logo
Tech billionaire Palmer Luckey wants to remake the U.S. military with autonomous weapons

Tech billionaire Palmer Luckey wants to remake the U.S. military with autonomous weapons

CBS News18-05-2025

Palmer Luckey on making autonomous weapons for the U.S. and its allies | 60 Minutes
People thought flip flop- and Hawaiian shirt-wearing tech billionaire Palmer Luckey, 32, was nuts when he launched defense products startup Anduril Industries.
There hadn't been a new company in the defense industry in any significant way since the end of the Cold War, but Luckey had his own vision for the future of warfare: one with autonomous, AI-powered weapons and a different business model than the five "prime" defense contractors in the U.S.
"I've always said that we need to transition from being the world police to being the world gun store," he said.
Who is Palmer Luckey?
Luckey made his billions young. He grew up fascinated by electronics and spent a lot of time tinkering in his parents' Long Beach, California, garage.
By age 19, that tinkering turned into virtual reality company Oculus. Luckey sold it to Facebook for $2 billion in 2014, but was fired by Facebook two years later.
Palmer Luckey
60 Minutes
"Everyone's got a different story, but it boils down to I gave $9,000 to a political group that was for Donald Trump and against Hillary Clinton," Luckey said. "To be a Trump supporter in 2016, you know, this was at the height of the election insanity and derangement in Silicon Valley. And so I think that a lot of people thought back then that you could just fire a Trump supporter."
Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, who attended President Trump's most recent inauguration, has denied that Luckey was fired for his political views.
In 2017, Luckey says he left Silicon Valley, with hundreds of millions of dollars in the bank and a chip on his shoulder.
"My gears were ground," he said. "I really wanted to prove that I was somebody, that I was not a one-hit wonder, and that I still had it in me to do big things."
Luckey says he thought about starting companies to combat obesity or fix the prison system, but ultimately decided to break into the defense industry.
"Everyone in the military has seen 'James Bond' movies and they all like Q," Luckey said. "I'm the wacky gadget man. I'm the guy who types on the computer and pushes up my glasses, and then gives them a strange thing to help them accomplish their mission."
What Luckey sees as the future of warfare
For decades, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Raytheon, General Dynamics and Northrop Grumman have dominated the defense industry. Typically, the companies present an idea to the Pentagon. If the Pentagon buys it, the government pays for the company to develop it, even if it goes over budget or over schedule.
Luckey started Anduril to flip that procurement structure on its head.
"The idea behind Anduril was to build not a defense contractor, but a defense products company," he said.
The difference, he explains, is that contractors are paid to do the work whether or not it succeeds.
"A products company has a very different mentality. You're putting in your own money. You're putting in your own time," Luckey said.
His vision was to show up with a working product, not with a presentation describing how taxpayers would foot his bills for developing a product.
Palmer Luckey and Sharyn Alfonsi
60 Minutes
Luckey argues a lack of innovation in the defense sector means a Tesla has better AI than any U.S. aircraft and a Roomba vacuum has better autonomy than most of the Pentagon's weapons systems. He wants to change that.
Part of Luckey's philosophy is that autonomous weapons ultimately promote peace by scaring adversaries away.
"My position has been that the United States needs to arm our allies and partners around the world so that they can be prickly porcupines that nobody wants to step on, nobody wants to bite them," he said.
Luckey does not believe the U.S. should be sending its military to other countries. Instead, he says, American-made products should go overseas.
"I think that that's one of the reasons that autonomy is so powerful. Right now there are so many weapon systems that require manning," he said. "You know, if I can have one guy command and controlling 100 aircraft, that's a lot easier than having to have a pilot in every single one. And it puts a lot fewer American lives at risk."
"Autonomy" does not mean remote controlled; once an autonomous weapon is programmed and given a task, it can use artificial intelligence for surveillance or to identify, select and engage targets. No operator needed.
What Anduril is making
Luckey's approach seems to be working for Anduril. The company says it will have secured more than $6 billion in government contracts worldwide by the end of the year. Some of Anduril's systems are already being used by the U.S. military and in the war in Ukraine.
Right now, Anduril is working on the Roadrunner: a twin turbo-jet powered drone interceptor that can take off, identify and strike a drone. If it doesn't find a target, it can land and try again.
Anduril also makes headsets that allow soldiers to see 360 degrees in combat. And there's an electromagnetic warfare system that can be programmed to jam enemy systems, knocking out drone swarms.
The weapons can be synchronized on Anduril's AI platform, Lattice, Luckey said. The platform collects data from various sensors and sources — including satellites, drones, radar and cameras — allowing the AI to analyze, move assets and execute missions faster than a human.
"It's the AI onboard all these weapons that makes it possible to make it so easy," he said.
The largest weapon in Anduril's arsenal, a submarine called the Dive XL, works autonomously. A version 60 Minutes saw is the size of a school bus.
"It's not remote-controlled by this computer," Luckey said. "It's doing it on the brain, on the submarine itself. So if I told it to go off and perform some mission that's monthslong, like, 'Go to this target, listen for this particular signature, and if you see this signature, run; if you see this one, hide; if you see this one, follow it,' it could do that all on its own without being detected, without communicating with it."
Anduril says the Dive XL can travel 1,000 miles fully submerged. Australia has invested $58 million in the subs to help defend its seas from China.
Fury
60 Minutes
Anduril's most anticipated weapon, an unmanned fighter jet called Fury, has no cockpit, stick or rudder because there's no pilot.
"The idea is that you're building a robotic fighter jet that is, you know, flying with manned fighters and is doing what you ask it to do, recommending things be done, taking risks that you don't want human pilots to take," Luckey said.
Fury represents a big turning point for the company. Anduril was viewed by some inside the defense industry as a "tech-bro" startup until it beat out several of the prime defense contractors to make an unmanned fighter jet for the Air Force.
Fury is scheduled to take its first test flight this summer. If the Pentagon awards Anduril a production contract for Fury it, like all of the company's products, will be made in the U.S.
The ethics of autonomous weapons
The secretary general of the United Nations has called lethal autonomous weapons "politically unacceptable and morally repugnant." Some international groups have referred to lethal autonomous weapons as killer robots.
"If I am gonna argue with them, I usually poke it," Luckey said. "I'm like, 'OK, so do you think that NATO should be armed with squirt guns or slingshots?'"
Luckey notes that all of Anduril's weapons have a "kill switch" that allows a human operator to intervene if needed. And while some find the idea of autonomous weapons scary, Luckey argues they're less scary than weapons systems without any level of intelligence.
"There's no moral high ground to making a land mine that can't tell the difference between a school bus full of children and Russian armor," he said. "It's not a question between smart weapons and no weapons. It's a question between smart weapons and dumb weapons."
As with many AI systems, some people also worry about what happens if artificial intelligence goes rogue.
"I would say that it is something to be aware of. But in the grand scheme of things, things to be afraid of, there's things that I'm much more terrified of," Luckey said. "I'm a lot more worried about evil people with mediocre advances in technology than AI deciding that it's gonna wipe us all out."

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

PG&E restarts huge grid battery following Moss Landing fire next door
PG&E restarts huge grid battery following Moss Landing fire next door

Yahoo

time26 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

PG&E restarts huge grid battery following Moss Landing fire next door

One of the biggest grid batteries in California has resumed operations following the cataclysmic Moss Landing fire in January. The San Francisco Bay Area's power grid used to draw on two battery storage plants in the quiet seaside town of Moss Landing. Texas-based power company Vistra built the nation's largest standalone grid battery on the grounds of an old gas power plant there, and utility Pacific Gas and Electric Co. built and owns the Elkhorn project next door. A roaring fire engulfed Vistra's historic turbine hall in January, wrecking rows of lithium-ion batteries that delivered 300 megawatts of instantaneous grid power. That site is still in shambles. PG&E's battery plant suffered far less disruption: Hot ash blew over the fenceline from Vistra's property, posing an environmental hazard and potentially clogging batteries' thermal management systems. But after several months of remediation, cleaning, and testing, PG&E was able to flip the switch Sunday to reconnect Elkhorn to the grid. That timing proved fortuitous, as it restored 182.5 megawatts/730 megawatt-hours of storage capacity into the power-hungry Silicon Valley grid corridor right before the region's first major heat wave of the summer. 'The concern was lower in the winter months, with demand lower,' said Dave Gabbard, vice president of power generation at PG&E. 'It will be critical to have assets like Elkhorn available as we get into the peak summer months.' Indeed, California has been building grid batteries at a record pace, to store the state's nation-leading solar generation and deliver it during crucial hours, like after sunset. The tech is displacing some gas-fired power generation in the state. California's battery fleet passed 15.7 gigawatts installed per a May tally, which Gov. Gavin Newsom's office touted as 'an unprecedented milestone.' The governor, a Democrat, did not specify why the 15.7-GW threshold merits particular attention, but it does mean California has added more than 5 GW since it crossed the 10-GW mark a year prior. 'The pace of construction for large-scale energy storage in California is phenomenal, the kind of accomplishment that was beyond our wildest dreams a few years ago,' said Scott Murtishaw, executive director of the California Energy Storage Alliance. The state's battery buildout is plowing ahead. But Vistra's fiery failure sparked deep community concerns about battery safety in California and beyond, as Moss Landing residents were forced to evacuate for several days and plumes of smoke loomed over surrounding estuaries and farmlands. In April, Vistra rescinded an application to build a 600-MW battery in Morro Bay, two hours down the coast from Moss Landing, following significant local resistance that intensified after the January fire. The reset at Elkhorn has rekindled concerns among community leaders who are still grappling with the fallout from the largest-ever battery fire in the U.S., and quite possibly the world. The Monterey County Board of Supervisors had asked to keep both battery plants offline until the Vistra investigation was completed and acted upon. 'Restarting operations before investigations are complete and before stronger emergency protocols are in place is disappointing and deeply troubling,' Monterey County Supervisor Glenn Church posted on Facebook after learning of PG&E's plans in early May. Crucially, PG&E's battery layout, completed in 2022, mitigates the hazards that took out the neighboring Vistra plant, which was completed two years earlier. Officials have not yet pinpointed the cause of Vistra's fire, but it became so destructive because it spread through the densely packed rows of batteries in the old turbine hall, igniting more and more fuel as it grew. By contrast, PG&E's Elkhorn plant spans 256 individual Tesla Megapack containers spaced over the property. 'We have a completely different design,' Gabbard said. 'We have compartmentalized our design so that fire propagation won't occur to adjacent units.' That industry-wide preference for separate, containerized systems doesn't eliminate the chance of battery fires, but it does limit the potential severity. One container might burn, but the fire can't reach all the other batteries. A fire could knock a facility offline temporarily, but it would only eliminate a small percentage of its capacity, Murtishaw said. That stands in contrast to Moss Landing's failure, or the all-or-nothing issues that can occur when a gas-burning turbine malfunctions. 'The technology and standards have changed considerably since the first big batteries,' like Vistra's, Murtishaw said. 'Facilities coming online now are being constructed with newer technologies meeting newer standards. Risk of runaway incidents has decreased dramatically relative to the amount of storage being deployed.' That compartmentalization strategy worked out when Elkhorn suffered its own battery fire in 2022 — the result of water seeping into a unit through an improperly installed roof, Gabbard said. The single unit burned in a contained fashion and did not spread to any other batteries. PG&E restarted the facility three months later, after implementing recommendations from an independent investigation into the cause. Since that incident, PG&E installed air quality monitoring onsite, and heat-sensing cameras that can automatically disconnect the site from the broader grid if they detect fire, Gabbard said. It also upgraded the battery enclosures to automatically discharge stored energy if abnormal behavior is detected. PG&E additionally updated its emergency action plan and instituted annual exercises with the North County Fire Protection District. When Vistra's plant burned up in January, the Elkhorn cameras spotted it and automatically severed the connection to the grid, halting the flow of high-voltage power out of the site. PG&E also made the air quality data available to emergency response teams. The utility then kept Elkhorn offline for the subsequent months to allow for environmental remediation of the soot to keep it out of local waterways, Gabbard said. Workers also cleaned the Megapacks 'outside and inside,' he noted. The main concern was that the ash could have intruded into the systems that cool batteries during operations. Staff pressure-washed all those components and tested their functionality to get the site ready for operations. Another 10 gigawatts of storage are already under contract for California's regulated utilities and community choice aggregators over the next four years, Murtishaw said. That would put the state over 25 gigawatts, well on its way to the current goal of 52 gigawatts by 2045, stemming from the state's clean energy law SB 100. To achieve that goal, the Moss Landing calamity needs to remain an outlier event. There's good reason to believe that will be the case. For one thing, the industry has all but abandoned Vistra's strategy of packing huge amounts of batteries into a single building. California now has 214 grid-scale batteries, and only about 10 of them reside in a building, Murtishaw noted. Those are subject to inspection by the California Public Utilities Commission under a recently expanded authority, he added; in the meantime, owners have stepped up safety measures in response to the Moss Landing news. Small-scale batteries in homes and businesses also count for California's top-line storage goal. They depend on the same core battery technologies as the large-scale storage projects, but as mass-produced consumer items, they go through a different gauntlet of tests before they reach customers. 'The home batteries are tested inside and out, up and down — they undergo rigorous safety testing and certification to standards,' said Brad Heavner, executive director of the California Solar and Storage Association, which advocates for rooftop solar and battery installers. In the state Legislature, Sen. John Laird, a Democrat from the Moss Landing area, introduced a bill in March to systematize coordination between battery owners and local emergency responders, and to fix a timing mismatch so California's fire codes match the latest standards set by the National Fire Protection Association. Murtishaw said the California Energy Storage Alliance supports the measure, which passed out of the Senate last week.

New data confirms it: AI is taking human jobs
New data confirms it: AI is taking human jobs

Yahoo

time26 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

New data confirms it: AI is taking human jobs

In March, Shopify's CEO told his managers he was implementing a new rule: Before asking for more head count, they had to prove that AI couldn't do the job as well as a human would. A few weeks later, Duolingo's CEO announced a similar decree and went even further — saying the company would gradually phase out contractors and replace them with AI. The announcements matched what I've been hearing in my own conversations with employers: Because of AI, they are hiring less than before. When I first started reporting on ChatGPT's impact on the labor market, I thought it would take many years for AI to meaningfully reshape the job landscape. But in recent months, I've found myself wondering if the AI revolution has already arrived. To answer that question, I asked Revelio Labs, an analytics provider that aggregates huge reams of workforce data from across the internet, to see if it could tell which jobs are already being replaced by AI. Not in some hypothetical future, but right now — today. Zanele Munyikwa, an economist at Revelio Labs, started by looking at the job descriptions in online postings and identifying the listed responsibilities that AI can already perform or augment. She found that over the past three years, the share of AI-doable tasks in online job postings has declined by 19%. After further analysis, she reached a startling conclusion: The vast majority of the drop took place because companies are hiring fewer people in roles that AI can do. Next, Munyikwa segmented all the occupations into three buckets: those with a lot of AI-doable tasks (high-exposure roles), those with relatively few AI-doable tasks (low-exposure roles), and those in between. Since OpenAI released ChatGPT in 2022, she found, there has been a decline in job openings across the board. But the hiring downturn has been steeper for high-exposure roles (31%) than for low-exposure roles (25%). In short, jobs that AI can perform are disappearing from job boards faster than those that AI can't handle. Which jobs have the most exposure to AI? Those that handle a lot of tech functions: database administrators, IT specialists, information security, and data engineers. The jobs with the lowest exposure to AI, by contrast, are in-person roles like restaurant managers, foremen, and mechanics. This isn't the first analysis to show the early impact of AI on the labor market. In 2023, a group of researchers at Washington University and New York University homed in on a set of professionals who are particularly vulnerable: freelancers in writing-related occupations. After the introduction of ChatGPT, the number of jobs in those fields dropped by 2% on the freelancing platform Upwork — and monthly earnings declined by 5.2%. "In the short term," the researchers wrote, "generative AI reduces overall demand for knowledge workers of all types." At Revelio Labs, Munyikwa is careful about expanding on the implications of her own findings. It's unclear, she says, if AI in its current iteration is actually capable of doing all the white-collar work that employers think it can. It could be that CEOs at companies like Shopify and Duolingo will wake up one day and discover that hiring less for AI-exposed roles was a bad move. Will it affect the quality of the work or the creativity of employees — and, ultimately, the bottom line? The answer will determine how enduring the AI hiring standstill will prove to be in the years ahead. Some companies already appear to be doing an about-face on their AI optimism. Last year, the fintech company Klarna boasted that its investment in artificial intelligence had enabled it to put a freeze on human hiring. An AI assistant, it reported, was doing "the equivalent work of 700 full-time agents." But in recent months, Klarna has changed its tune. It has started hiring human agents again, acknowledging that its AI-driven cost-cutting push led to "lower quality." "It's so critical that you are clear to your customer that there will always be a human," CEO Sebastian Siemiatkowski told Bloomberg. "Really investing in the quality of the human support is the way of the future for us." Will there be more chastened Siemiatkowskis in the months and years ahead? I'm not betting on it. All across tech, chief executives share an almost religious fervor to have fewer employees around — employees who complain and get demotivated and need breaks in all the ways AI doesn't. At the same time, the AI tools at our disposal are getting better and better every month, enabling companies to shed employees. As long as that's the case, I'm not sure white-collar occupations face an optimistic future. Even Siemiatkowski still says he expects to reduce his workforce by another 500 through attrition in the coming year. And when Klarna's technology improves enough, he predicts, he'll be able to downsize at an even faster pace. Asked when that point will come, he replied: "I think it's very likely within 12 months." Aki Ito is a chief correspondent at Business Insider. Read the original article on Business Insider

BarEhud Barak: Israel Must Back Trump's Gaza Deal
BarEhud Barak: Israel Must Back Trump's Gaza Deal

Yahoo

time26 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

BarEhud Barak: Israel Must Back Trump's Gaza Deal

U.S. President Donald Trump greets Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as he arrives at the White House on April 7, 2025, in Washington, D.C. Credit - Alex Wong—Getty Images In the coming few days, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will face a defining choice between a politically motivated "war of deception" in Gaza and a deal to release all hostages while ending the war. He must choose between his extreme-right ministers—Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich—or aligning with Donald Trump. There is no symmetry here. Accepting a hostage deal, ending the war, and working with Trump and free world leaders, won't be effortless. Any choice requires detailed negotiations and compromises. But this path is far superior to any realistic alternative. Based on the achievements of the Israel Defense Forces—including damage to Hamas, weakening Hezbollah, destroying Syria's military arsenal during Assad's collapse, and demonstrating Israel's capability to strike deep into Iran—Israeli leadership could, from a position of strength, pursue releasing all hostages simultaneously, halt this senseless war, end the humanitarian crisis, and uproot Hamas from power. This would enable Israel, though belatedly, to join Trump's vision of a New Middle East, including normalization with Saudi Arabia, regional deployment to tackle the Iranian challenge, and participation in the trade corridor project from India through the Gulf to Europe. Choosing a "war of deception" instead—where misleading propaganda presents political warfare as serving Israel's security—would be a grave mistake. It's highly doubtful that continuing the war could produce results different from previous Gaza rounds over the past 20 months. But it would certainly constitute a death sentence for some or most living hostages and deepen the diplomatic tsunami and International Criminal Court claims Israel already faces. This approach might make sense if it could achieve "total victory" over Hamas, but that won't happen. When this new war inevitably halts—under diplomatic pressure, humanitarian crisis, battlefield events, or domestic political developments—we would find ourselves in precisely the same situation as today. To understand, examine recent history. The October 7th barbaric attack created a compelling imperative for Israel to ensure Hamas could never again reign over Gaza or threaten Israel from there. The question was how to achieve this goal. Since Ben-Gurion, Israel has followed four strategic maxims: wars should be aggressive, fought on enemy territory, ended quickly to translate battlefield results into diplomatic and political realities while maintaining international legitimacy, and—extremely important—never lose the moral high ground. That's how we won in 1967 in six days and 1973 in three weeks. Netanyahu has betrayed almost all these principles. Read More: The Israel-Hamas Ceasefire Was Never Going to Last Another strategic maxim, from Clausewitz to Kissinger, holds that war must have a clearly defined, operationally feasible political purpose. As the Roman saying goes: "If you don't know which port you want to reach, no wind will take you there." This maxim was deliberately ignored. Netanyahu has blocked any discussion of this issue since October 7th, 2023. It was clear to any serious observer that Hamas suffered major military blows daily, losing most weapons systems and leadership figures since October 7th. However, since any Hamas group or individual can easily "disappear" within minutes, hiding among the Strip's 2 million civilians and emerging from tunnels or building windows to attack Israelis, their absolute elimination remains a Sisyphean task. Even after 58 years in the West Bank, we never fully eliminated Hamas' presence in Jenin or Tulkarm. The only way to ensure Hamas cannot reign over Gaza and threaten Israel is by replacing it with another governing entity legitimate to the international community, Arab neighbors like Egypt, UAE, and Saudi Arabia, and Palestinians themselves. Practically, this means a temporary inter-Arab force backed by the Arab League, potentially supported by UN Security Council resolution, funded by Saudi Arabia and UAE, with a technocratic government overseeing Palestinian bureaucracy and a new, non-Hamas security body trained by the inter-Arab force under U.S. supervision. Israel would present only two conditions: no Hamas military branch member could participate in the new entity's organs, and the IDF, initially deployed to the Strip's perimeter, would withdraw to the border only after all pre-agreed security benchmarks are met. This plan, easily implementable a year ago, and appearing to save Gaza and Gazans from further destruction, is harder now, because it could be interpreted as saving Israel from sinking into Gazan mud. But the plan remains viable despite the Israeli government's refusal to consider it. Since this is the only practical "day after" plan, there's no sense sacrificing hostages' lives or endangering Israeli troops in pointless warfare. Who can look into the eyes of future bereaved parents, newly widowed spouses, new orphans, disabled and traumatized soldiers, and claim with clear conscience that everything was done to prevent loss, or that it had justification? As long as Israel rejects hostage release and war's end, the risk increases of international initiatives, including Arab neighbors calling for Israel boycotts and steps toward recognition of a Palestinian state by European countries—many of them stable friends of Israel. Read More: I Am a Former Hamas Hostage. Here's My Message to Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu Permanent occupation of the Gaza Strip, population transfer of 2 million Palestinians, and Israeli resettlement on the that land are base and delusional visions that would backfire and accelerate confrontation with the world. Why is Netanyahu, an intelligent, experienced, savvy politician, failing? The answer isn't simple. Netanyahu has ruled since 2015 through an alliance with ultra-Orthodox parties who don't serve in the army and care only about sectoral needs, and since January 2023 added ultra-right zealots believing Gaza resettlement and Palestinian transfer are heavenly orders. He's caught in a dilemma: 80% of the public sees him as primarily responsible for the country's worst day, 60% believe he should resign. A heavy majority perceives his judicial reform, initiated immediately after January 2023 elections, as a "judicial coup d'état"—an attempt to castrate the legislative branch and demolish Supreme Court independence. Many believe the aim of his blatant attack on democracy is to escape his bribery, fraud, and breach of trust court case. For him, any pause in the war—even 60 days, certainly longer—would immediately bring reckoning and accountability: accelerated court proceedings; demands for national inquiry committee investigating October 7th, and events before, during and after; coalition meltdown; and probable disgraced ejection from public life. I believe Netanyahu genuinely wants all hostages home. But when this clashes with immediate threats to his political survival, he prefers leaving them in Gaza. He has already torpedoed several hostage deal opportunities, and seems to be doing it once again over the weekend, by resisting U.S. guarantee to Hamas for an end to the war in exchange for release of all hostages and entering, together with the Trump Administration, into Trump's New Middle East Order (to include the replacement of Hamas, described above). Netanyahu sticks to his eternal war in order to avoid a pause in fighting, which might lead to the end of his political career. This behavior is unacceptable to Israel and Israelis. We are, as former Supreme Court President Aharon Barak wrote years ago, 'defending democracy' that "should be capable of defending itself against those who try to use the very freedoms and tools it provides to destroy it from within." We're led by someone who lost his strategic and moral compass, dragging the nation into war motivated by personal political interests against our security and common future. Israel urgently needs new, sober leadership with clear realistic vision and self-confidence—leadership capable of reading our people's soul, understanding partners' and rivals' minds, and above all, having courage to make decisions and power to implement them. The world will pass judgment. But the burden of bringing Israel back on track is ours—Israeli citizens. I believe we will overcome. This war will end soon, and Israel's worst ever government will be replaced by a responsible, effective one. A long path of repair must follow. Contact us at letters@

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store