models for safety and security risks".

BBC News India 

The Trump team downplayed the Epstein files. Andrew’s arrest and other probes show how rash that was.

Analysis by Aaron Blake, CNN
Thu, February 19, 2026 at 11:38 AM MST



President Donald Trump speaks to members of the media on the South Lawn of the White House on February 13, 2026. - Samuel Corum/Sipa/Bloomberg/Getty Images


In mid-2025, when the Trump administration suddenly felt compelled to downplay the Jeffrey Epstein files, officials said they didn’t have enough evidence to prompt any additional investigations of third parties.

The memo didn’t just say there wasn’t evidence to charge anyone else, mind you; it said there wasn’t even evidence to investigate “uncharged third parties.”

That broad assertion in an unsigned FBI memo has proved to be a rather rash conclusion — most recently and emphatically by Thursday’s arrest of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, the former Prince Andrew, in the UK.

While we only know at this stage that Andrew was arrested on suspicion of “misconduct in public office,” the Thames Valley Police previously said they were looking at claims that Andrew shared sensitive information with Epstein while serving as the UK’s trade envoy in the early 2000s. Andrew has denied all allegations of misconduct related to Epstein, and his name appearing in the files is not evidence of wrongdoing.

And there’s more than just Andrew’s arrest on the international stage. The Epstein files that the administration were ultimately forced to release have proven to be of great interest in Europe, where we’ve seen a criminal charge against another high-profile figure and investigations in at least three other countries besides the UK.

Norway’s former prime minister Thorbjørn Jagland was charged last week with “aggravated corruption” after investigators said they were probing “whether gifts, travel and loans were received in connection with his position.” Jagland has denied “all charges.”

UK police have also searched two properties linked to former ambassador to the US Peter Mandelson, amid accusations of Mandelson sharing market-sensitive government information with Epstein while he was business secretary of the UK.

Norwegian police are also investigating a prominent diplomat.

Prosecutors in Paris opened two new investigations into potential sex abuse and financial wrongdoing related to Epstein on Wednesday, according to the Associated Press.

Latvia has also opened a human trafficking investigation linked to the files’ release.

A police officer passes the gate of the Royal Lodge in Windsor, Thursday, Feb. 19, 2026 after Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor was arrested by British police on suspicion of misconduct in public office. (AP Photo/Alberto Pezzali) - Alberto Pezzali/APMore

We have yet to see where these investigations lead. The laws in European countries are also different than in the United States. And in some cases, the investigation is not necessarily linked to sexual misconduct — allegations that can be notoriously difficult to prove.

But it’s become clear that authorities in other countries see plenty of potential misconduct unearthed by the files in a way American authorities initially claimed they didn’t, and it’s leading to a reckoning across the pond.

It’s also worth noting that the FBI memo’s assurance has wobbled even domestically.

Despite the assurance that nothing warranted further investigation, Attorney General Pam Bondi nonetheless announced in November that the Justice Department would investigate Epstein’s relationships with prominent Democrats like Bill Clinton. The announcement came after Trump called for such probes. Bill Clinton has repeatedly denied wrongdoing related to Epstein.

Fast forward to last week, when Bondi signaled during testimony to the House Judiciary Committee that more investigations were happening.

Asked “whether another individual will be indicted and prosecuted,” Bondi replied: “We have pending investigations in our office.”

U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi testifies before the House Judiciary Committee on February 11, 2026 in Washington, D.C. Bondi is facing criticism over the Department of Justice's handling of the release of the Epstein files. (Photo by Samuel Corum/Sipa USA)(Sipa via AP Images) - Samuel Corum/Sipa USA/APMore

Jay Clayton, the US attorney for the Southern District of New York, seemed to throw some cold water on Bondi’s comments Wednesday, suggesting there were no active investigations. But Bondi has now said there were Epstein-related investigations twice since the FBI assured the public that there was no evidence to warrant them.



Take off: This poll reveals just how badly the U.S. has damaged its relationship with Canada



Those assurances went beyond the memo, too. In testimony to the House in September, FBI Director Kash Patel said DOJ had released “all credible information.”

Patel added that there were “no investigative leads that were credible to prosecute and investigate any others.” And he suggested the Obama and Biden administrations had agreed with that assessment.

It’s fair to point out that Bondi and Patel are only responsible for enforcing domestic law, and that could have been what the FBI statement was referencing.

Still, Bondi’s confirmations of further domestic investigations are awkward in that context. She’s also repeatedly said things about the Epstein files that seemed convenient in the moment, regardless of how true they were. (Think: supposedly having the Epstein client list on her desk.) There is little evidence of robust investigations involving Bill Clinton or anyone else.

At the very least, the developments of the past few weeks betray the very different views on Epstein accountability between the US and Europe. Prosecutors in the UK and Norway especially seem to feel compelled to hold the powerful accountable, while the Trump administration’s animating principle since the middle of 2025 has been “time to move on” — a view most bluntly conveyed by the president himself, who keeps calling the Epstein files a “hoax.”

The problem with that latter approach is that, in your haste to assure there’s nothing to see here, you can miss something quite substantial. And when you’re forced to release the files you tried so hard not to release, that evidence can undermine your hard-and-fast claims about what it said.

That breeds distrust regarding any future assertions you make about the files — a persistent problem the Trump administration hasn’t been able to shake.