In one case, a person suffered permanent brain damage because of a delayed transfer, The Guardian newspaper reported.
UnitedHealth has allegedly secretly paid nursing homes to reduce hospital transfers — the latest accusations in a series of woes facing the health insurance giant.
The alleged action, first reported by The Guardian newspaper on Wednesday, was part of a series of cost-cutting tactics that have saved the company millions, but at times, risked residents’ health, the publication showed, citing an investigation.
The story, which cites thousands of documents and firsthand accounts of more than 20 former employees of the healthcare company and nursing homes, says that the insurance giant sent its own medical teams to nursing homes to push the cost-cutting measures. As a result, patients who urgently needed medical care did not receive it, including one person who now lives with permanent brain damage after a delayed transfer.
The allegations add to the litany of negatives that have hurt UnitedHealth in the last several months, following a massive cyberattack at its Change Healthcare unit, reports of criminal and civil investigations into the company’s practices, including one for Medicare fraud and the abrupt departure of CEO Andrew Witty last week.
UnitedHealth said in response to the story, “The US Department of Justice investigated these allegations, interviewed witnesses, and obtained thousands of documents that demonstrated the significant factual inaccuracies in the allegations.”
The company also said that the DOJ “declined to pursue the matter”.
Wall Street responds
Shares have stumbled all year, losing more than 39 percent compared with a 0.6 percent decrease for the Dow. As of noon ET (16:00 GMT), the stock is down more than 3.6 percent.
“The news is only seemingly getting worse for UnitedHealth,” said Sahak Manuelian, managing director, global equity trading at Wedbush Securities.
HSBC downgraded the stock to “reduce” from “hold,” and cut the price target to a street-low of $270.
The brokerage said higher medical costs, pressure on drug pricing and its pharmacy benefit management unit, OptumRx, and a potential Medicaid funding cut can upset the company’s recovery journey.
Since the US sanctioned the ICC prosecutor in February, the court is struggling to function.
The International Criminal Court (ICC) is facing one of the deepest crises in its history. United States President Donald Trump sanctioned lead prosecutor Karim Khan earlier this year, grinding the court’s work to a crawl. Khan is now on leave as he faces a sexual misconduct investigation. How is the court functioning in his absence, and what does it mean for the future of international accountability?
More than a dozen governments have condemned Israel after its forces fired in the direction of a diplomatic delegation near the Jenin refugee camp in the occupied West Bank.
The Israeli army said its soldiers fired “warning shots” after the foreign diplomats, who included representatives of the European Union, the United Kingdom, Russia and China, deviated from a previously agreed-on route.
“[Israeli] soldiers operating in the area fired warning shots to distance them away,” Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said.
No one was injured in the incident.
Here are some of the reactions from political leaders to the incident:
Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney
The Israeli ambassador has been summoned to Global Affairs to see the minister and explain. We expect a full investigation and we expect an immediate explanation of what happened. It’s totally unacceptable, it’s some of many things that are totally unacceptable that’s going on in the region.
UK Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State Hamish Falconer
Today’s events in Jenin are unacceptable. I have spoken to our diplomats who were affected. Civilians must always be protected, and diplomats allowed to do their jobs. There must be a full investigation, and those responsible should be held accountable.
Irish Prime Minister Micheal Martin
I am deeply shocked and horrified that the [Israeli forces] today opened fire on a group of diplomats visiting the town of Jenin. Thankfully, nobody was killed or injured.
I unreservedly condemn this aggressive, intimidatory and violent act. This is not and must never be a normal way to behave.
Italian Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani
We ask the government of Israel to immediately clarify what happened. The threats against diplomats are unacceptable.
Dutch Foreign Minister Caspar Veldkamp
Diplomats should be able to do their work, and threatening them is unacceptable. I have called the Dutch representative in the Palestinian territories and our ambassador to Israel and am relieved that the delegation is unharmed. We condemn the shooting, have requested clarification from the Israeli authorities and are considering further steps.
French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot
A visit to Jenin, in which one of our diplomats was participating, was fired upon by Israeli soldiers. This is unacceptable. The Israeli ambassador will be summoned to explain. Full support to our agents on site and their remarkable work in trying conditions.
Finnish Foreign Minister Elina Valtonen
This is a very serious and condemnable incident. I have spoken with the Finnish diplomat who was present at the situation. We demand an explanation from Israel about the situation.
Danish Foreign Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen
It is unacceptable that Israel has fired shots near foreign diplomats. It has no place anywhere and is completely unacceptable.
The Danish head of mission in Ramallah was among the diplomats and is fortunately safe. In light of the seriousness of the situation, I have asked the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to summon the Israeli ambassador so that we can get an official explanation.
Belgian Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Maxime Prevot
I was shocked to learn that the Israeli army opened fire on 20 diplomats today, including a Belgian colleague. Fortunately, he is fine. These diplomats were on an official visit to Jenin, coordinated with the Israeli army, in a convoy of 20 clearly recognisable vehicles. Belgium is asking Israel for a convincing explanation.
Norwegian Foreign Minister Espen Barth Eide
I condemn the attacks by [the Israeli military] against a group of diplomats in Jenin today. Diplomatic and consular staff enjoy a special status under international law and must be protected. These actions constitute a clear violation of international law and are deeply unacceptable.
Portugal’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Portugal condemns the attack by the Israeli army on the diplomatic delegation in the Jenin refugee camp, West Bank. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs … expressed its solidarity with the Portuguese ambassador who was part of the delegation and will take the appropriate diplomatic measures.
Germany’s Federal Foreign Office
The Federal Foreign Office strongly condemns this unprovoked fire. We can count ourselves lucky that nothing more serious occurred.
The group was travelling in the West Bank in the course of its diplomatic work and in coordination with the Palestinian Authority and the Israeli army. The role of diplomats as independent observers on the ground is indispensable and in no way represents a threat to Israeli security interests.
The Israeli government must immediately investigate the circumstances and respect the inviolability of diplomats.
Slovenia’s Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs
Slovenia joins EU partners in condemning the gunfire that threatened foreign diplomats at Jenin camp.
Such intimidation violates the Vienna Convention on diplomatic relations and is utterly unacceptable. We expect a prompt, transparent Israeli investigation, full accountability and guarantees of safe, unhindered access for all diplomatic missions.
Jordan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Expatriates
This is a clear violation of international law and international humanitarian law, and a crime that contravenes all diplomatic norms.
The Ministry’s official spokesperson, Ambassador Dr Sufyan Qudah, affirmed the kingdom’s absolute rejection and strong condemnation of this targeting, which constitutes a violation of diplomatic agreements and norms, particularly the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, which defines the procedures and controls governing diplomatic work and grants immunities to diplomatic missions.
Qatar’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs
The state of Qatar strongly condemns the Israeli occupation forces for opening fire on an international diplomatic delegation during its visit to the Jenin refugee camp in the occupied West Bank, and considered as a violation of international laws, conventions, and diplomatic norms.
Turkiye’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs
We condemn in the strongest terms the opening of fire by Israeli soldiers on a group of diplomats, including an official from the Turkish Consulate General in Jerusalem, during their visit to the city of Jenin.
This attack, which endangered the lives of diplomats, is yet another demonstration of Israel’s systematic disregard for international law and human rights. The targeting of diplomats constitutes a grave threat not only to individual safety but also to the mutual respect and trust that form the foundation of inter-state relations.
Egypt’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs
The Arab Republic of Egypt emphasises its absolute rejection of this incident, which violates all diplomatic norms, and calls upon the Israeli side to provide the necessary clarifications regarding the circumstances of this incident.
Uruguay’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs has summoned the Israeli ambassador in Montevideo to clarify the incident.
Uruguay urges the Israeli government to investigate this incident and take the necessary measures to ensure the protection and allow the operations of diplomatic personnel accredited to the State of Palestine.
Mexico’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs
The Israeli military justified the action by stating that the diplomatic delegation had invaded an ‘unauthorised area’. However, there is no record of this occurring or of any officer approaching the delegation to verbally warn them in a timely manner.
What happened violates the provisions of Article 29 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, which establishes the inviolability of diplomatic agents. All States Parties to the aforementioned Convention, including Israel, are obliged to respect it.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs will request the Israeli embassy in Mexico to provide the clarifications warranted by the case.
Figures released on Thursday by the Office for National Statistics are expected to reveal a fall in net migration to the UK. Politicians have long struggled to assuage public concerns over immigration and even with Thursday’s expected fall, the issue is still likely to dog the Labour government.
In retrospect, 1968 looks like the decisive year. Until then, social class had been what determined the political allegiance of most voters: Labour drew its support from the still strong industrialised working class, while the Conservatives enjoyed the support of middle class and rural constituencies.
But in 1968, two events launched a realignment, after which point Britons increasingly started to vote based on another, previously obscure, factor: attitudes to immigration and race.
The first was the 1968 Race Relations Act, steered through Parliament by the Labour Home Secretary, James Callaghan. It strengthened legal protections for Britain’s immigrant communities, banning racial discrimination, and sought to ensure that second generation immigrants “who have been born here” and were “going through our schools” would have access to quality education to ensure that they would get “the jobs for which they are qualified and the houses they can afford”. Discrimination against anyone on the basis of racial identity – in housing, in hospitality, in the workplace – was now illegal.
The second is the now notorious “Rivers of Blood” speech given by the Conservative politician Enoch Powell, in which he quoted a constituent, “a decent ordinary fellow Englishman”, who told him that he wanted his three children to emigrate because “in this country in 15 or 20 years time, the black man will have the whip hand over the white man.”
The white British population, he said, “found themselves strangers in their own country”.
Powell had touched a nerve in a Britain which had brought hundreds of thousands of people from the West Indies, India and Pakistan in the years after the war.
Enoch Powell was denounced after his ‘Rivers of Blood’ speech in 1968. But tens of thousands wrote letters of support to a local paper in Wolverhampton, where Powell made the speech.
The Conservative Party leader Edward Heath sacked him from the front bench. The leaders of all the main parties denounced him. The Times called the speech “evil”; it was, the paper said, “the first time a serious British politician has appealed to racial hatred in this direct way”.
But the editor of a local paper in Wolverhampton, where Powell had made his speech, said Heath had “made a martyr” of Powell. In the days after the speech his paper received nearly 50,000 letters from readers: “95% of them,” he said, “were pro-Enoch”. For a time, the phrase “Enoch was right” entered the political discourse.
Powell had exposed a gap between elite opinion and a growing sense of alienation and resentment in large sections of the population. What was emerging was a sense, among some, that elites of both right and left, out of touch with ordinary voters’ experience, were opening the borders of Britain and allowing large numbers of people into the country.
It became part of a cultural fault line that went on to divide British politics. Many white working-class voters would, in time, abandon Labour and move to parties of the right. Labour would become aligned with the pursuit of progressive causes. In the 20th century it had drawn much of its support from workers in the factories, coal mines, steel works and shipyards of industrial Britain. By the 21st century, its support base was more middle class, university-educated, and younger than ever before.
It has been a slow tectonic shift in which class-based party allegiances gradually gave way to what we now recognise as identity politics and the rise of populist anti-elite sentiment.
And at the heart of this shift lay attitudes to immigration and race. Prime ministers have repeatedly tried to soothe public concern; to draw a line under the issue. But worries have remained. After that pivotal year 1968, for the rest of the 20th Century the number of people who thought there were “too many immigrants” in the country remained well above 50%, according to data analysed by the University of Oxford’s Migration Observatory.
Sir Keir Starmer’s Labour government, elected last year on a manifesto promising to reduce migration, is the latest to have a go, with an overhaul of visa rules announced earlier this month. On Thursday, the annual net migration figures are very likely to show a fall in the number of people moving to the UK – something Sir Keir will likely hail as an early success for Labour’s attempts to reduce migration numbers (although the Conservatives say their own policies should be credited).
Can Sir Keir succeed where other prime ministers have arguably failed? And is it possible to reach something resembling a settlement with voters on an issue as fraught as migration?
Softening attitudes?
Dig into the nuances of public opinion, and you find a complicated picture.
The number of Britons naming immigration as one of the most important issues – what political scientists call “salience” – shot up from about 2000 onwards, as the number of fresh arrivals to Britain ticked up and up. In the 1990s, annual net migration was normally in the tens of thousands; after the Millennium, it was reliably in the hundreds of thousands.
Stephen Webb, a former Home Officer civil servant who is now head of home affairs at the centre-right Policy Exchange think tank, thinks concern over migration has been driven by the real, tangible impact it has had on communities.
“The public have been ahead of the political, media class on this,” he says, “particularly poorer, working-class people. It was their areas that saw the most dramatic change, far sooner than the rest of us really realised what was happening. That’s where the migrants went. That’s where the sudden competition for labour [emerged]. You talk to cabbies in the early 2000s and they were already fuming about this.”
That fear of migrants “taking jobs” became particularly pressing in 2004, when the European Union (of which Britain was a member) took in ten new members, most of them former the communist states of Eastern Europe. Because of the EU’s free movement rules, it gave any citizen of those countries the right to move here – and the UK was one of just three member nations to open its doors to unrestricted and immediate freedom of movement.
The government, led by Tony Blair, estimated that perhaps 13,000 people per year would come seeking work. In fact, more than a million arrived, and stayed, by the end of the decade – one of the biggest influxes of people in British history.
Getty
Passengers board a bus leaving for Poland from a London coach station in 2009. Concern over immigration rose after east European countries joined the EU in 2004.
Most were people of working age. They paid taxes. They were net contributors to the public purse. Indeed, the totemic figure in this period was the hard-working “Polish plumber” who, in the popular imagination, was willing to work for lower wages than his British counterpart. Gordon Brown famously called for “British jobs for British workers”, without explaining how that could be achieved in a Europe of free movement.
The perception that Britain had lost control of its own borders gained popular traction. The imperative to “take back control” would be the mainstay of the campaign to leave the European Union.
A decade on from that Brexit vote, “attitudes to immigration are warming and softening,” says Sunder Katwala, the director of the think tank British Future. “Concern about immigration was at a very high peak in 2016, and it crashed down in 2020. Brexit had the paradoxical softening impact on attitudes… people who voted for Brexit felt reassured because they made a point and ‘got control’. And people who regretted voting to leave became more pro-migration”.
Attitudes to immigration are, says Katwala, “very closely correlated to the distribution of meaningful contact with ethnic diversity and migration – especially from a young age. So places of high migration, high diversity, are more confident about migration than areas of low migration and low diversity, because although they might be dealing with the real-world challenges and pressures of change, they’ve also got contact between people.”
‘Island of strangers’?
Why, then, did Sir Keir feel the need to say with such vehemence that unrestrained immigration had caused “incalculable damage” to the country, and that he wants to “close the book on a squalid chapter for our politics, our economy and our country”? Why did he say we risked becoming an “island of strangers” – leaving himself open to accusations from his own backbenchers that he was echoing the language of Powell in 1968?
PA
Sir Keir Starmer won election for his party in 2024 on a manifesto promising to reduce net migration
The answer lies in how attitudes are distributed through the population. Hostility to immigration is now much more concentrated in certain groups, and concentrated in a way that can sway elections.
“At the general election, a quarter of people thought immigration was the number one issue and they were very, very likely to vote for Nigel Farage,” Katwala says.
The country as a whole may be becoming more liberal on immigration, but the sceptical base is also becoming firmer in its resolve and is turning that resolve into electoral success.
And fuelling that hostility is a lingering sense among some that migrants put pressure on public services, with extra competition for GP appointments, hospital beds, and school places. Stephen Webb of Policy Exchange thinks it is a perfectly fair concern. Data in the UK is not strong enough to make a conclusion, he says, but he points to studies from the Netherlands and Denmark suggesting that many recent migrants to those countries are a “fiscal drain” – meaning they receive more money via public services than they contribute in taxes.
He adds: “If you assume that the position is probably the same in the UK, and it’s hard to see why it will be different, and you look at the kind of migration we’ve been getting, it seems likely that we’ve been importing people who are indeed going to be a very, very major net cost.”
Labour’s plan
So will Sir Keir’s plan work? And how radical is it?
Legislation to reduce immigration has, historically, been strikingly unsuccessful.
The first sustained attempt to reduce immigration was the 1971 Immigration Act, introduced by Prime Minister Edward Heath. In 1948, the former troopship Empire Windrush had docked at Essex carrying 492 migrants from the West Indies, attracted by the jobs boom created by postwar reconstruction. Almost a million more followed in the years ahead, from the Caribbean, India, Pakistan and Africa. They all arrived as citizens of the UK and Commonwealth (CUKC) with an automatic and legal entitlement to enter and stay. The 1971 Act removed this right for new arrivals.
The Act was sold to the public as the means by which immigration would be reduced to zero. But from 1964 to 1994, immigrants continued to arrive legally in their thousands.
In 1978 Mrs Thatcher, then in opposition, told a television interviewer that “people are rather afraid that this country might be rather swamped by people with a different culture”, and she promised “to hold out the clear prospect of an end to immigration.”
Not a reduction; an end.
Yet today, almost 17% of the population of the UK was born abroad, up from 13% in 2014.
Alamy/PA
Left: the Empire Windrush ship arrives in Essex in 1948. Right: a group of new arrivals listen to an RAF recruiting officer about the possibility of signing up.
Sir Keir’s plan does not promise to end immigration. It is much less radical. It promises to reduce legal immigration by toughening visa rules. As part of the changes, more arrivals – as well as their dependents – will have to pass an English test in order to get a visa. Migrants will also have to wait 10 years to apply for the right to stay in the UK indefinitely, up from five years.
“It will bring down [net immigration] for sure,” says Madeleine Sumption, director of the Migration Observatory at the University of Oxford. “If you restrict eligibility for visas, you will have lower migration. The Home Office calculation is that it will issue 98,000 fewer visas. That’s in the order of 10%. It’s not radical but it is a change.”
The White Paper also proposes to end visas for care workers. “This has been a visa that has been incredibly difficult for the government to manage,” says Sumption. “It’s been riddled with problems. There has been widespread fraud and abuse and so it’s not surprising that they want to close it. The care sector will face challenges continuing to recruit. But I think closing the care route may be helpful for reducing exploitation of people in the country.”
Just a week after publishing the White Paper, the government was accused of undermining its own immigration strategy by agreeing in principle to a “youth experience scheme” with the EU – which may allow thousands of young Europeans to move to Britain for a time-limited period. Champions of the policy say it will boost economic growth by filling gaps in the labour market. But ministers will be cautious about any potential inflation to migration figures. It’s another example of the narrow tightrope prime ministers have historically been forced to walk on this issue.
Tensions on the Left
There’s another sense in which the Powell speech reaches into our own day. It created a conviction among many on the left that to raise concerns about immigration – often even to mention it – was, by definition, racist. Labour prime ministers have felt the sting of this criticism from their own supporters.
Tony Blair, who opened the doors in 2004, recognised this in his autobiography A Journey. The “tendency for those on the left was to equate concern about immigration with underlying racism. This was a mistake. The truth is that immigration, unless properly controlled, can cause genuine tensions… and provide a sense in the areas into which migrants come in large numbers that the community has lost control of its own future… Across Europe, right wing parties would propose tough controls on immigration. Left-wing parties would cry: Racist. The people would say: You don’t get it.”
Sir Keir has felt some of that heat from his own side since launching the White Paper. In response to his warning about Britain becoming an “island of strangers”, the left-wing Labour MP Nadia Whittome accused the prime minister of “mimic[king] the scaremongering of the far-right”.
The Economist, too, declared that Britain’s decades of liberal immigration had been an economic success – but a political failure.
There is a world of difference between Keir Starmer and Enoch Powell. Powell believed Britain was “literally mad, piling up its own funeral pyre” and that the country was bound to descend into civil war. Sir Keir says he celebrates the diversity of modern Britain.
But even if his plan to cut migration works, net migration will continue to flow at the rate of around 300,000 a year. Sir Keir’s plan runs the risk of being neither fish nor fowl: too unambitious to win back Reform voters; but illiberal enough to alienate some on the left.
Additional reporting: Florence Freeman, Luke Mintz.
BBC InDepth is the home on the website and app for the best analysis, with fresh perspectives that challenge assumptions and deep reporting on the biggest issues of the day. And we showcase thought-provoking content from across BBC Sounds and iPlayer too. You can send us your feedback on the InDepth section by clicking on the button below.
Strategy, already known for its massive Bitcoin stash, just went deeper – buying another 7,390 BTC for around $764 million. This latest investment happened even as they’re dealing with a class-action lawsuit over their Bitcoin investment talk.
When a company like Strategy continues to bet big, it tends to influence how investors feel. With that in mind, let’s dive into five of the best cryptos to buy that could benefit from Strategy’s latest move.
Why Big Companies Are Buying Bitcoin – And What It Means for Crypto
Strategy’s Bitcoin shopping spree isn’t a one-off. They’re arguably the loudest and the proudest, but a growing number of corporations are parking their cash in Bitcoin, and it’s worth understanding why this has become a popular trend.
So, why do these firms, traditionally risk-averse with their treasury, decide to get into crypto? A key reason is Bitcoin’s perceived strength as a hedge against inflation. With a fixed supply capped at 21 million coins, it stands in stark contrast to fiat currencies that can be printed – meaning they can lose value over time.
Strategy, for instance, now holds an enormous576,230 BTC, over 2.7% of all Bitcoin that will ever exist. But aside from that, companies also see it as a way to diversify their holdings, moving away from relying solely on cash and bonds, especially when the economic picture looks uncertain.
Strategy has acquired 7,390 BTC for ~$764.9 million at ~$103,498 per bitcoin and has achieved BTC Yield of 16.3% YTD 2025. As of 5/18/2025, we hodl 576,230 $BTC acquired for ~$40.18 billion at ~$69,726 per bitcoin. $MSTR$STRK$STRFhttps://t.co/woIBO11Hz9
And it’s not just a few outliers;82 public companies, including names like Block and Marathon Digital, now have Bitcoin on their books. This corporate appetite is generally seen as a huge positive for crypto as a whole.
When big companies invest, it adds legitimacy and validation to Bitcoin, encouraging other institutions to take a closer look. These purchases also create massive demand, often absorbing a large chunk of newly mined BTC. For example, in 2024, Strategy bought more Bitcoin than was even produced that year.
This demand can help stabilize prices and provide liquidity, especially during a market dip. Ultimately, it contributes to a network effect – the more companies that buy Bitcoin, the more attractive Bitcoin becomes to others.
What Are the Best Cryptos to Buy After Strategy’s Latest Investment?
Strategy’s Bitcoin moves tend to lead to more interest in crypto as a whole. And with Bitcoin still above $100,000, here are five hidden gems that could be about to take off.
1. Solaxy (SOLX)
Solaxy (SOLX) is one of the best cryptos to buy if you’re bullish on the Solana ecosystem. This new Layer-2 project, which also includes a bridge to Ethereum, has gone viral in 2025 – raising over $38 million in presale funding.
Most of the excitement is around how Solaxy plans to scale Solana. It will handle some transactions off-chain before sending them back to Solana for confirmation. Solaxy’s team already has atestnet block explorer live, showing their product is working.
SOLX powers the network, used for things like fees andstaking. Early investors can now buy SOLX in presale for just $0.00173. But withthe presale ending in less than 28 days, now is the last chance to get involved.
So, with Strategy investing in crypto again, pre-launch projects likeSolaxy might be primed to benefit.
There will be three Bitcoin payouts in total, at $150K, $200K, and $250K. On top of these payouts, BTCBULL’s team will also burn some of the supply at intermediate milestones, making the remaining tokens scarcer (and potentially more valuable).
Everything has been audited byCoinsult andSolidProof to ensure safety. And given that BTC Bull Token has the backing of influencers likeClayBro, the future looks bright.
BTCBULL’s presale is ongoing and has raised $6 million so far – showing just how much early interest there is in this rewards token.
3. Bitcoin Cash (BCH)
Bitcoin Cash (BCH) is one of the best cryptos to buy if you’re looking for an established player. Designed for fast, low-cost transactions, BCH’s ultimate aim is to be a practical digital currency.
BCH is currently trading at $390 and is up 2% since yesterday – showing it has reacted positively to the Strategy news. And with a significant network upgrade enhancing smart contract capabilities in the works, Bitcoin Cash could be about to push even higher.
Although it might not have the size or first-mover advantage of Bitcoin, Bitcoin Cash is still one to consider as market sentiment improves.
4. Aave (AAVE)
Strategy’s Bitcoin investments could also boost established DeFi protocols likeAave (AAVE). As a leading decentralized lending and borrowing platform, Aave is in a great spot to attract institutions.
It’s “Project Horizon,” announced in March, specifically targets traditional finance by offering compliant tools for real-world asset integration. Plus, rising crypto prices, fueled by corporate buying, increase collateral on Aave – boosting lending capacity.
Ultimately, its secure code and safety features make Aave another great option as institutional interest grows.
5. MIND of Pepe (MIND)
MIND of Pepe (MIND) taps into the AI crypto trend in an exciting way. Instead of just using buzzwords, this project has genuine utility, featuring an AI agent that can operate independently within the crypto market.
This agent scans social media feeds, checks on-chain data, and even analyzes investor sentiment. It then provides insights to MIND token holders on new market trends and finds under-the-radar tokens that might be about to explode.
The first version of MIND of Pepe’s agent is already live on X – and early community members are loving it. That has helped MIND of Pepepass the $9.6 million mark in its presale before next month’s DEX listing.
So, with less than 11 days left before the presale wraps up, now might be the ideal time to invest inMIND of Pepe.
Conclusion
Strategy’s Bitcoin buying is excellent news for crypto as a whole. But it’s not just bullish for the big names – it also highlights the potential in lower-cap projects.
These projects, likeSolaxy,BTC Bull Token, andMIND of Pepe, are all in a great spot to benefit from institutional demand. And as the market matures, we might just see them take off as more investors realize what they’re capable of.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not provide financial advice. Cryptocurrencies are highly volatile, and the market can be unpredictable. Always perform thorough research before making any cryptocurrency-related decisions.
The administration of President Donald Trump has begun the process of ending the federal government’s involvement in reforming local police departments, a civil rights effort that gained steam after the deaths of unarmed Black people like George Floyd and Breonna Taylor.
On Wednesday, the United States Department of Justice announced it would cancel two proposed settlements that would have seen the cities of Louisville, Kentucky, and Minneapolis, Minnesota, agree to federal oversight of their police departments.
Generally, those settlements — called consent decrees — involve a series of steps and goals that the two parties negotiate and that a federal court helps enforce.
In addition, the Justice Department said it would withdraw reports on six other local police departments which found patterns of discrimination and excessive violence.
The Trump administration framed the announcement as part of its efforts to transfer greater responsibility towards individual cities and states — and away from the federal government.
“It’s our view at the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division under the Trump administration that federal micromanagement of local police should be a rare exception, and not the norm,” said Harmeet Dhillon, an assistant attorney general at the Justice Department, said.
She argued that such federal oversight was a waste of taxpayer funds.
“There is a lack of accountability. There is a lack of local control. And there is an industry here that is, I think, ripping off the taxpayers and making citizens less safe,” Dhillon said.
But civil rights leaders and police reform advocates reacted with outrage over the news, which arrived just days before the fifth anniversary of Floyd’s murder.
Reverend Al Sharpton was among the leaders who called for police departments to take meaningful action after a viral video captured Floyd’s final moments. On May 25, 2020, a white police officer, Derek Chauvin, leaned his knee on Floyd’s neck for more than nine minutes, causing him to asphyxiate and die.
“This move isn’t just a policy reversal,” Sharpton said. “It’s a moral retreat that sends a chilling message that accountability is optional when it comes to Black and Brown victims.”
He warned that the Trump administration’s move sent a signal to police departments that they were “above scrutiny”.
The year of Floyd’s murder was also marked by a number of other high-profile deaths, including Taylor’s.
The 26-year-old medical worker was in bed late at night on March 13, 2020, when police used a battering ram to break into her apartment. Her boyfriend feared they were being attacked and fired his gun once. The police responded with a volley of bullets, killing Taylor, who was struck six times.
Her death and others stirred a period of nationwide unrest in the US, with millions of people protesting in the streets as part of social justice movements like Black Lives Matter. It is thought that the 2020 “racial reckoning” was one of the biggest mass demonstrations in US history.
Those protests unfolded in the waning months of Trump’s first term, and when Democrat Joe Biden succeeded him as president in 2021, the Justice Department embarked on a series of 12 investigations looking into allegations of police overreach and excessive violence on the local level.
Those investigations were called “pattern-or-practice” probes, designed to look into whether incidents of police brutality were one-offs or part of a larger trend in a given police department.
Floyd’s murder took place in Minneapolis and Taylor’s in Louisville — the two cities where the Trump Justice Department decided to drop its settlements on Wednesday. In both cities, under Biden, the Justice Department had found patterns of discriminatory policing.
“Police officers must often make split-second decisions and risk their lives to keep their communities safe,” the report on Minneapolis reads.
But, it adds, the local police department “used dangerous techniques and weapons against people who committed at most a petty offence and sometimes no offense at all”.
Other police departments scrutinised during this period included ones in Phoenix, Arizona; Memphis, Tennessee; Trenton, New Jersey; Mount Vernon, New York; Oklahoma City, Oklahoma; and the Louisiana State Police.
Dhillon, who now runs the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, positioned the retractions of those Biden-era findings as a policy pivot. She also condemned the consent decrees as an overused tool and indicated she would look into rescinding some agreements that were already in place.
That process would likely involve a judge’s approval, however.
And while some community advocates have expressed concerns that consent decrees could place a burden on already over-stretched law enforcement departments, others disagree with the Justice Department’s latest move, arguing that a retreat could strip resources and momentum from police reform.
At the Louisville Metro Police Department (LMPD), Chief Paul Humphrey said the commitment to better policing went beyond any settlement. He indicated he would look for an independent monitor to oversee reforms.
“It’s not about these words on this paper,” he said. “It’s about the work that the men and women of LMPD, the men and women of metro government and the community will do together in order to make us a safer, better place.”
And in Minneapolis, Mayor Jacob Frey doubled down, saying he could keep pushing forward with the police reform plan his city had agreed to.
“We will comply with every sentence of every paragraph of the 169-page consent decree that we signed this year,” he said at a news conference.
“We will make sure that we are moving forward with every sentence of every paragraph of both the settlement around the Minnesota Department of Human Rights, as well as the consent decree.”
When you loosen your expectations of someone younger you could sense the good feelings flow between you again – so take the lead on this.
Your chart suggests an extra helping of Pluto surprises in routine settings, so be prepared for family and friendship revelations – or to say some yourself.
Brennan Johnson scores the only goal as Tottenham beat Man Utd to lift the cup and qualify for the Champions League.
Tottenham beat Manchester United 1-0 to win the Europa League final, lifting its first European trophy in more than four decades to qualify for next season’s Champions League.
It is the first major title for Tottenham since it won the English League Cup in 2008, and its first European triumph since it won its second UEFA Cup — the equivalent of the Europa League now — in 1984.
Brennan Johnson squeezed in the winner at the end of the first half on Wednesday to help Spurs salvage a dismal season, in which it will finish near the bottom of the Premier League standings.
The title guarantees Spurs a spot in next season’s Champions League, and brings some much-needed relief for manager Ange Postecoglou after he struggled to keep his team on track all year.
Tottenham Hotspur’s Brennan Johnson, left, scores their first goal [Vincent West/Reuters]
The victory comes six years after Tottenham fell short against Liverpool in the Champions League final.
The defeat adds pressure on United coach Ruben Amorim, whose team sits in 16th place — just ahead of Tottenham — in the Premier League. The club will not play in any European competition next season.
United came close to equalising the match on Wednesday when a header by Rasmus Hojlund was cleared at the goal line by Tottenham’s Micky van de Ven in the 68th.
Deep into stoppage time, a header by Luke Shaw prompted a difficult save by Tottenham goalkeeper Guglielmo Vicario.
Tottenham Hotspur’s Micky van de Ven clears the ball off the line [Andrew Couldridge/Reuters]
It had been an even match, with neither team creating many significant scoring opportunities, until Tottenham got on the board in the 42nd minute after a cross by Pape Sarr into the area.
The ball ricocheted off Shaw and fell in front of Johnson, who seemed to get just enough of it to poke it across the goal line.
United pressed forward after conceding, but was not able to get the equaliser in front of a split crowd of nearly 50,000 at Athletic Bilbao’s San Mames Stadium.
Manchester United’s captain, Bruno Fernandes, looks dejected as he walks past the trophy after collecting his runners-up medal [Isabel Infantes/Reuters]
United had last won a trophy in the 2024 FA Cup, and its last European triumph was at the 2017 Europa League under manager Jose Mourinho.
The Red Devils lost all four matches against Tottenham this season and is winless against its rival in seven straight games, with the last six under Postecoglou.
United and Tottenham had met in just one previous final — the 2009 League Cup when Alex Ferguson’s United won 4-1 on penalties after a 0-0 draw.
Tottenham striker Son Heung-min, who came off the bench in the 67th, finally ended his decade-long trophy drought with Spurs.
Tottenham Hotspur manager Ange Postecoglou celebrates with his players after winning the Europa League [Isabel Infantes/Reuters]
The Marks & Spencer website is down, leaving users unable to browse, as the retailer continues to deal with the aftermath of a cyber-attack last month.
Customers have been unable to make online orders for weeks but on Wednesday evening users were met with a screen reading: “Sorry you can’t browse the site currently. We’re making some updates and will be back soon.”
Following the cyber attack, M&S said some personal customer data was stolen in the recent cyber attack, which could include telephone numbers, home addresses and dates of birth.
The High Street giant assured customers that the data theft did not include useable payment or card details, or any account passwords, but added that online order histories could be included in the personal data stolen.
The attack took place over the Easter weekend, initially affecting click-and-collect and contactless payments. A few days later M&S put a banner on its website apologising that online ordering was not available.
M&S estimates that the cyber attack will hit this year’s profits by around £300m – more than analysts had expected and the equivalent to a third of its profit – a sum that would only partly be covered by any insurance pay-out.
“Over the last few weeks, we have been managing a highly sophisticated and targeted cyber-attack, which has led to a limited period of disruption,” said M&S chief executive Stuart Machin.
Police are focusing on a notorious group of English-speaking hackers, known as Scattered Spider, the BBC has learned.
The same group is believed to have been behind attacks on the Co-op and Harrods, but it was M&S that suffered the biggest impact.
The digital battleground has become an increasingly critical theatre for modern geopolitical conflicts, and the Taliban’s recent social media campaign targeting the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Saudi Arabia (KSA) underscores this shift. Following the UAE’s warm reception of former U.S. President Donald Trump, a surge of hostile online activity emerged, orchestrated by Taliban-linked accounts under the General Directorate of Intelligence (GDI). This campaign, executed through human-operated parody profiles, blends religious rhetoric, violent threats, and geopolitical grievances to undermine Gulf states’ legitimacy while reinforcing the Taliban’s ideological stance. The sophistication of this operation reveals not just a localized grievance but a broader strategy of asymmetric warfare, leveraging digital tools to exert influence beyond Afghanistan’s borders.
Central to the Taliban’s messaging is the accusation that the UAE has “disgraced Islam and the Ummah” by engaging with Trump, a figure historically criticized in the Muslim world for policies such as the travel ban on several Muslim-majority nations and his administration’s unwavering support for Israel. By framing the UAE’s diplomatic overtures as a betrayal of Islamic solidarity, the Taliban seeks to galvanize conservative Muslim audiences, casting Gulf states as Western collaborators. This narrative is not new, extremist groups have long employed religious rhetoric to isolate moderate Muslim nations, but the Taliban’s institutionalized use of social media amplifies its reach and potency.
Beyond ideological condemnation, the campaign escalates into explicit threats, with multiple accounts referencing the “yellow keg”, a signature Taliban improvised explosive device (IED) used extensively against US forces during the 2001–2021 conflict. The deliberate invocation of this imagery serves a dual purpose: it signals the Taliban’s continued embrace of violent tactics while psychologically intimidating its targets. Such threats, even if symbolic, carry the risk of inspiring lone actors or affiliated militant cells to pursue physical attacks, particularly given the historical precedent of Taliban-linked violence extending beyond Afghanistan’s borders.
While the UAE remains the primary target, the campaign’s inclusion of Saudi Arabia suggests a broader ideological offensive against Gulf monarchies perceived as aligning too closely with Western powers. The use of Pashto and Dari, languages dominant in Afghanistan but also understood among diaspora and regional jihadist circles, ensures localized resonance while maintaining plausible deniability for the Taliban’s central leadership. This linguistic choice, combined with the recycling of accounts historically used to promote Taliban edicts, reinforces the campaign’s authenticity within its intended audience.
The campaign’s timing, thematic coherence, and operational signatures point to centralized coordination, likely emanating from the Taliban’s GDI. Unlike fragmented extremist online activity, this effort displays a clear command structure, mirroring the Taliban’s disciplined approach to information warfare. The reuse of accounts previously associated with official Taliban narratives further underscores institutional involvement, distinguishing it from grassroots anti-UAE sentiment. This digital offensive aligns with the Taliban’s long-standing reliance on psychological operations, extending their influence without direct military confrontation.
The ramifications of this campaign extend far beyond social media vitriol. First, it seeks to erode the UAE’s and KSA’s religious legitimacy, particularly among conservative Muslim populations and transnational jihadist groups still active in Afghanistan. By casting these nations as apostates, the Taliban aims to fracture intra-Islamic solidarity, potentially driving recruitment for anti-Gulf militancy.
Second, the campaign reaffirms the Taliban’s commitment to asymmetric warfare. Despite their formal control of Afghanistan, the group continues to employ hybrid tactics, blending insurgency, propaganda, and diplomacy, to challenge adversaries indirectly. The digital domain offers a low-cost, high-impact arena to sustain pressure without provoking immediate military retaliation.
Most alarmingly, the explicit references to past IED tactics suggest a latent threat of physical escalation. While the Taliban may not directly orchestrate attacks on Gulf soil, the rhetoric could incite sympathizers or affiliate groups, such as Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), to act. The UAE and KSA, both vocal opponents of Islamist extremism, remain high-value targets for such elements.
To counter this evolving threat, a multi-faceted approach is essential:
Gulf states should collaborate with international cybersecurity firms to identify and dismantle Taliban-linked networks, focusing on parody accounts and coordinated disinformation campaigns.
Governments and religious institutions in the UAE and KSA must amplify moderate Islamic voices to delegitimize the Taliban’s extremist framing.
Strengthening intelligence cooperation among Gulf nations and allies can pre-empt potential offline threats inspired by online incitement.
Social media companies must enforce stricter verification processes to curb the proliferation of fake accounts disseminating violent propaganda.
The international community should hold the Taliban accountable for digital incitement, linking sanctions relief to the cessation of hostile online campaigns.
“The internet is the first battlefield of the 21st century.”Wang Huning
The Taliban’s latest campaign exemplifies this reality, proving that in an interconnected world, ideological and physical conflicts are increasingly waged through pixels and propaganda. For the UAE and KSA, the challenge lies not only in defending their digital frontiers but in ensuring that online hostilities do not manifest in tangible violence. As the Taliban refines its hybrid warfare playbook, the global community must adapt, recognizing that the next threat may emerge not from a battlefield, but from a smartphone.
A federal judge in the United States has told the administration of President Donald Trump that an alleged effort to deport migrants to South Sudan was “unquestionably violative” of his court injunction.
The announcement from US District Judge Brian Murphy on Wednesday tees up yet another judicial battle for the Trump administration, which has faced repeated criticism that it is ignoring court orders.
Judge Murphy, who is based in Boston, Massachusetts, has yet to announce what he plans to do about the apparent violation. He left that question to another day.
But he indicated that the people on board Tuesday’s flight had not been given enough time to challenge their deportations, in violation of their right to due process — and also in violation of Murphy’s April 18 injunction.
Murphy had ruled that migrants facing removal to a third-party country besides their own had the right to a reasonable amount of time to challenge their deportations.
But the Trump administration has repeatedly dismissed claims that it refuses to abide by decisions unfavourable to its policies, instead blasting judges like Murphy as “activist”.
During Wednesday’s court hearing, a lawyer for Trump’s Justice Department, Elainis Perez, refused to confirm where the deportation flight had landed, saying that divulging the information raised “very serious operational and safety concerns”.
Separately, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) held a news conference addressing the issue and defending the deportation flight.
Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons said the people on board had been accused of murder, armed robbery, rape and sexual assault.
In the case of one migrant, Lyons said, “his country would not take him back.” He called such countries “recalcitrant”.
Tricia McLaughlin, a spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), also framed the removals as a “diplomatic and military security operation”.
Standing in front of photos representing eight migrants, she said they were deported alone for safety reasons and confirmed they remain in DHS custody, although they had indeed left the US.
“We cannot tell you what the final destination for these individuals will be,” she added, again citing security issues.
But she did address the possibility that they might currently be in South Sudan, as their lawyers indicated in court filings.
“I would caution you to make the assumption that their final destination is South Sudan,” she said, later clarifying that the flight may make multiple stops: “We’re confirming the fact that that’s not their final destination.”
In Tuesday’s court filings, lawyers for the migrants said their clients hail from Myanmar, Vietnam and other countries. They also explained that their clients speak little English but were provided no translator to understand their removal notices.
They allegedly were deported with less than 24 hours’ notice. On Tuesday morning, as one lawyer tried to locate her client, she said she was informed he had been removed to South Sudan, a country with a turbulent history and a record of human rights abuses.
Judge Murphy had previously ordered the migrants to be given at least 15 days to challenge their removals on the grounds that they could face dangers in the countries they were deported to.
In the wake of Tuesday’s flight, he has also ruled that the US government must keep the migrants in its custody and ensure their safety while hearings proceed.
McLaughlin, however, accused the “activist judge” of “trying to protect” the migrants, which she described as “some of the most barbaric, violent individuals”.
“While we are fully compliant with the law and court orders, it is absolutely absurd for a district judge to try to dictate the foreign policy and national security of the United States of America,” she said.
McLaughlin and the other officials also argued that the Trump administration was exercising its right to find “safe third countries” to remove these individuals to.
“No country on earth wanted to accept them because their crimes are so uniquely monstrous and barbaric,” she said.
“Thanks to the courageous work of the State Department and ICE and the president’s national security team, we found a nation that was willing to accept custody of these vicious illegal aliens.”
The Trump administration has been accused of amping up fears of criminality among immigration populations, as part of its justification for its “mass deportation” campaign.
Police in South Sudan have told The Associated Press news agency that no migrants from the US have arrived in the country so far. The New York Times has reported that the plane is believed to have landed in the East African country of Djibouti.
A fifth round of nuclear negotiations between Washington and Tehran will take place in Rome on Friday, Oman says.
Washington, DC – Officials from Iran and the United States will hold another round of talks in Rome on Friday, Oman’s Foreign Minister Badr Albusaidi has said, despite the growing gap between the two countries over uranium enrichment.
Wednesday’s confirmation that the nuclear negotiations would continue comes after days of Washington and Tehran expressing irreconcilable positions on Iranian uranium enrichment.
US officials have said they want Iran not just to scale back its nuclear programme, but also to stop enriching uranium altogether — a position that Tehran has said is a nonstarter.
Enrichment is the process of altering the uranium atom to create nuclear fuel.
Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, also said on Tuesday that his country does not need US permission to enrich uranium.
“Saying things like ‘We will not allow Iran to enrich uranium’ is nonsense,” he was quoted as saying by the Mehr News Agency.
The 5th round of Iran US talks will take place in Rome this Friday 23rd May.
— Badr Albusaidi – بدر البوسعيدي (@badralbusaidi) May 21, 2025
His statement was in response to the US’s lead negotiator, Steve Witkoff, dubbing uranium enrichment a “red line” and saying that Washington “cannot allow even 1 percent of an enrichment capability”.
Several Iranian and US officials have reiterated their respective countries’ positions.
Washington has said Iran can operate nuclear reactors for energy production by importing already enriched uranium, arguing that the domestic uranium production by Tehran risks potential weaponisation.
Iran, which denies seeking a nuclear weapon, says uranium enrichment for civilian purposes is its right as a sovereign nation.
Israel, the top US ally in the Middle East, is widely believed to have an undeclared nuclear arsenal.
US President Donald Trump has repeatedly threatened Iran with military action if the two countries do not reach a deal, stressing that he will not allow Tehran to obtain a nuclear weapon.
During his first term, in 2018, Trump nixed the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which saw Iran scale back its nuclear programme in exchange for the lifting of international sanctions against its economy.
Since then, the US has been piling sanctions on the Iranian economy.
After his return to the White House for a second term in January, Trump renewed his “maximum pressure” programme against Iran, largely through economic penalties. He has, for example, pledged to choke off the country’s oil exports, particularly to China.
Iran has been defiant in the face of Trump’s threats, promising to defend itself against any attack.
Tensions began to ease in April as the US and Iran began to hold talks mediated by Oman, but it is not clear how the two sides will bridge the disagreement over Tehran’s enrichment programme.
On Sunday, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi suggested that the US position has been shifting, stressing that “there is no scenario” in which Iran will give up enrichment.
“Iran can only control what we Iranians do, and that is to avoid negotiating in public — particularly given the current dissonance we are seeing between what our U.S. interlocutors say in public and in private, and from one week to the other,” Araghchi wrote in a social media post.
Tracy McGuigan-Haigh says she has “dropped balls” while juggling rising costs
The UK rate of inflation rose by 3.5% in the year to April, a much bigger increase than expected.
The jump was mostly fuelled by rises in household bills such as gas, electricity and, in particular, water.
The minimum wage and some benefits were increased last month, but for many it does not cover their day-to-day costs.
People have contacted the BBC through Your Voice, Your BBC News or spoken to us about the rising cost of living and how they are dealing with it.
‘Rising prices have gone too far’
Tracy McGuigan-Haigh, 47, told the BBC that the cost of everyday items has simply “gone too far”.
Tracy has a job in retail which she fits around looking after her 11-year-old daughter. She earns £1,200 a month and receives around £400 a month in Universal Credit payments – but this isn’t stretching far enough.
“Even on a budget, the supermarket shop is getting more and more expensive,” she said. “Before, I’d have needed a trolley for £40 worth of food. Now, it doesn’t even fill a basket, you can carry that much in your arms.”
Dealing with rising prices is a constant struggle. “I’ve juggled so much that I’ve dropped balls,” said Tracy.
“Somebody’s going ‘it’ll get better’ but even if it does improve now, what’s the support for the people who are down there, who are on the floor?”
‘Higher benefits have been wiped out by costs’
Abi Smitton
Ieuan Hood knows where every penny goes but his budget is still stretched
Ieuan Hood, a single father of three, is meticulous when it comes to his finances – he knows where every penny is going.
The 30-year-old, who works full-time at a call centre near Huddersfield, said that he receives universal credit on top of his wage. His benefit payments rose by 1.7% last month but that has been wiped out by higher bills.
“It is almost as if it hasn’t happened,” he told the BBC.
Ieuan said that his monthly wage is roughly £1,600. Universal credit bumps that up to £2,500 and he gets a further £240 for child benefit.
“Saying it out loud it sounds like a lot of money,” he said. “But the first bill that I pay every month is my childcare bill which is £1,700.
“Rent is then £500, food shopping will be around £700, transport is £150. I also have water bills, energy bills, TV, phone and council tax.
He said: “By the time it’s finished there are some months when I’m looking at it and I have nothing left.”
‘My pension gets less every year’
Peter Murphy
Peter Murphy says regulators should step in to keep prices down
Peter Murphy, aged 80 from Stockport, has a small teachers’ pension, a state pension and his main BT pension, giving him a combined income of about £25,000 a year.
The rising cost of living means he and his wife have cut back on foreign holidays.
Peter told Your Voice, Your BBC News that inflation “leaves me poorer every year” because his pension isn’t rising as fast as his bills.
“There’s only so much I can spend,” he says.
“My teacher’s pension and BT pension rose by 1.8% in April. My BT broadband contract went up by 3% plus inflation at a higher rate, as did my mobile contract and all my other contracted services. Plus the level of service, like roaming was cut.
“Rates and some foods I can understand.”
He says regulators like Ofcom “have the power to stop these recent practices, but don’t”.
In a rare moment of bipartisan unity, both sides of the aisle came together to pump crypto higher, and the Senate has advanced the Stablecoin Bill, as Coindesk writes. This is the first major and favorable crypto regulation passed by the sitting Senate. It establishes clear regulatory guidelines for stablecoins and allows banks to issue them and interact with crypto.
A massive shift in the Overton window compared to the Biden administration’s approach to crypto. Now is the time to find the best crypto presales to buy before liquidity gushes into crypto and everything breaks ATHs again.
The advance of the Senate crypto bill marks a drastic shift in the United States’s crypto attitude, and this bill acts as a signal to anyone paying attention. Crypto just got the bipartisan green light to accelerate, and the downstream effects will be enormous.
Conditions are ideal now for crypto presales, with an increasing appetite for early-stage ventures and a rapidly improving liquidity backdrop thanks to Trump’s most recent bill, which will increase the deficit and mandate the FED to engage in some type of quantitative easing. Altseason is coming.
Bitcoin Pepe is building meme-native DeFi on Bitcoin and onboarding partners to drive adoption of its PEP-20 token standard before launch—this is the “Solana moment” but on BTC. Mind of Pepe offers an autonomous AI agent that evolves in real-time, and Solaxy is the scalability play for Solana’s next chapter.
Why the Senate crypto Bill is a green light for presales
Monday’s 66–32 Senate vote on the Genius Bill is a political watershed moment, and this has sent a booming signal to lawmakers, institutions, and capital allocators all over the world. Crypto is here to stay, and it is an institutionally friendly asset class. All the banks, capital allocators, and funds that have been sidelined until now can finally play, and crypto presale investors could not ask for better conditions.
Presales historically outperform when the macro is bullish and retail has not yet piled in. Institutions just got the green light; they will pile in and drive prices higher, and then retail wakes up.
The establishment of clear regulatory frameworks for stablecoins will attract institutional investors who have been hesitant due to regulatory uncertainties. Liquidity will be up only for a while as stablecoins morph into TradFi, and this is the moment to pay attention.
Bitcoin Pepe: Meme coin infrastructure built on Bitcoin
Bitcoin Pepe is building a full layer 2 stack on Bitcoin designed specifically for meme coin trading, powered by the PEP-20 token standard. Solana-style velocity is finally coming to the world’s most trusted settlement layer, and the upside potential from the current price of $0.0359 is almost frightening. With the launch on May 31st, early BPEP buyers have everything to play for.
BPEP has been forming real partnerships ahead of its launch, each one expanding adoption, functionality, and visibility for its PEP-20 ecosystem. The partnership with Super Meme brings a community-first launchpad, and the partnership with Plena Finance will mean users on the Bitcoin Pepe layer 2 will enjoy account abstraction from day one.
The rapid rate of iteration highlights clearly that Bitcoin Pepe aims to become the go-to meme coin layer for Bitcoin. With spot BTC ETF inflows totaling billions, this crypto presale could become the perfect speculative outlet for all this trapped capital. The native bridge will unlock $2 trillion in idle capital on day one, and if even 1% of capital bridges, it would trigger a meme coin rally multiples larger than anything ever seen on Solana.
The timing couldn’t be better. BTC is pushing to new ATHs, retail will return soon, and meme coin trading volume is spiking. Bitcoin Pepe positions itself as the narrative and technical bridge for the next era of Bitcoin, and with presale inflows spiking by $1 million since partnership announcements and rumors of CEX listings post-launch. This could be early investors’ opportunity to buy into the ERC-20 moment all over again.
With $10.7m raised to date, presale inflows accelerating, and a launch later this month, BPEP is without a doubt one of the best crypto presales to buy in the wake of the Senate crypto bill.
Mind of Pepe: The meme coin that thinks for itself
Mind of Pepe introduces a meme coin that thinks, posts, and evolves on its own. Built as a self-evolving AI agent, this presale token is supposed to become an autonomous growth engine. It operates on X and across other social platforms, engaging with communities, shaping conversations, and growing its influence with every interaction.
But why is that valuable? Because in the modern economy, attention is capital. As the AI gains traction, the MIND token gains value. The AI is still in its beta phase currently, but the roadmap details plans for it to launch its own projects, and ostensibly, MIND token holders should participate in any upside.
This is a weird trade even by crypto standards, but that’s what makes it powerful. Mind of Pepe is an experiment in what happens when memes become sentient—and tokenized.
Solaxy: Solana’s newest layer 2
Solana is famous as the home of meme coin trading and as one of crypto’s most scalable layer 1s. Nobody thought that Solana would ever need a layer 2. Still, with the emergence of meme coins, DePIN narratives, the Internet Capital Markets meta, and increasingly RWA projects, congestion is starting to become a problem. Solaxy is the first serious Layer 2 built natively for Solana, and its presale positions it perfectly for the next wave of economic activity and adoption.
The logic is simple: if Solana is about to get ETF flows and host tokenized equities, performance must remain consistent. Solaxy helps ensure that. Its hybrid architecture routes traffic off-chain when needed, preserving Solana’s UX even during network spikes, and means all users enjoy an uninterrupted experience.
Solaxy is a pick-and-shovel play on the entire Solana ecosystem, and its early positioning could make it one of the best crypto presales to buy before the market catches on.
Why buying presales as regulation improves is the smart play
The Senate crypto bill signals a new era of legitimacy. Bitcoin is at $100K. Ethereum is flowing off exchanges. And presales are starting to reach terminal velocity. Capital is already flowing from mature assets into emerging ones, and investors want to be ahead of this train.
Bitcoin Pepe is building the meme coin superhighway on Bitcoin—PEP-20 adoption is growing by the day. Mind of Pepe is injecting memes with autonomous intelligence. And Solaxy is scaling Solana before it’s forced to. The market is quite literally telling investors where it wants to go, and all investors need to do is position themselves. This is a classic “sell the news” setup in reverse. Legislation still hasn’t passed, and while institutions are forced to wait, early buyers can jump in now.
FAQs
What does the senate bill mean for crypto presales?
The Senate’s passage of the Genius Bill is a game-changer for crypto presales. With regulatory clarity and institutional green lights, capital is set to flood the space before retail joins in. Presale investors now have the perfect storm: bullish macro, fresh liquidity, and early access before the big money arrives.
What is the best crypto presale to buy now?
The best crypto presale to buy now is Bitcoin Pepe. It has raised over $8.1 million, with its token price more than doubling since launch, and is set for a May 31 exchange listing . Its Bitcoin Layer 2 infrastructure offers Solana-like speed and low fees, attracting significant investor interest.
When is the Bitcoin Pepe listing date?
Bitcoin Pepe is scheduled to launch on May 31, 2025, coinciding with its listing on major exchanges. The presale, which began on February 11, 2025, concludes ahead of this, offering early investors a final opportunity to acquire $BPEP tokens before public trading commences.
Will Bitcoin Pepe sell out ahead of launch?
Yes, Bitcoin Pepe is likely to sell out ahead of its May 31 launch. The presale has already raised over $10.7m, with token prices increasing at each stage and limited supply remaining. Investor demand is accelerating as buyers aim to secure tokens before the final price jump.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not provide financial advice. Cryptocurrencies are highly volatile, and the market can be unpredictable. Always perform thorough research before making any cryptocurrency-related decisions.
United States President Donald Trump announced on Tuesday that he has selected a $175bn design for the multilayered Golden Dome missile defence programme aimed at countering aerial threats “even if they are launched from space”.
As part of the project, the US would deploy missile interceptors in space to shield against ballistic and hypersonic threats.
Here is more about the Golden Dome project.
What did Trump announce?
Trump on Tuesday announced $25bn initial funding for the project that will cost $175bn and be completed by the end of his current term in 2029.
“Once fully constructed, the Golden Dome will be capable of intercepting missiles even if they are launched from other sides of the world, and even if they are launched from space,” Trump said.
“This is very important for the success and even survival of our country.”
Trump also announced that US Space Force General Michael Guetlein would be the lead programme manager, responsible for overseeing the project’s progress.
“I promised the American people that I would build a cutting-edge missile defence shield to protect our homeland from the threat of foreign missile attack,” said Trump.
Trump additionally announced: “Canada has called us, and they want to be a part of it. So we’ll be talking to them.”
What is the Golden Dome project?
Trump said the Golden Dome was made to take down “hypersonic missiles, ballistic missiles and advanced cruise missiles”, adding that the programme would have space-based interceptors and sensors.
Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth, speaking alongside Trump, said the system is aimed at protecting “the homeland from cruise missiles, ballistic missiles, hypersonic missiles, drones, whether they’re conventional or nuclear”.
The announcement comes just months after January 27, when Trump signed an executive order to “immediately begin the construction of a state-of-the-art Iron Dome missile defence shield, which will be able to protect Americans”.
The Iron Dome is Israel’s missile defence system which detects an incoming rocket, determines its path, and intercepts it. The development of the system was funded by a grant from the US.
Trump said existing defence capabilities will be used in the construction of the project, and predicted the total cost would be about $175bn.
The White House has not yet released further details about the project. While Trump said the system would be developed in the US, he has not named which companies will be involved.
A space-based defence system was first envisaged by Ronald Reagan, the Republican US president from 1981 to 1989. Amidst the Cold War, Reagan proposed a barrier to nuclear weapons that included space-based technology, as part of his Strategic Defense Initiative, or Star Wars project.
“We will truly be completing the job that President Reagan started 40 years ago, forever ending the missile threat to the American homeland,” Trump said on Tuesday.
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt looks on from behind posters depicting a ‘Golden Dome for America’ [Andrew Harnik /Getty Images via AFP]
Is the Golden Dome plan feasible?
Industry experts have questioned the timeline and budget of the plan.
Funding for the Golden Dome has not yet been secured. At Tuesday’s news conference, Trump confirmed that he was seeking $25bn for the system in a tax cut bill currently moving through Congress, although that sum could be cut amid ongoing negotiations.
Additionally, some variation is expected in the total cost of the project. The Associated Press quoted an unnamed government official as saying Trump had been given three versions of the plan, described as “medium,” “high”, and “extra high”. These versions correspond to the number of satellites, sensors and interceptors that will be placed in space. AP reported that Trump picked the “high” version, which has an initial cost ranging between $30bn and $100bn.
“The new data point is the $175 billion, but the question remains, over what period of time. It’s probably 10 years,” Tom Karako, a senior fellow with the Defense and Security Department at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), told the Reuters news agency.
On May 1, 42 Democratic members of the US Congress signed a letter questioning the possible involvement of Elon Musk’s SpaceX, which is among the top technology companies seeking to build key components of the Golden Dome.
“If Mr Musk were to exercise improper influence over the Golden Dome contract, it would be another example of a disturbing pattern of Mr Musk flouting conflict of interest rules,” the letter says.
How did China and Russia – the US’s biggest rivals – react?
The US sees a growing threat from China and Russia, its main adversaries.
Over the past decades, China has greatly advanced its ballistic and hypersonic missile technology, while Moscow boasts one of the most advanced intercontinental-range missile systems in the world. Russia and the US have amassed the largest arsenals of nuclear warheads worldwide.
The threat of drones has also grown amid advancements in technology.
China denounced the Golden Dome as a threat to international security and accused the US of prompting an arms race.
“The United States puts its own interests first and is obsessed with seeking its own absolute security, which violates the principle that no country’s security should come at the expense of others,” Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Mao Ning said at a regular briefing.
“(The plan) heightens the risk of space becoming a battlefield, fuels an arms race, and undermines international security,” he said.
The Kremlin said the Golden Dome missile shield plan was a “sovereign matter” for the US.
“This is a sovereign matter for the United States. If the United States believes that there is a missile threat, then of course it will develop a missile defence system,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters, including AFP, on Wednesday.
“That is what all countries do,” he added.
“Of course, in the foreseeable future, the course of events will require the resumption of contacts to restore strategic stability,” he said.
The UK has suspended trade talks, while France and Canada have threatened action if Israel continues to starve and bomb Palestinians in Gaza. So, is the tide turning on foreign support for Israel, or is this all just PR? Soraya Lennie takes a look.
A former leading Ukrainian official has been shot dead outside an American school in the Spanish capital Madrid, reports say.
The 51-year-old man, named by Ukrainian and Spanish sources as Andriy Portnov, had just dropped his children off at the school in the Pozuelo de Alarcón area of the city, reports say.
At least one unidentified attacker fired several shots at the victim before fleeing into a wooded area in a nearby public park, Spanish reports said.
He had previously been an MP in Yulia Tymoshenko’s governing party.
He left Ukraine after the revolution only to return in 2019 after Volodymyr Zelensky was elected president.
He then left Ukraine again, and in 2021 was sanctioned by the US Treasury, which said he had been “widely known as a court fixer” who had taken steps to control the judiciary and undermine reform efforts.
The European Union had earlier imposed sanctions on Portnov, but he challenged the move in court and won the case.
It was not clear who was behind the shooting that took place at about 09:15 local time (07:15 GMT) on Wednesday, reportedly as children were still entering the school.
Police drones and a helicopter searched the area for a gunman who, according to witnesses, was a thin man in a blue tracksuit. Spanish reports suggested the gunman may have had at least one accomplice riding on a motorbike.
A similar gun attack took place in 2018, when a Colombian drug trafficker was fatally shot outside a British Council school a few kilometres away.
But the motive behind Wednesday’s attack is not yet known. Emergency services at the scene could only confirm that that Portnov had suffered several bullet wounds in the back and the head.
Portnov’s black Mercedes car was cordoned off and the school wrote to parents to confirm that all the students inside were safe.
Although Ukraine’s intelligence services have been linked to several killings in Russia and occupied areas of Ukraine, a fatal attack in Spain in February last year was linked to Russian hitmen.
The victim, a Russian helicopter pilot, was shot dead near Alicante, months after defecting to Ukraine.
Authorities in Kyiv said they had offered to protect Maxim Kuzminov in Ukraine, but he is believed to have moved to Spain’s south-east coast under a false identity.
A large farm stretches across the uneven terrain of Bauchi State in northeastern Nigeria, where even motorcycles struggle to navigate the rugged countryside. The land is parched, and the air carries a sense of endurance—of people surviving, not living. This place, Gonar Abacha, is no longer just a farmland; it is a refuge and a wound.
Now known as Garin Shuwa, it serves as a displacement camp, named after the Shuwa Arab community, which makes up most of its residents. Sitting at the foot of Bauchi’s rocky hills, the camp sprawls in fragile huts made of sticks and thatch, where displaced families live with little support, waiting for help that feels farther away each day.
This is where Imam Abdulkarim, a middle-aged man, and his family found shelter after Boko Haram terrorists forced them to flee their home in Kachan Shuwa, a village in Marte Local Government Area of Borno State, about eight years ago.
Before arriving here, they had tasted the ups and downs of life in an internally displaced persons (IDPs) camp in Maiduguri, the Borno State capital. The overcrowding and hardships eventually compelled Abdulkarim and his family to seek an alternative. With the support of the country’s former First Lady, Maryam Abacha, they were offered this land as a temporary, unofficial residence. That was how they came to settle in Garin Shuwa and began farming on borrowed land.
“We are between 600 and 700 people, and you can find many different stories, but we were all affected by Boko Haram violence,” he told HumAngle. “Among us there are widows, orphans, and those who have lost their relatives. It’s a large community of victims, but we are now surviving as a big family here.”
But there is a problem.
There is no school for the children at Garin Shuwa. No clinic, market, or even a small centre for basic relief. A mosque built recently through community donations is the only structure with a semblance of permanence.
Abdulkarim has learned not to expect too much.
“School is not our biggest problem,” he said. “We have a small madrasa (school) where children recite the Qur’an. What we need, what we truly need, is clean water and a clinic. Just a place to take our sick ones without watching them die slowly.”
“If a woman wants to give birth, she must travel to the town. But the road… even motorcycle riders fear it,” he added. According to Abdulkarim, several women have died due to this. Their babies did not survive. And for years, nothing has changed.
The road from Gonar Abacha to Bauchi town stretches barely 15 kilometres, yet the journey can take over an hour. During the rainy season, it dissolves into mud, swallowing bikes and bodies alike. Women in labour sometimes begin the journey with prayer, knowing the odds stacked against them.
And yet, they stay. Not out of love for this place, but because they have nowhere else to go.
Imam Abdulkarim is one of the leaders at the IDP camp. Photo: Aliyu Dahiru/HumAngle
A few metres from where we stood with Abdulkarim, a group of women gathered around a well, lowering water into its shadowy mouth. The well is deep, painfully so, but they are exhausting their energy to fetch the water because they have nowhere else to go.
Fatima Ibrahim, a young widow whose husband was killed by Boko Haram terrorists, wiped the sweat from her brow and spoke without lifting her gaze. “This is all we have,” she said. “This single well serves the whole camp: for drinking, cooking, washing, even bathing.”
She said it gets worse when the dry season comes. The well runs empty, and then they need to start walking again, like before, searching for water like refugees in their refuge.
Women are fetching water from the only water source at the IDP camp. Photo: Aliyu Dahiru/HumAngle
Two boreholes were once dug in the camp by a local politician and a government agency, “but all of them have stopped working,” Abdulkarim said, showing the location of abandoned taps that had long not been used.
Different location, same problem
Bauchi is not alone in this quiet devastation. Hundreds of kilometres away, the story is the same as that of Katsina State in northwestern Nigeria.
Many women gathered around the house of Dahiru Mangal, a Nigerian businessman and founder of Max Air, a local airline. They are not city beggars by origin. They are displaced women, survivors of attacks too terrifying to forget, from villages devastated by terrorist attacks: Batsari, Faskari, Dandume, Jibia, and many more. Violence chased them away from their homes, but hunger kept them on the streets.
“I never imagined my children would sleep like this,” says Rabi Ado, a mother of four from Faskari who fled home with her family. Despite her younger age, Rabi’s face shows every sign of hardship: hollow cheeks, sunken eyes, and cracked skin.
In the night, Rabi and many other displaced families sleep under the open sky, spreading their mats on bare ground, with only thin wrappers to shield them from the cold night.
“We ran from the terrorists,” she said. “They came in the night, shot our neighbours, and burnt our house. We walked for days and then got into a car. When we got here, we had nothing.”
Behind Mangal’s compound, a local philanthropy serves food to the displaced. It is a slight relief, given in dignity, but never enough. “It’s first come, first served,” said Hauwa, a young woman who arrived with her grandmother. “Sometimes we get food, sometimes we don’t. And we have to look for something.”.
Large numbers of displaced women were collecting food from a local philanthropy. Photo: Aliyu Dahiru/HumAngle
Aside from begging, some women turn to petty trading, selling second-hand items to make ends meet. It is a small market of old goods, clothes, utensils, mats, shoes, and everyday items that they could never afford to buy new.
Children, especially young girls, join their mothers on the streets, and others go alone. They beg from shop owners and passing motorists, often returning with just enough for a sachet of water. The boys beg, too; others run errands, or sift through rubbish bins in search of scraps of food.
Young boys sharing the little food they found. Photo: Aliyu Dahiru/HumAngle
The biggest problem is that these families have never witnessed government support, especially with the continued humanitarian aid cuts.
They have become invisible in the very state that promised them refuge. There is no shelter, no IDP camp registration, and no aid agency monitoring their condition. The streets are both their home and their shame.
“Even if someone wants to help,” said Talatu Habibu, an elderly woman, “they don’t know we are here. We are not on any list. No government official has come. We are not counted among the displaced.”
Katsina State authorities occasionally promise interventions, such as cash support, resettlement plans, and empowerment programs, but they rarely reach those sleeping under the open skies. And when aid comes, it is often through personal charities, not accountability systems.
“There are many like us,” Talatu told HumAngle. “We are multiplying. When more villages are attacked, they come here too. This place is turning into another camp, but no one calls it one.”
Several women interviewed said several people have come promising support, but they don’t see it. “They come and tell us that they are from the government or Abuja, ask us about how we live, promise support, go, and never come back,” Talatu explained.
The IDPs have learned not to trust the government, local NGOs, or people who appear as philanthropists, even journalists.
“They were told that when journalists interview them, they get money when the story gets published,” said Aminu, a local fixer for HumAngle. This climate of abandonment and broken promises has silenced many women who refused to speak to the press. “They are tired,” Aminu explained. “And I don’t blame them.”
‘We are all back to square one’
Lack of support defines the two IDP camps in Bauchi, Katsina, and several other communities in the country. In Gonar Abacha, Abdulkarim recalls when USAID, working through a local NGO, used to conduct medical outreach to their camp. “Nurses used to come, check women, and give them medicine,” he said. “The last time was, I think, some months ago. They said they would come back again, but they never did.”
There are over 60,000 documented IDPs in Bauchi. Many have received some support from the State Emergency Management Agency (SEMA) and the North-East Development Commission (NEDC), but others remain completely unaided. Abdulhamid Sulaiman, the deputy chairman of the Bauchi IDP communities, explained the situation.
“For those within the IDP communities, they have gotten some support that includes foodstuffs, but the main support we receive from NGOs has been stopped,” he said.
Abdulhamid Sulaiman, a leader in the Bauchi IDP communities. Photo: Aliyu Dahiru/HumAngle
The suspension of USAID-supported programmes has deepened the humanitarian crisis across the Northeast. Several local NGOs, previously dependent on USAID funding, have ceased operations. “We used to get small grants to train women on hygiene, to teach children how to read,” said Aliya Muhammad, formerly with a Bauchi-based NGO. “Now we are all back to square one.”
Humanitarian bodies working in northeastern Nigeria confirm that USAID’s pullback has negatively affected the delivery of essential services. According to surveys in the region, most local organisations relied heavily on USAID, and its withdrawal has crippled their ability to function.
A staff member of SEMA in Bauchi, who pleaded anonymity because he was not authorised to speak, told HumAngle that there is a huge crisis in the activities of SEMA, making it difficult to achieve its plans, especially in the areas of WASH.
“The issue is, SEMA doesn’t rely on any local or foreign NGO for funding. The real problem is that some of the activities that SEMA covers are supported by local NGOs, which rely on donors. As they stop working, the problem increases for us, and it’s difficult or even impossible to solve all of them,” he said.
In Katsina, the situation is even more dire.
Over 250,000 IDPs are spread throughout the state. While those in Bauchi get some support, they don’t even think of getting any in Katsina. “If you are not in an official camp,” said Jamilu Muhammad, a volunteer aid worker in Katsina, “you don’t get counted. And if you’re not counted, you don’t get help.”
In this informal camp, children are the worst hit. The thought of taking them to school sounds like a privilege. “Some of our children used to go to school back in the village,” said Aisha, a mother holding an underweight baby. “But now, they need food first. Survival comes before anything.”
While street begging in northern Nigeria has long been associated with Almajiri boys in Qur’anic schools, a troubling trend is emerging in Katsina: the rising number of girl beggars. Unlike their male counterparts, these girls are not in any structured learning environment. They have no mentors, no protection, and no sense of direction.
There’s a rise in young girls begging on the streets of Katsina State. Photo: Aliyu Dahiru/HumAngle
HumAngle met girls between the ages of six and ten, wandering markets, mosques, and public spaces with begging bowls in hand. They are visibly malnourished, uneducated, and unguarded. Their parents, displaced by terrorist violence in places like Kankara and Jibia, are too overwhelmed to offer more than basic survival.
The girls said they are the daughters of the IDPs who fled their homes in places like Kankara and Jibia in Katsina State due to terrorist violence. With no schools to attend and no safe spaces to grow, they are forced to contribute to their families’ survival through street begging.
This growing population of girl beggars presents alarming risks. Beyond the obvious deprivation, they face threats of abuse, harassment, and trafficking. Their visibility in public spaces without guardianship or protection leaves them particularly vulnerable to gender-based violence.
As the international community scales back aid and state capacity remains stretched, girls in IDP families are becoming invisible casualties of a system that overlooks their specific needs. “Without urgent intervention, a generation of girls is at risk of growing up in trauma and perpetual poverty,” an aid worker who simply identified as Aliya said.
