Lawyers representing X Corp. acknowledged in Federal Court that the company contravened Australia’s Online Safety Act after regulators found the platform had failed to adequately respond to a formal request seeking details on its child protection and anti-exploitation processes.

“The respondent admits that it contravened the Act,” Christopher Tran, counsel for the eSafety Commissioner, told the court, adding that the company remained in noncompliance for 38 days.

The case stemmed from a A$610,500 ($437,000) penalty issued in October 2023 against the company formerly known as Twitter after regulators said it provided insufficient responses to approximately 25 questions concerning its systems for detecting and preventing child exploitation material online.

X initially challenged the fine, arguing the company’s corporate identity had changed following Musk’s $44 billion acquisition of Twitter in 2022. Australia’s eSafety Commissioner later launched separate proceedings to recover the unpaid penalty.

Federal Court Judge Michael Wheelahan increased the amount payable to A$650,000 and ordered X to pay an additional A$100,000 toward the regulator’s legal costs.

The ruling marks another legal setback for Musk’s platform in Australia, where the billionaire entrepreneur and the eSafety Commissioner have repeatedly clashed over content moderation, online harms and regulatory oversight.

X lawyer Perry Herzfeld described the matter as relating to “historic issues” surrounding the timing of information supplied to authorities during what he characterized as a period of operational transition within the company.

“The contravening conduct took place during a period of change and transition for the company,” Herzfeld said during proceedings.Tran acknowledged the regulator had not identified direct harm resulting from the delayed disclosures but argued that failure to provide information impeded the regulator’s ability to carry out statutory responsibilities under the Online Safety Act.

The dispute also represented one of the remaining unresolved regulatory matters for X following its integration earlier this year into Musk’s broader technology conglomerate, SpaceX, ahead of a planned public offering.

The three-week trial in federal court in Oakland focused on allegations by Musk that OpenAI abandoned its founding nonprofit mission in pursuit of commercial expansion and investor profits after launching the chatbot ChatGPT in 2022.

Musk, a co-founder of OpenAI who left the organization in 2018, argued that Altman and co-founder Greg Brockman improperly redirected a company originally established to develop artificial intelligence for the public good into a private enterprise valued at an estimated $850 billion.

The lawsuit centers on approximately $38 million in donations Musk said he contributed to sustain OpenAI as a nonprofit research laboratory. His legal team argued during closing statements that the company violated commitments made during its formation by pursuing a for-profit structure and deep commercial partnerships.

“A non-profit devoted to the safe development of artificial intelligence, open sourced as practical, for the benefit of humanity,” Musk attorney Steven Molo told jurors in closing arguments, questioning the credibility of OpenAI leadership.

OpenAI attorney Sarah Eddy rejected those claims and challenged Musk’s account of events, arguing that witness testimony and internal communications contradicted key elements of his case.

Jurors are first expected to determine whether Musk filed the lawsuit within the applicable legal time limit after his final contribution to OpenAI in 2020. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers said the jury’s finding on that issue would be advisory but indicated she was likely to follow its recommendation.

If the case proceeds beyond the statute-of-limitations question, jurors and the court will consider whether OpenAI executives misused Musk’s contributions and breached promises tied to the organization’s nonprofit status.

Musk is seeking an order requiring OpenAI to return to a nonprofit structure, a move that could disrupt the company’s planned public offering and complicate relationships with major investors including microsoft, amazon and softbank, which have collectively committed billions of dollars to the company.

The jury will also examine whether Microsoft, OpenAI’s largest outside backer with roughly $13 billion committed, knowingly supported the company’s transition away from its original nonprofit framework.
The proceedings also revisited Altman’s brief ouster from OpenAI in November 2023, when board members removed him over concerns related to transparency and management practices before reinstating him days later following pressure from employees and investors.

Musk has since expanded his own artificial intelligence ambitions through x.ai⁠ while continuing AI development efforts linked to spacex.

Mérida Sánchez, 66, is the first of 10 current or former Mexican officials indicted by U.S. prosecutors last month to appear before a court. Federal authorities accused him and others of protecting cartel operations and helping move large quantities of narcotics into the United States.

The former security official did not enter a plea during the hearing and was ordered detained pending further proceedings. Court records showed he is scheduled to return to court on June 1. A message seeking comment was left with his lawyer.

Prosecutors charged Mérida Sánchez with narcotics importation conspiracy, possession of machine guns and destructive devices, and conspiracy involving prohibited weapons offenses. If convicted, he faces a potential prison sentence ranging from 40 years to life.

The indictment also named Rubén Rocha Moya and Juan de Dios Gámez Mendívil among the accused officials. Both men announced temporary leaves of absence after the charges were unveiled but have not been taken into custody.

Mexico’s Security Cabinet said on social media that Mérida Sánchez crossed into the United States from Hermosillo, Sonora, on Monday and was detained by the U.S. Marshals Service at the Nogales border crossing in Arizona before being transferred to New York.Mérida Sánchez served as secretary of public security in Sinaloa from September 2023 until resigning in December 2024.

In that role, he oversaw the state police force and senior law enforcement appointments.According to the indictment, Mérida Sánchez received at least $100,000 in monthly cash payments from “Los Chapitos,” a faction of the Sinaloa Cartel led by sons of imprisoned cartel leader Joaquín ‘El Chapo’ Guzmán.

Prosecutors alleged the payments were made in exchange for targeting rival groups and leaking sensitive law enforcement information.Federal authorities said Mérida Sánchez warned cartel members about at least 10 planned raids on drug laboratories and safe houses during 2023, allowing operatives to remove drugs, weapons and personnel before authorities arrived.

Some of the accused officials are affiliated with Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum’s Morena party. Following the indictments, Sheinbaum said Mexico would not shield any official proven to have committed crimes, but argued that any prosecution involving Mexican public officials should occur within Mexico’s judicial system.

Her remarks came amid heightened tensions with U.S. President Donald Trump, who has repeatedly threatened military action against drug cartels operating in Mexico.Mexico’s Foreign Ministry and Security Cabinet said they remain in institutional communication with U.S. authorities under existing bilateral cooperation frameworks.“El Chapo” Guzmán was convicted in the United States in 2019 and sentenced to life imprisonment.

Another senior cartel figure, Ismael ‘El Mayo’ Zambada, pleaded guilty last year to U.S. drug trafficking charges and is scheduled to be sentenced in July.

Anthony James Kazmierczak, 55, pleaded guilty in U.S. District Court to one count of assaulting a United States officer in connection with the Jan. 27 incident, in which prosecutors said he sprayed Omar with apple cider vinegar from a syringe during a public event focused on immigration enforcement policies.

The Justice Department said Kazmierczak acknowledged during a hearing before U.S. District Judge Joan Ericksen that he had planned the assault in advance and acted because he disagreed with Omar’s positions on immigration and federal enforcement actions.

The attack occurred as Omar criticized the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency’s operations in Minnesota and discussed fatal shootings involving federal agents in Minneapolis. Authorities said the liquid sprayed on Omar’s clothing and skin was later confirmed through laboratory analysis to contain acetic acid.

Omar was not injured.Security personnel subdued Kazmierczak after he shouted and gestured toward Omar during the event, according to officials. He was later arrested, while the town hall resumed after a temporary disruption.Omar, a Somali-born Muslim lawmaker who arrived in the United States as a refugee child and became a U.S. citizen in 2000, has frequently been the target of political attacks and threats linked to her outspoken criticism of Republican immigration policies and U.S. foreign policy.

President Donald Trump has repeatedly criticized Omar publicly and on social media, including remarks questioning her place in the United States and calling for punitive action against her. Civil rights advocates and political analysts have warned that increasingly hostile rhetoric directed at elected officials has contributed to a broader rise in political intimidation and violence across the country.

The Justice Department did not immediately disclose a sentencing date. Federal assault charges involving attacks on elected officials can carry prison terms and financial penalties depending on the severity of the offense and intent established by prosecutors.

Judge Dale E. Ho of the Southern District of New York issued an emergency order extending protections that were due to expire on Monday, allowing Yemeni nationals to remain in the United States while a broader legal challenge proceeds.

TPS allows foreign nationals from countries facing war, natural disasters or extraordinary conditions to stay in the United States temporarily, shielding them from deportation and granting work and travel authorization.In his 36-page ruling, Ho said Congress had established a clear legal framework for altering or rescinding TPS protections and criticized former Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem for failing to follow that process.

He also sharply rebuked comments Noem made in December on social media after meeting President Donald Trump, in which she called for a travel ban on countries she said were “flooding our nation with killers, leeches, and entitlement junkies.”“TPS holders from Yemen are not ‘killers, leeches, and entitlement junkies,’” Ho wrote at the beginning of his conclusion, arguing that such rhetoric undermined the humanitarian intent of the law.

The judge cited individual cases including a pregnant woman in Detroit whose unborn child has a congenital heart condition not treatable in Yemen, and a former human rights worker in Brooklyn who said he remained a target of Houthi-aligned militias if returned.Before the ruling, protections for Yemeni refugees were set to end Monday, according to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.

Government figures show 2,810 Yemenis currently hold TPS status, while another 425 have pending applications.The Department of Homeland Security defended the administration’s position, saying TPS was always intended to be temporary and that Secretary Noem had reviewed conditions in Yemen and consulted relevant agencies before determining the country no longer met the legal standard for protected status.

“Temporary means temporary and the final word will not be from activist judges legislating from the bench,” the department said in a statement, adding that allowing Yemeni beneficiaries to remain was “contrary to our national interest.”The Trump administration has moved to terminate TPS protections for nationals from nine countries as part of its broader immigration crackdown, including Haiti, Venezuela and Ethiopia.

Rights advocates welcomed the ruling. Razeen Zaman, director of immigrant rights at the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, said the decision made clear that humanitarian protections should not be transformed into “a deportation pipeline.”Yemen was first designated for TPS in 2015, roughly a year after civil war broke out in the country.

The Obama and Biden administrations repeatedly renewed the designation as fighting, displacement and humanitarian conditions worsened.In 2024, U.S. officials estimated that 2,300 Yemenis were eligible to renew protected status and another 1,700 were newly eligible under the program.

Judge Ho also pointed to recent federal court rulings that allowed migrants from other conflict-hit countries to remain in the United States, signaling broader judicial scrutiny of efforts to narrow humanitarian protections through executive action.

The footage, released by U.S. Attorney for Washington Jeanine Pirro, appears to show suspect Cole Tomas Allen running through a magnetometer checkpoint at the Washington Hilton on Saturday night carrying a long gun before pointing the weapon at a Secret Service agent, who then fired back multiple times.

Authorities said Allen, 31, was injured during the confrontation but was not struck by gunfire. The incident disrupted one of Washington’s highest-profile annual gatherings, attended by journalists, senior administration officials and President Trump.

Prosecutors had earlier stated that a Secret Service officer was struck in the chest by gunfire but protected by a bullet-resistant vest. Questions had emerged over whether the injury resulted from Allen’s weapon or possible friendly fire during the chaos.Pirro said Thursday there was no evidence the officer had been hit by friendly fire.

The video appears to show Allen’s weapon raised toward the officer before the agent discharged his firearm five times. It remains unclear from the footage at what precise moment Allen’s weapon was fired.Allen appeared briefly in federal court on Thursday before U.S. Magistrate Judge Moxila Upadhyaya, where he agreed to remain in custody pending trial. He did not enter a plea.

He was formally charged on Monday with attempted assassination of the president, along with two additional firearms offenses, including discharging a weapon during a crime of violence. He faces up to life in prison if convicted on the attempted assassination charge alone.

Court filings from prosecutors said Allen had taken a photograph of himself in his hotel room minutes before the attack while carrying an ammunition bag, a shoulder holster and a sheathed knife.

Authorities also cited messages they say indicate motive, including one in which Allen referred to himself as a “Friendly Federal Assassin” and expressed grievances related to multiple Trump administration policies. Prosecutors said the evidence pointed to a deliberate attempt to reach the ballroom where Trump was speaking.

Defense lawyers challenged that interpretation, arguing in court papers that the government’s case relies heavily on assumptions about intent and noting that Allen’s writings did not explicitly mention Trump by name.“The government’s evidence of the charged offense the attempted assassination of the president is thus built entirely upon speculation,” defense attorneys wrote.

The nearly six-minute surveillance compilation released by prosecutors includes footage from the day before the attack showing Allen walking repeatedly through a hotel hallway and briefly entering the gym.

At the security checkpoint, the video shows officers dismantling magnetometers and standing nearby when Allen suddenly emerges from a doorway and sprints toward the screening area. Most officers appear caught off guard as he rushes past them.

Only one visible officer appears to draw a weapon before Allen reaches the checkpoint. Pirro identified that officer as the agent who was struck and returned fire.Secret Service Director Sean Curran defended the agency’s handling of security for the event, saying the attack was contained within seconds at the outermost perimeter of a multi-layered protective zone around the president.

“The site was set up perfectly,” Curran said in an interview with Fox News, adding that multiple physical barriers and additional armed officers stood between the checkpoint and the ballroom podium where Trump was seated, approximately 355 feet away.

Allen, from Torrance, California, worked as a part-time tutor for a test preparation company and was also described by authorities as an amateur video game developer.

Musk, a co-founder of OpenAI, is suing the company, Chief Executive Sam Altman, President Greg Brockman and major investor Microsoft, alleging they abandoned OpenAI’s original mission of developing artificial intelligence for the benefit of humanity and instead turned it into a commercial enterprise focused on profit.

“If we make it okay to loot a charity, the entire foundation of charitable giving in America will be destroyed,” Musk told the court on the first day of trial. “That’s my concern.”Musk is seeking $150 billion in damages from OpenAI and Microsoft, with the proceeds directed to OpenAI’s charitable arm. He is also asking the court to require OpenAI to return to nonprofit control and to remove Altman and Brockman from leadership roles, while seeking Altman’s removal from the board.

The lawsuit includes claims of breach of charitable trust and unjust enrichment and could have significant implications for OpenAI’s governance as the company explores a potential initial public offering that Reuters has previously reported could value it near $1 trillion.

OpenAI lawyer Bill Savitt told jurors during opening arguments that Musk had originally supported the idea of turning OpenAI into a for-profit structure and only sued after failing to gain control of the company and later launching his own rival artificial intelligence venture, xAI.Savitt said Musk wanted “the keys to the kingdom” and pursued litigation only after OpenAI rejected his ambitions to lead the company.

“What he cares about is Elon Musk being on top,” Savitt said. “We are here because Mr Musk didn’t get his way.”OpenAI’s legal team argued that its decision in March 2019 to establish a for-profit entity was necessary to secure the computing resources and talent needed to compete with rivals such as Google’s DeepMind artificial intelligence division.

Musk’s lawyer Steven Molo rejected that argument, saying OpenAI’s leadership shifted focus once major investors, including Microsoft, entered the picture.“It wasn’t a vehicle for people to get rich,” Molo said.Before jurors entered the courtroom, U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers warned Musk over his social media activity after OpenAI lawyers raised concerns about his posts on X, where he referred to Altman as “Scam Altman” and accused him of stealing a charity.

Rogers said she was reluctant to impose a gag order but urged Musk to avoid using social media to influence matters outside the courtroom.Musk agreed to reduce his online commentary, as did Altman. Both are expected to testify, along with Microsoft Chief Executive Satya Nadella.

The trial is expected to provide a rare public examination of OpenAI’s evolution from a nonprofit founded in 2015 in Brockman’s apartment into one of the world’s most valuable artificial intelligence companies, currently estimated to be worth more than $850 billion.

Musk testified that his concerns about artificial intelligence safety were central to OpenAI’s founding and intensified after discussions with former U.S. President Barack Obama and with Larry Page, whom he said did not take the risks of advanced AI seriously enough.“We had to have a counterpoint against Google,” Musk said.

OpenAI disputed that characterization, with Savitt telling jurors that Musk had dismissed employees focused on AI safety and that such concerns were not his primary motivation.

Musk has said he contributed about $38 million to OpenAI before leaving its board, later objecting to its restructuring and Microsoft’s multibillion-dollar investment.

Microsoft lawyer Russell Cohen said the company had acted properly throughout its partnership with OpenAI and described it as “a responsible partner every step of the way.”

The divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said the administration was likely to succeed in arguing that the Pentagon’s new credential policy, which requires reporters to be accompanied by escorts inside the building, is legally valid.

The ruling is not a final decision in the lawsuit brought by The New York Times, which challenged the policy as unconstitutional, but it temporarily suspends an April 9 order by U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman that had barred the Defense Department from enforcing the escort requirement.

Friedman had ruled that the Pentagon’s revised credential policy violated journalists’ constitutional rights to free speech and due process, saying Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s team appeared to be attempting to circumvent his earlier March 20 decision ordering the restoration of Pentagon access for reporters.

He said the new rules effectively expelled all journalists from the building unless they were guided by official escorts, undermining the practical ability of the press to report independently.

Circuit Judges Justin Walker, J. Michelle Childs and Bradley Garcia heard the appeal, with Childs dissenting from the 2-1 decision.“Reporters can hardly verify sources, gather information, or speak candidly with Department personnel with an escort looming over their shoulders,” Childs wrote in her dissent.

Defense Department spokesperson Sean Parnell welcomed the panel’s decision and said the Pentagon looked forward to arguing the full merits of the case before the same court.In a statement posted on social media, Parnell said unrestricted access had contributed to the “regular unauthorized disclosure of sensitive and classified national defense information.”

“Since implementing the current access policy, the Department has seen a meaningful reduction in these unauthorized disclosures, which when they occur can endanger the lives of service members, intelligence personnel, and our allies,” he said.Theodore Boutrous, an attorney representing The New York Times, described the appellate ruling as a limited procedural step rather than a judgment on the broader constitutional challenge.

“This is a narrow, preliminary ruling and it casts no doubt on the strength of The Times’s constitutional arguments,” Boutrous said in a statement. “We look forward to defending the full scope of the district court’s rulings in The Times’s favor in this appeal.”The case has become a closely watched test of the balance between national security controls inside the Pentagon and longstanding press access for accredited journalists covering the U.S. military.

President Donald Trump nominated Judge Walker to the appeals court, while President Joe Biden appointed Judges Garcia and Childs. Friedman, the district judge who initially ruled for the newspaper, was appointed by former Democratic President Bill Clinton.

National broadcaster ABC reported that four Australian women and nine of their children and grandchildren departed Roj Camp on Friday, citing the camp’s director, with Syrian authorities transporting them to Damascus to facilitate onward travel to Australia.

The Australian government said it was not involved in the operation and maintained its long-standing policy against actively repatriating individuals from such camps.“The Australian Government is not and will not repatriate people from Syria,” a government spokesperson said in a statement.

The spokesperson added that intelligence and security agencies were continuing to monitor developments closely and were prepared for any Australians who attempted to return independently.

“People in this cohort need to know that if they have committed a crime and if they return to Australia they will be met with the full force of the law,” the statement said.Canberra said its “overriding priority” remained the safety of Australians and the protection of national interests, reflecting ongoing political sensitivity surrounding the possible return of families linked to members of the extremist group Daesh.

Roj Camp, located in northeastern Syria, houses women and children associated with suspected Daesh fighters following the collapse of the group’s territorial control in Iraq and Syria.

The families reported this week are believed to be part of a group of 34 Australians who were unable to leave the camp during a failed repatriation attempt in February, reportedly due to coordination issues involving Syrian authorities.

At the time, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said the government would not provide assistance, using the phrase: “You make your bed, you lie in it,” to describe Canberra’s position.The return of Daesh-linked families has remained highly divisive in Australia, with some lawmakers and security officials warning that repatriation could create long-term domestic security risks.

Humanitarian organizations, however, have argued that women and especially children trapped in the camps face deteriorating living conditions, legal limbo, and prolonged statelessness.In 2023, Save the Children Australia filed legal action on behalf of 11 women and 20 children in Roj Camp, seeking government intervention to secure their return.

Australia’s Federal Court ruled against the group, finding that the government did not exercise legal control over the detainees’ confinement in Syria and therefore was not obligated to repatriate them.

Australia has previously repatriated some women and children from Syrian detention camps under earlier operations, but officials have remained cautious, balancing humanitarian concerns against domestic political and security pressures.

The latest developments suggest that any return of Australian citizens from Roj Camp will likely proceed without direct government facilitation, under close scrutiny from law enforcement and intelligence agencies upon arrival.

Reza Dindar, 44, was arrested in Panama in July at the request of U.S. authorities and transferred to the United States last week. He made an initial appearance in U.S. District Court in Seattle, with arraignment scheduled for May 1, according to officials.

Prosecutors allege that Dindar conspired to violate longstanding U.S. trade sanctions by acquiring military sonar components under false pretenses and rerouting them to Iran. The indictment, unsealed Friday, charges him with conspiracy, smuggling and money laundering.

According to court documents, Dindar operated a company, New Port Sourcing Solutions, based in Xi’an, China, and between 2011 and 2012 arranged the purchase of parts for three military sonar systems from a business in Washington state.

Prosecutors said the transactions were carried out using deceptive practices, including misrepresenting the final destination of the equipment and asserting that no export license was required.

The components, valued at $97,600, were allegedly shipped first to China and then covertly transferred to Iran, in violation of U.S. sanctions imposed in 1995 and reinforced in 2001.Authorities have not disclosed Dindar’s whereabouts in the years between the alleged offenses and his arrest.

His attorney, Farhad Alavi, declined to comment.The case underscores ongoing U.S. enforcement efforts targeting alleged sanctions evasion networks involving dual-use or military-sensitive technologies.

In a separate matter, federal prosecutors said a Los Angeles woman was arrested over the weekend on suspicion of assisting Iran in trafficking weapons to Sudan, though officials said the cases are unrelated.