probe

POPULAR young rapper Luci4 has died, according to his grandparents.

The young musician – best known for his viral hit “BodyPartz” – was just 23 years old.

His grandparents revealed to TMZ that he had died; however, his cause of death remains unknown.

Police have since launched a probe into his sudden death.

The rising star – whose real name was James Dear – passed away at a friend’s home in Los Angeles on February 22.

The Los Angeles County Medical Examiner has since confirmed his death.

HIP HOP TRAGEDY

Rapper Lil Poppa, 25, dies of ‘gunshot wound to head’

GUNNED DOWN

Rapper Lil OT shot dead in shopping mall car park in ‘targeted’ attack

His grandparents told TMZ they felt suspicious about their grandson’s death.

They have alleged his wallet was completely emptied, saying they had recently warned him about the people he was surrounding himself with as his fame grew.

The circumstances around his death remain unclear.

The rapper’s grandparents said they are now waiting for the results of the police investigation.

In a statement, the Los Angeles fire department said it had responded to a medical call at the house around 11.40am.

Sadly, he was already dead when help arrived, so the police were called.

It remains unclear if investigators suspect foul play.

Previously known by other stage names including Axxturel, 4jay, and Plasdu, Luci4 showed an interest in music and digital production at a young age.

His career began with music production, where he created beats and tracks that became popular online.

More recently, he had achieved viral fame through social media platforms including TikTok.

Pioneering the microgenre known online as sigilkore, he shot to fame with hit song “BodyPartz” in 2021.

The song was later recognised as a Gold hit by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA).

He also penned other popular tracks including All Eyez on Me and Kurxxed Emeraldz.

His success led to him signing with Atlantic Records.

His signing was considered a significant milestone for emerging internet-based artists.

It demonstrated the increasing influence of social media in discovering and promoting new talent.

Luci4 founded the collective Jewelxxet – a primary hub for sigilkore.

The genre is defined by dark, lo-fi atmospheres and bitcrushed vocals coupled with occult imagery.

He was popular largely among the underground music community; however, the new wave of experimental rappers including OsamaSon and Che have credited him as one of their influences.

The young rapper still frequently engaged with his fans and the online music community, staying connected with his roots as an online artist.

His death has sent shock waves through the music community, as fans share their grief online in an outpouring of tributes to social media.

“His 2020/21 run will never b forgotten he changed tiktok,” one person said.

Another posted, “That’s insane wtf.”

“Damn. I’ve been actively listening to him since 2021 casually. Was never a super fan but I have six solid songs that get played weekly. It’s always who u least expect. It makes me so sad listening to songs frm dead artists, never thought I would ever get that sentiment w his,” posted a third.

Another mourner said: “RIP TO A KING.”

“He was definitely one of my favorite artists to listen to during covid era,” said another.

Others have said he “really influenced a whole wave of music”, with some even listening to his songs as early as today.

“I was bumping his music so loud earlier today lil did I know he was gon die the same day,” a fan posted.

Brendan Carr, the chair of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in the United States, has confirmed that the agency launched an investigation against ABC’s daytime talk show The View over a recent appearance by a politician.

In comments to reporters on Wednesday, Carr indicated the probe would examine whether The View violated a new interpretation of an “equal time” rule implemented under President Donald Trump.

Fox News had been the first to report on the investigation in early February. The segment in question involves an appearance from Texas state Representative James Talarico, a Democrat who is vying for the US Senate.

The confirmation comes as Carr attempted to shut down claims that the government censored an interview between Talarico and late-night talk show host Stephen Colbert.

“There was no censorship here at all,” Carr said.

“Every single broadcaster in this country has an obligation to be responsible for the programming that they choose to air, and they’re responsible whether it complies with FCC rules or not, and it doesn’t, and those individual broadcasters are also going to have a potential liability.”

The controversy with Colbert likewise stems from the Trump administration’s decision to shift definitions under the “equal time” rule.

What is the ‘equal time’ rule?

The rule is part of section 315 of the 1934 Communications Act. Under that law, if a broadcaster allows one candidate for public office to use its facilities, it is required to “afford equal opportunities” to all other candidates in the same race.

But the law includes exceptions for “bona fide newscasts” and “bona fide news interviews”.

For nearly 20 years, talk shows and late-night comedy programmes were included in those categories.

In January, however, the FCC issued new guidance (PDF) that significantly narrows how it interprets the “bona fide news” exemption. In a memo, it described daytime talk shows and late-night comedy as “entertainment programs” that fall outside the exception.

“The FCC has not been presented with any evidence that the interview portion of any late night or daytime television talk show program on air presently would qualify for the bona fide news exemption,” the memo reads.

The commission also suggested that many such programmes are “motivated by partisan purposes” and are therefore not “bona fide” news.

The new interpretation of the “equal time” rule, the FCC argued, is designed to “ensure that no legally qualified candidate for office is unfairly given less access to the public airwaves than their opponent.”

Controversy with Colbert

That new interpretation came roaring into the spotlight on Monday, after a broadcast of the CBS comedy programme The Late Show with Stephen Colbert.

In one of his opening segments, Colbert alleged that the network lawyers barred him from airing a planned interview that night with Talarico.

“Let’s just call it what it is,” Colbert told his audience. “Donald Trump’s administration wants to silence anyone who says anything bad about Trump on TV, because all Trump does is watch TV. OK? He’s like a toddler with too much screen time.”

Trump has previously criticised both Colbert’s show and The View for what he considers a left-wing slant.

Instead of broadcasting his interview with Talarico on network television, Colbert instead posted the segment on the programme’s YouTube page, where it has gained more than 6 million views as of 3:30pm Eastern Time (20:30 GMT) on Wednesday.

According to Carr, Colbert’s show could have aired the Talarico interview if it had complied with the equal time rule.

That would have involved allowing other candidates in Texas vying for the Senate seat to come on the show. Carr also suggested that another solution could have been to restrict the broadcast in Texas.

But the FCC has continued to face criticisms for its actions. In Tuesday’s broadcast, Colbert addressed the issue a second time.

He read aloud a statement from his broadcast channel that read, in part, that The Late Show “was not prohibited by CBS from broadcasting the interview” and that it was instead “provided legal guidance that the broadcast could trigger the FCC equal-time rule”.

CBS added, in the statement, that Colbert could have invited onto the show Talarico’s rivals, including fellow Democrat Jasmine Crockett.

“I am well aware that we can book other guests,” Colbert responded. “I didn’t need to be presented with that option. I’ve had Jasmine Crockett on my show twice. I could prove that to you, but the network won’t let me show you her picture without including her opponents.”

Colbert has been a vocal critic of CBS’s parent company, Paramount Global, particularly after it settled a lawsuit last year with the Trump administration for $16m in the run-up to a critical merger for which it needed government approval.

Talarico, meanwhile, accused the FCC of censoring his interviews. Nevertheless, on Wednesday, he noted that the uptick in media attention from the scandal has helped him gather donations.

“Our campaign raised $2.5 million in 24 hours after the FCC banned our Colbert interview,” he wrote on social media.

The ‘truth commission’ will interview victims who say they were abused at the sprawling property south of Santa Fe.

Lawmakers in the US state of New Mexico have approved the first fully-fledged investigation into Zorro Ranch, a sprawling property where the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein is alleged to have trafficked and sexually assaulted girls and women.

The legislation, which passed New Mexico’s House of Representatives by a unanimous vote on Monday, forms a bipartisan “truth commission”.

Its four members will seek testimony from victims and local residents about the ranch, located about 55km (34 miles) south of the state capital, Santa Fe.

Members are slated to begin work on Tuesday, with an initial update to be delivered in July and a full report by the end of this year.

The move comes in the wake of the release of more than three million previously unpublicised files related to the disgraced financier, who died by suicide in a New York jail cell in 2019 while awaiting trial on federal sex trafficking charges.

State Representative Melanie Stansbury said in a video posted after the vote that the commission will “help to bring forward a full picture of what happened here in New Mexico”.

“The crimes that were reported to federal and state authorities were never fully investigated,” Stansbury said. The probe seeks to “ensure we have safeguards in place not only to hold those individuals accountable, who were complicit, but to ensure that this can never happen again”.

Epstein bought the 7,600-acre (3075-hectare) property, which included a hilltop mansion and private runway, from former New Mexico Democrat Governor Bruce King in 1993.

Victim advocates say Epstein trafficked and sexually abused girls at the so-called “playboy ranch” as early as 1996, including Virginia Giuffre, the prominent victim who accused Epstein and the disgraced British royal Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor of abuse.

Multiple civil lawsuits specify the ranch as a site of abuse. Epstein’s habit of flying “masseuses” to the property – as well as hiring local massage therapists – was also revealed in the Epstein files as part of a ranch manager’s 2007 testimony to the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Epstein was never charged with crimes related to the site.

“Many of the survivors had experiences in New Mexico, and as we’ve learned, you know, there were local politicians and other people that were aware of what was happening in New Mexico,” said Sigrid McCawley, a lawyer whose law firm has represented hundreds of Epstein survivors.

Yet federal investigators never cast their eye on the property, according to Andrea Romero, a New Mexico state representative who co-sponsored the legislation.

And while New Mexico Attorney General Hector Balderas attempted to kick off a probe in 2019, federal prosecutors asked for it to be put on hold to avoid a “parallel investigation”, he said in a statement.

Epstein “was basically doing anything he wanted in this estate without any accountability whatsoever”, Romero said.

The committee – which will have subpoena power – aims to close that gap by gathering testimony that could be used in future litigation, Romero said. New Mexico’s state attorney general has also allocated a special agent to look into any allegations that arise.

The ranch was sold at a 2023 auction to the family of Don Huffines, a former Republican Texas senator who is now running for Texas state comptroller, the Santa Fe New Mexican media outlet reported. A family spokesperson said they would give investigators “full and complete cooperation”.

CHICAGO — President Bush said Tuesday that he welcomed a Justice Department investigation into whether White House officials illegally disclosed the identity of a CIA agent in an effort to discredit or punish her husband, an administration critic.

Bush also dismissed calls by Democrats for the appointment of a special counsel to look into the matter. Administration critics argued that Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft is too partisan to preside over an impartial investigation.

On a campaign fund-raising trip through the Midwest, Bush said he is “absolutely confident that the Justice Department will do a very good job.”

“I want to know the truth,” Bush said. “If there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated the law, the person will be taken care of.”

The remarks were the president’s first on the burgeoning scandal, which burst into view over the weekend when it was disclosed that the CIA had asked the Justice Department to investigate whether senior administration officials deliberately unmasked a CIA agent married to former diplomat Joseph C. Wilson IV, a critic of Bush’s handling of intelligence before the war in Iraq.

The Justice Department said Tuesday that it was conducting a formal investigation into who leaked the agent’s identity to conservative columnist Robert Novak, an apparent violation of a 1982 law designed to protect intelligence operatives.

The allegations are serious; exposing the identity of a CIA operative is a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison. And the charges have handed Democrats a juicy political opportunity, enabling them to accuse the hawkish Bush administration of playing fast and loose with national security.

In the Senate, a resolution sponsored by about two dozen Democrats was introduced Tuesday calling for a “fair, thorough and independent investigation into a national security breach.”

Democrats took to the Senate floor to liken the leak to President Richard Nixon’s enemies list and to “kneecapping” the CIA agent in retaliation for her husband’s criticism of the administration’s policies.

“This is not just a leak; this is a crime, plain and simple,” Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) said.

The politically charged nature of the case was underscored Tuesday when Wilson, who has portrayed himself as defending the CIA career of his wife, Valerie Plame, confirmed on CNBC that he has been in contact with a number of Democratic campaigns, in particular that of Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.). Wilson said he had donated money to Kerry’s presidential campaign and is considering endorsing him, although he said he also had contributed to the Bush-Cheney campaign in 2000.

Wilson has agreed to meet today with Democrats on Capitol Hill.

Justice officials said they weren’t ruling out the possibility of acceding to the demands for a special counsel. Some former prosecutors said they believed the facts of the case were so murky that appointing a special counsel seemed premature.

For now, the politically delicate task falls to a low-profile group of Justice professionals. The team is headed up by John Dion, chief of the counterespionage section of the department’s criminal section, a 20-year spy catcher who has won department awards during Republican and Democratic administrations for his work investigating turncoats and security breaches.

“John is a very aggressive prosecutor who will call it as he sees it,” said Eric Dubelier, a Washington lawyer and former federal prosecutor who worked with Dion several years ago. “He will make a decision based on the facts and the law. Then, the question will be, ‘Who is the final arbiter?’ ”

But some members of Congress said there was already evidence that the investigation was going off-track.

They cite a heads-up the Justice Department gave the White House on Monday night that it had decided to launch a formal investigation, and that it would be sending out a letter Tuesday morning explaining which documents it wanted preserved.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan said the White House counsel’s office asked whether staff should be notified immediately; the Justice officials said it could wait until the next morning.

McClellan rebuffed a question asking whether the evening phone call could be seen as advance warning, calling it a “silly suggestion.”

Schumer said the notice created an opportunity for mischief, essentially giving White House staff an opportunity overnight to destroy evidence.

“If there were a special counsel, it is extremely doubtful that the White House would have been allowed to delay the request to preserve documents and other evidence,” Schumer said. “After all, every good prosecutor knows that any delay could give a culprit time to destroy the evidence.”

Legal experts said the White House probably was already obliged under the law to preserve documents, given the widespread publicity the case had generated over the weekend. Others said they thought the White House should have acted more aggressively in ensuring that the documents be preserved.

“I think a conscientious lawyer would have done it immediately. We are not dealing with a rural D.A.’s office,” said Stephen Gillers, a legal ethics specialist at New York University law school. Gillers said he thought that White House counsel Alberto Gonzales’ own preservation order was “incredibly vague” and might have confused some employees.

Later Tuesday, Gonzalez expanded his notification to White House staff members by specifying that they preserve records of any contacts with members of the news media, including columnist Novak and Newsday reporters Tim Phelps and Knut Royce.

Phelps and Royce were apparently named because a story they wrote about Novak’s column in July disclosed that Plame was an undercover operative, which Novak’s column didn’t say.

Their story also quoted Novak as saying that an administration official had sought him out with the information about Plame. Novak now tells it differently, saying that the information emerged in an interview that he requested with the administration official. The Newsday account suggests a more aggressive role by the unidentified leaker.

Under Justice Department regulations, Ashcroft has full discretion in whether to appoint a special counsel, unlike the post-Watergate independent counsel statute, which ascribed that authority to a panel of judges. Congress allowed the counsel statute to expire in 1999 amid recriminations over the expense and scope of the Whitewater investigations.

In its place, then-Atty. Gen. Janet Reno enacted guidelines for when the department should veer from its normal rules in cases where officials have conflicts of interest. Those rules remain in effect.

“The attorney general is absolutely free to structure any special investigative appointment within the Department of Justice that he wishes. That has been done repeatedly as needed throughout history,” said John Barrett, a law professor at St. John’s University law school in New York, and a former member of the independent counsel team that investigated the Iran-Contra affair during the Reagan administration.

Ashcroft himself has exercised the prerogative, setting up a special task force to scrutinize Enron after recusing himself from the investigation because he had once taken campaign contributions from the fallen energy trader.

Barrett said even if the independent counsel law were still in effect, the investigation would be going through a sorting-out process, trying to zero in on suspects, before deciding whether a conflict existed warranting an outside prosecutor.

“Even in the independent counsel model, the preliminary work was to be done by the Department of Justice. Someone has to do the initial spade work,” he said.

On Capitol Hill, such legal distinctions were buried under political rhetoric from both sides.

“If we need an independent counsel to investigate a private real estate deal,” said Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.), referring to the independent counsel investigation into President Bill Clinton’s and Hillary Rodham Clinton’s Whitewater land venture, “certainly a breach of national security deserves the same level of scrutiny.”

California Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, both Democrats, were among those supporting calls for an outside counsel. Feinstein, a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said in a statement: “Clearly, a well-respected special counsel from the outside — Democrat or Republican — is the only option to ensure a fair and thorough investigation that will have the confidence of the American people.”

But House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) said of the Democrats’ call for a special counsel: “Surprise, surprise.”

DeLay said the appointment of a special counsel “makes no sense.”

“You have special counsels if you think the administration is trying to cover up or obstruct justice,” he said. “The White House is very upset about this … They’re trying to get to the bottom of this.”

Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) ridiculed Democrats’ call for an outside counsel, noting they were among critics of the independent counsel statute in the past.

“We killed the independent counsel because it was used for politics by both sides of the aisle,” Santorum said.

Times staff writer Richard Simon in Washington contributed to this report. Reynolds reported from Chicago and Schmitt from Washington.

MYSTERY DNA found inside Nancy Guthrie’s home does not belong to anyone “close” to her, it has been confirmed.

The unidentified DNA, which was found on the missing 84-year-old woman’s Tucson, Arizona, property is a focus of the investigation, Pima County Sheriff Chris Nanos said.

Despite the breakthrough, the sheriff issued a devastating update on the case.

He did not explain where the DNA was found in the home.

Questioned on whether authorities believe they are close to finding Guthrie, Nanos said: “Some of these cases take months, some take years.”

Guthrie, the mom of “Today” show anchor Savannah Guthrie, has been missing since February 1.

BEHIND THE MASK

Ex-FBI agent breaks down ‘homeless’ theory clues from Nancy Guthrie footage

HUNT HITS HURDLES

Trump reveals reason Nancy Guthrie search was NOT taken over by the FBI

Authorities are currently working with their contracted forensic lab in Florida to analyse the biological evidence.

Nanos pushed back on criticism over evidence handling, saying the decision to send biological evidence to the Florida lab reflects long-standing procedures.

Local investigators have been accused of blocking the FBI from accessing key physical evidence.

Nanos also clarified that a glove believed to be potential evidence was not found at Guthrie’s home but discovered about two miles away.

Despite the ongoing investigation, Nanos stressed the search remains a rescue effort.

“They all have hope and belief that this is a rescue mission”, he said.

The Pima County Sheriff’s Department has allegedly already spent around $200,000 on processing evidence with the Florida lab, with which the department contracts.

It comes after federal agents released new details about the suspect from the doorbell surveillance footage.

“This updated description will concentrate the public tips we are receiving,” investigators said after over 13,000 tips were called in since Guthrie went missing.

The terrifying footage captured an armed intruder wearing thick gloves, pacing around Nancy’s front porch the night she was taken and trying to disable her doorbell camera.

It fueled theories surrounding her disappearance, including whether the individual was acting alone.

Officials now say they are looking for a man who is around five-foot-nine-inches to five-foot-ten-inches with an average build.

He was seen in the footage wearing a black, 25-liter Ozark Hiker Pack backpack.

The reward for information that leads to an arrest and conviction in the case has been increased from $50,000 to $100,000.

Investigators have also issued a request for neighbors to send in any footage they have from the area from 9pm to midnight on January 11, and from 9:30am to 11am on January 31.

Meanwhile, the man spotted in a second doorbell video, who was also wearing a backpack and appeared to be trying a locked gate five miles from Nancy’s house, has been cleared of involvement in the case.

The clip that was obtained by TMZ, was taken around 1:50am around the time the masked intruder was filmed at Guthrie’s home.

He was filmed throwing a second backpack over a brick wall and investigators were seeking him for questioning.

However, he has since been ruled out of the investigation, two officials close to the matter told NBC News.

Feb. 10 (Asia Today) — South Korea’s military-police joint investigation task force has conducted search-and-seizure operations at the National Intelligence Service and the Army Intelligence Command as part of a widening probe into allegations that drones were sent into North Korea with possible involvement by intelligence officials.

The task force said it executed warrants at 18 locations, including intelligence agencies, as well as the homes and offices of civilian suspects. Investigators are examining whether intelligence personnel contacted the alleged main perpetrator and provided cash payments related to the drone activities.

The NIS has denied any institutional involvement, saying there was no government-level direction. However, critics argue that the scale and nature of the alleged operation make it difficult to believe it occurred without awareness within the intelligence community.

According to the task force, three active-duty officers – a major and a captain from the Army Intelligence Command and a captain from a separate military unit – have been booked on suspicion of violating the Aviation Safety Act and other charges. Three civilians accused of launching drones toward North Korea from border areas have also been additionally charged under the Criminal Act with general offenses against the state.

Earlier, investigators booked three civilians, including the head of a drone manufacturing company, a company executive responsible for North Korea-related operations and a graduate student who claimed to have flown drones into the North. During the investigation, authorities identified evidence suggesting that one NIS employee and three active-duty military personnel contacted the graduate student and provided several million won in cash described as activity expenses.

The Army Intelligence Command said the civilian was recruited as a collaborator to assist intelligence-gathering activities, not to carry out drone operations. The NIS said the employee involved had never held a position allowing access to agency funds and had not used intelligence budgets.

Investigators and analysts, however, question whether a civilian could independently carry out drone infiltration activities targeting North Korea. Given the suspect’s repeated contact with intelligence officers, some observers say it is likely the incident was at least known within intelligence circles.

A source familiar with intelligence operations said it was premature to draw firm conclusions but noted that, given the nature of the alleged activity, it is difficult to rule out prior awareness or information sharing within the intelligence system. The NIS holds authority over budget oversight and operational audits of domestic intelligence bodies, raising further questions about internal controls.

The case has also reignited criticism of South Korea’s intelligence agencies as highly closed organizations, with tightly compartmentalized budgets and operations. Some analysts argue that such structures could allow activities inconsistent with the government’s stated North Korea policy to be carried out without effective civilian oversight.

“Operations of this scale are structurally difficult for a single agency to carry out alone,” another source said. “Given the command and budgetary framework, it is hard to understand how this could have proceeded without passing through the NIS.”

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260210010003810

Feb. 10 (UPI) — Buckingham Palace said the royal household stood ready to fully cooperate with police weighing an investigation into links between the former Prince Andrew, now known as Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, and the late Jeffrey Epstein.

“The King has made clear, in words and through unprecedented actions, his profound concern at allegations which continue to come to light in respect of Mr Mountbatten-Windsor’s conduct,” a spokesman for the palace said late Monday.

“While the specific claims in question are for Mr. Mountbatten-Windsor to address, if we are approached by Thames Valley Police we stand ready to support them as you would expect,” he said.

King Charles’ intervention came hours after Thames Valley Police said it was determining whether to act on a complaint by Republic, a group that campaigns for the abolition of the monarchy, accusing Andrew of misconduct in public office and breach of official secrets laws while he was serving as Britain’s trade envoy in 2010.

Republic lodged the complaint on Monday after emails from the latest tranche of Epstein files to be released appeared to show Andrew forwarding Epstein official reports possibly containing commercially privileged information from an October 2010 trip to Singapore, Hong Kong and Vietnam, including confidential information about investment opportunities.

Andrew emailed the reports to Epstein less than five minutes after receiving them himself from his assistant on Nov. 30 with the subject line “South East Asia Visit Reports,” U.S. Department of Justice files obtained by the BBC show.

“We can confirm receipt of this report and are assessing the information in line with our established procedures,” said a Thames Valley police department spokesman.

The alleged incident was just before Andrew has claimed he broke off his relationship with Epstein in early December 2010 but the emails appear to indicate this was not the case as he forwarded Epstein another confidential email on Dec. 24 detailing business opportunities in the rebuilding of Afghanistan‘s war-torn Helmand Province, the region for which Britain was responsible during the war.

The terms under which trade envoys are appointed state that the envoy must not share sensitive, commercial, or political information they are party to with unauthorized persons, that they are bound by the Official Secrets Act and have a duty to keep sensitive documents secure.

“The role of a Trade Envoy carries with it a duty of confidentiality in relation to information received. This may include sensitive, commercial, or political information shared about relevant markets/visits. This duty of confidentiality will continue to apply after the expiry of their term of office. In addition, the Official Secrets Acts 1911 and 1989 will apply,” the document states.

“Trade Envoys are responsible for the protection of any documents they have been provided which might contain sensitive data and ensuring that they are carried, stored, and disposed of in an appropriate manner,” it adds.

Andrew has long denied any wrongdoing in relation to Epstein, including allegations made by the late Virginia Giuffre, but has remained silent over the most recent slew of allegations.

in 2022, he settled a lawsuit alleging sexual assault brought by Guiffre out of court with an undisclosed payment believed to run to eight figures.

Earlier Monday, Prince William and Princess Catherine broke their silence on the scandal, issuing a statement expressing “deep concern” over the latest revelations being unearthed from the Epstein files.

However, the statement stressed that they “focused on the victims” and made no mention of Andrew, who is William’s uncle.

The King has been heckled by members of the public about his brother twice in recent days as he goes about his official duties, most recently on a trip to Lancashire on Monday.

British police are assessing a complaint that the former prince sent confidential trade reports to convicted US sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

Buckingham Palace says King Charles III will “support” UK police assessing reports that the former Prince Andrew gave confidential information to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

The statement on Monday came after police said they were examining reports that the former prince, now known as Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, sent trade reports to Epstein in 2010.

Thames Valley Police, which serves areas west of London, including the ex-royal’s former home in Windsor, launched the inquiry after news organisations reported on emails that suggest the then-prince sent Epstein reports from a 2010 tour of Southeast Asia he took as Britain’s envoy for international trade.

“The King has made clear, in words and through unprecedented actions, his profound concern at allegations which continue to come to light in respect of Mr. Mountbatten-Windsor’s conduct,” the palace said in a statement.

“While the specific claims in question are for Mr Mountbatten-Windsor to address, if we are approached by Thames Valley Police we stand ready to support them as you would expect.”

Thames Valley Police confirmed earlier on Monday that it has launched an inquiry following a complaint from an anti-monarchy campaigner.

“We can confirm receipt of this report and are assessing the information in line with our established procedures,” the police force said in a statement.

Emails from Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor to Epstein were among the more than three million pages of documents released last month by the United States Justice Department.

Correspondence unearthed in recent days appears to show that Mountbatten-Windsor forwarded copies of his reports from a 2010 tour of Southeast Asia to Epstein soon after he returned to Britain.

An earlier email appears to show the ex-prince sharing his itinerary for the two-week trip to Hanoi, Saigon, Singapore, Kuala Lumpur and Hong Kong with Epstein.

Thames Valley Police began its inquiry after Graham Smith, chief executive of the anti-monarchy group Republic, reported Mountbatten-Windsor for suspected abuse of public office and violations of Britain’s Official Secrets Act.

The former prince, 65, has faced years of scrutiny over his friendship with Epstein, a relationship that has cost him his role in the royal family, titles and home. Andrew has always denied any wrongdoing, and has not responded to requests for comment since the latest release of Epstein files.

Reporting from London, Al Jazeera’s Milena Veselinovic said Mountbatten-Windsor was acting as the United Kingdom’s international trade envoy when the claims were made that he sent sensitive information to Epstein.

“This [allegedly] includes a confidential memo about investment in the Helmand province in Afghanistan, which was being financed at that time by the UK taxpayer,” she explained.

Royal family faces jeopardy

The British royal family continued its effort to insulate itself from the scandal on Monday, as Prince William and Princess Catherine issued their first statement about the latest batch of Epstein files.

“I can confirm that the Prince and Princess of Wales have been deeply concerned by the continued revelations,’’ a spokesperson said as William travelled to Saudi Arabia for an official visit. “Their thoughts remain focused on the victims.”

The jeopardy faced by the royal family could be seen on Monday when King Charles visited Lancashire, in northwest England. While most of the public clapped, cheered and waved British flags, one person shouted, “How long have you known about Andrew?”

Last week, King Charles forced Mountbatten-Windsor to leave his longtime home at Royal Lodge near Windsor Castle, accelerating a move that was first announced in October but was not expected to be completed until later this year.

The former royal is now living temporarily at Wood Farm Cottage on the king’s Sandringham Estate in eastern England. He is then expected to move into a more permanent home, which is currently undergoing renovations.

Feb. 6 (Asia Today) — President Lee Jae-myung reaffirmed a zero-tolerance stance on stock manipulation Thursday, warning that those who undermine market order face severe consequences, as authorities intensify an investigation into alleged front-running by journalists.

Lee posted the message on X after sharing a report that investigators searched the headquarters of Korea Economic Daily, writing that stock manipulation leads to “total ruin.” His remark was widely interpreted as a warning against unfair trading practices as the government’s joint crackdown gains momentum.

Financial authorities said the joint task force raided the newspaper’s Seoul office Wednesday. Five reporters are suspected of front-running – allegedly obtaining market-moving information in advance, purchasing shares, publishing related articles and then selling the stock after prices rose to secure profits.

Front-running is prohibited under South Korea’s Capital Markets Act and is classified as a fraudulent trading practice when information obtained through reporting or other nonpublic means is used for personal gain. Authorities said they are reviewing seized materials to determine whether criminal charges apply.

Lee’s comments align with his repeated warnings in recent weeks. Last month, after the KOSPI index surpassed the 4,700 level for the first time, he cautioned that stock manipulation would bring irreversible consequences, pledging to foster a “healthy capital market.”

At the time, Lee also shared news that the joint task force would expand from one team to two and urged investors to “invest properly.” The move followed his directive to strengthen enforcement by introducing multiple response teams. The Financial Services Commission, the Financial Supervisory Service and the Korea Exchange later agreed to reorganize and expand their market surveillance units.

In a policy briefing last December, Lee cited distrust in market transparency as a key factor behind the chronic undervaluation of South Korean equities and called for tougher enforcement to ensure that illegal trading is met with decisive punishment. He also ordered an expansion of enforcement personnel after learning that fewer than 40 staff members were handling stock manipulation cases at the time.

Thursday’s message was seen as reinforcing the administration’s principle that market abuses will be dealt with strictly and without exception, regardless of the individuals or institutions involved, signaling heightened scrutiny as stock prices continue to rise.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260206010002371

Feb. 5 (Asia Today) — South Korea’s Board of Audit and Inspection said Thursday it will begin a first-half audit of public institutions’ asset management, including the sale of broadcaster YTN, amid allegations that some state-linked assets were disposed of at below-market prices.

The audit agency released its 2026 annual plan and said it will focus on high-risk areas tied to financial soundness, including large public-sector projects, asset sales and the operations of overseas offices.

A Board of Audit and Inspection official said the agency will conduct a comprehensive review of cases in which assets were sold or leased at low prices without sufficient valuation, citing claims that public institution assets, including YTN, were subject to “fire-sale” pricing.

YTN became the center of controversy in October 2023 over allegations of forced privatization and a rushed or preferential sale after a 30.95% stake held by KEPCO KDN and the Korea Racing Authority was transferred to the Eugene Group, according to the report.

President Lee Jae-myung ordered ministries in November 2025 to halt and reexamine state asset sales, the report said.

The audit plan also includes reviews described as “visible to the public,” covering illegal drug customs clearance management, defect handling in multi-unit housing and the operation of information security certification systems.

In addition, the agency said it will conduct “innovation support audits” in new technology areas such as artificial intelligence and research and development. The plan also calls for an audit of relaxation facilities, including a cypress sauna and a bedroom, installed at the Yongsan presidential office during former President Yoon Suk Yeol’s tenure, according to the report.

An audit agency official said the board will aim to drive institutional changes that the public can feel.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260206010002246

WASHINGTON — Former President Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton finalized an agreement with House Republicans on Tuesday to testify in a House investigation into Jeffrey Epstein this month, bowing to the threat of a contempt of Congress vote against them.

Hillary Clinton will testify before the House Oversight Committee on Feb. 26 and Bill Clinton will appear Feb. 27. It will mark the first time that lawmakers have compelled a former president to testify.

The arrangement comes after months of negotiating between the two sides as Republicans sought to make the Clintons, both Democrats, a focal point in a House committee’s investigation into Epstein, a convicted sex offender who killed himself in a New York jail cell in 2019, and Ghislaine Maxwell, his former girlfriend.

“We look forward to now questioning the Clintons as part of our investigation into the horrific crimes of Epstein and Maxwell, to deliver transparency and accountability for the American people and for survivors,” Rep. James Comer, the chair of the House Oversight Committee, said in a statement.

The negotiation with the Clintons

For months, the Clintons resisted subpoenas from the committee, but House Republicans — with support from a few Democrats — had advanced criminal contempt of Congress charges to a potential vote this week. It threatened the Clintons with the potential for substantial fines and even prison time if they had been convicted.

House Speaker Mike Johnson said Tuesday that any efforts to hold them in contempt of Congress were “on pause.”

Even as the Clintons bowed to the pressure, the negotiating between GOP lawmakers and attorneys for the Clintons was marked by distrust as they wrangled over the details of the deposition. They agreed to have the closed-door depositions transcribed and recorded on video, Comer said.

The belligerence is likely to only grow as Republicans relish the opportunity to grill longtime political foes under oath.

Comer told the Associated Press that Republicans, in their inquiry with the Clintons, were “trying to figure out how Jeffrey Epstein was able to surround himself with all these rich and powerful people.”

Comer, a Kentucky Republican, also said that the Clintons had expressed a desire to make the proceedings public, but that he would insist on closed-door testimony with a later release of a transcript of the interviews. He added that he was open to holding a later public hearing if the Clintons wanted it.

How Clinton knew Epstein

Clinton, like a number of other high-powered men including President Trump, had a well-documented relationship with Epstein in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Neither Trump nor Clinton has been credibly accused of wrongdoing in their interactions with the late financier.

Both Clintons have said they had no knowledge that Epstein was sexually abusing underage girls before prosecutors brought charges against him.

The Clintons argued that the subpoenas for their testimony were invalid and offered to submit sworn declarations on their limited knowledge of Epstein’s crimes. But as Comer threatened to proceed with contempt of Congress charges, they began looking for an offramp.

Both Clintons have remained highly critical of how Comer has handled the Epstein investigation and argue that he is more focused on bringing them in for testimony rather than holding the Trump administration accountable for how it has handled the release of its files on Epstein.

However, as Comer advanced the contempt charges out of the House Oversight Committee last month, he found a number of Democrats willing to help. A younger generation of more progressive Democrats showed they had few connections with the Clintons, who led the Democratic Party for decades, and were more eager to show voters that they would stand for transparency in the Epstein investigation.

Nine Democrats out of 21 on the Oversight panel voted to advance charges against Bill Clinton, and three Democrats joined with Republicans to support the charges against Hillary Clinton. As the vote loomed this week, House Democratic leaders also made it clear that they would not expend much political capital to rally votes against the contempt resolutions.

That left the Clintons with little choice but to agree to testify or face one of the most severe punishments Congress can give.

Groves writes for the Associated Press.

The Clintons agree to testify in congressional probe of high-society sex offender Jeffrey Epstein amid contempt threat.

Former ‍United States President Bill ‍Clinton and Hillary Clinton, the 2016 Democratic presidential nominee, will testify in a congressional investigation into the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, a spokesperson for the ex-president said.

The ⁠decision by the Clintons announced on Monday could head off a planned vote in the Republican-led ​House of Representatives to hold the high-profile Democratic Party veterans in contempt for refusing to appear before lawmakers, which could lead to criminal charges.

“The former President and former ‌Secretary of State will be there. They look forward to setting a precedent that applies to everyone,” the Clintons’ deputy chief of staff, Angel Urena, said ‌in a post on social media.

Urena posted the announcement above a House Oversight Committee statement from earlier on Monday that accused the Clintons of “defying lawful subpoenas” and of “trying to dodge contempt by requesting special treatment”.

“The Clintons are not above the law,” the Oversight Committee said.

Last week, the Oversight Committee recommended the couple be held in contempt for refusing ‍to testify about ⁠their relationship with Epstein.

The Clintons had offered to cooperate with the committee’s probe into Epstein, but refused to appear in person, saying the investigation was a partisan exercise aimed at protecting President Donald Trump, who was a longtime friend of Epstein.

Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson welcomed the news from the Clintons, but ‌did not say whether the chamber ⁠would drop its planned contempt vote.

“That’s a good development,” he said. “We expect everyone to comply with Congress’s subpoenas.”

Democrats say the House probe is being weaponised to attack political opponents of Trump – who has not been called to testify despite being long associated with Epstein – rather than to conduct legitimate oversight.

Trump spent months trying to block the disclosure of investigative files linked to Epstein, but pressure from his Make America Great Again (MAGA) base and some Republican lawmakers forced the president to order the release of millions of documents in the case.

Bill Clinton flew on Epstein’s plane several ‌times in the early 2000s after leaving office. He has expressed regret about the relationship and said he knew nothing about  Epstein’s criminal activity.

Hillary Clinton said she had no meaningful interactions with Epstein, never flew on his plane and never visited his private island.

The Epstein affair continues to cast a long shadow over US politics, and now, the United Kingdom’s, entangling prominent figures including the disgraced former-prince Andrew and ex-UK ambassador to the US Peter Mandelson.

UK police said on Monday they are reviewing reports of alleged misconduct involving Mandelson, whose name surfaced more than 5,000 times in the US Justice Department files on Epstein.

The veteran British politician was fired as ambassador to the US last ‍year after emails came to light that showed him calling Epstein “my best pal” and advising him on seeking early release from prison.

Mandelson has apologised to Epstein’s victims and denied wrongdoing.

Jan. 31 (Asia Today) — Harold Rogers, interim chief executive of Coupang Korea, was questioned for more than 12 hours by police over allegations that the company destroyed evidence during an internal probe into a massive personal data leak.

Rogers arrived at the Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency at about 2 p.m. Thursday and left around 2:22 a.m. Friday. He declined to answer reporters’ questions, including whether he acknowledged the evidence destruction allegations, how the company determined that about 3,000 users were affected, and why he had not appeared for questioning earlier.

Before entering police headquarters, Rogers said Coupang had “fully cooperated with all government investigations and will continue to do so,” adding that the company would also cooperate with the police probe.

Police are investigating whether Coupang conducted an unauthorized “self-investigation” after the data breach and destroyed evidence in the process. The company allegedly analyzed a suspect’s laptop without prior consultation with authorities and publicly announced its own findings, including the estimated scope of the leak.

Investigators reportedly questioned Rogers about Coupang’s actions, including allegedly contacting the data leak suspect in China without police knowledge, retrieving the laptop, and conducting forensic analysis independently.

Attention has also focused on whether Rogers will leave South Korea. Police applied for a travel ban against him after his entry on Jan. 21, but prosecutors rejected the request. Rogers previously left the country earlier this month after completing a two-day schedule of National Assembly hearings.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260131010014003

Starmer says Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor should testify before US Congress about his past dealings with the late convicted sex offender.

The United Kingdom’s Prime Minister Keir Starmer has suggested that Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, a former prince, should cooperate with authorities in the United States investigating the Jeffrey Epstein files and activities.

Speaking on Saturday to reporters at the end of a visit to Japan, Starmer said, “Anybody who has got information should be prepared to share that information in whatever form they are asked to do that.”

“You can’t be victim-centred if you’re not prepared to do that,” he added, according to remarks carried by Sky News. “Epstein’s victims have to be the first priority.”

Asked whether Mountbatten-Windsor, the younger brother of King Charles III, should issue an apology, Starmer said the matter was “for Andrew” to decide.

His comments came as the US Justice Department said it would be releasing more than three million pages of documents along with more than 2,000 videos and 180,000 images under a law intended to reveal most of the material it had collected during two decades of investigations involving the wealthy financier, who died in a New York jail in 2019 while awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges.

The disclosures have revived questions about whether the former British prince, who was stripped of his title last year over his friendship with Epstein, should cooperate with the US authorities in their investigation.

Mountbatten-Windsor – who has long denied any wrongdoing in relation to Epstein – has so far ignored a request from members of the US House Oversight Committee for a “transcribed interview” about his “longstanding friendship” with the billionaire.

The files have also prompted the resignation of Slovak official Miroslav Lajcak, who once had a yearlong term as president of the United Nations General Assembly.

Lajcak was not accused of wrongdoing but left his position after emails showed that Epstein had invited him to dinner and other meetings in 2018.

The newly released files also show Epstein’s email correspondence with Steve Bannon, one-time adviser to US President Donald Trump; New York Giants co-owner Steve Tisch and other prominent contacts in political, business and philanthropic circles, such as billionaires Bill Gates and Elon Musk.

The files show a March 2018 email from Epstein’s office to former Obama White House general counsel Kathy Ruemmler, inviting her to a get-together with Epstein, Lajcak and Bannon. Lajcak said his contacts with Epstein were part of his diplomatic duties.

Meanwhile, the US Department of Justice is facing criticism over how it handled the latest disclosure.

One group of Epstein accusers said in a statement that the new documents made it too easy to identify those he abused, but not those who might have been involved in Epstein’s criminal activity.

“As survivors, we should never be the ones named, scrutinised, and retraumatised while Epstein’s enablers continue to benefit from secrecy,” it said.

WASHINGTON — The Justice Department has opened a federal civil rights investigation into the shooting of Alex Pretti, the Minneapolis resident killed Saturday by Border Patrol officers, federal officials said Friday.

“We’re looking at everything that would shed light on what happened that day and in the days and weeks leading up to what happened,” Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche said during a news conference. “That’s like any investigation that the Department of Justice and the FBI does every day. It means we’re looking at video, talking to witnesses, trying to understand what happened.”

There are thousands of instances every year when someone is shot by law enforcement, Blanche said, but not all are investigated by federal authorities.

“There has to be circumstances or facts or maybe unknown facts, but certainly circumstances, that warrant an investigation,” he added.

The Department of Homeland Security also said Friday that the Federal Bureau of Investigation will lead the federal probe.

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem first disclosed the shift in which agency was leading the probe during a Fox News interview Thursday evening. Her department said earlier this week that Homeland Security Investigations, a unit within the department, would be heading the investigation.

“We will continue to follow the investigation that the FBI is leading and giving them all the information that they need to bring that to conclusion, and make sure that the American people know the truth of the situation and how we can go forward and continue to protect the American people,” Noem said, speaking to Fox host Sean Hannity.

Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin confirmed Friday that the FBI will lead the Pretti probe and that HSI will support them. Separately, Customs and Border Protection, which is part of DHS, is doing its own internal investigation into the shooting, during which two officers opened fire on Pretti.

DHS did not immediately respond to questions about when the change was made or why. The FBI did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

It was also not immediately clear whether the FBI would now share information and evidence with Minnesota state investigators, who have thus far been frozen out of the federal probe.

In the same interview, Noem appeared to distance herself from statements she made shortly after the shooting, claiming Pretti had brandished a handgun and aggressively approached officers.

Multiple videos that emerged of the shooting contradicted that claim, showing the intensive care nurse had only his mobile phone in his hand as officers tackled him to the ground, with one removing a handgun from the back of Pretti’s pants as another officer began firing shots into his back.

Pretti had a state permit to legally carry a concealed firearm. At no point did he appear to reach for it, the videos showed.

“I know you realize that situation was very chaotic, and that we were being relayed information from on the ground from CBP agents and officers that were there,” Noem said during the interview with Hannity on Thursday. “We were using the best information we had at the time, seeking to be transparent with the American people and get them what we knew to be true on the ground.”

The change comes after two other videos emerged Wednesday of an earlier altercation between Pretti and federal immigration officers 11 days before his death.

The Jan. 13 videos show Pretti in a winter coat, yelling at federal vehicles and at one point appearing to spit before kicking out the taillight of one vehicle. A struggle ensues between Pretti and several officers, during which he is forced to the ground. Pretti’s winter coat comes off, and he either breaks free or the officers let him go and he scurries away.

When he turns his back to the camera, what appears to be a handgun is visible in his waistband. At no point do the videos show Pretti reaching for the gun, and it is not clear whether federal agents saw it.

Steve Schleicher, a Minneapolis-based attorney representing Pretti’s parents, said Wednesday the earlier altercation in no way justified officers fatally shooting Pretti more than a week later.

In a post on his Truth Social platform early Friday morning, President Trump suggested that the videos of the earlier incident undercut the narrative that Pretti was a peaceful protester when he was shot.

“Agitator and, perhaps, insurrectionist, Alex Pretti’s stock has gone way down with the just released video of him screaming and spitting in the face of a very calm and under control ICE Officer, and then crazily kicking in a new and very expensive government vehicle, so hard and violent, in fact, that the taillight broke off in pieces,” Trump’s post said. “It was quite a display of abuse and anger, for all to see, crazed and out of control. The ICE Officer was calm and cool, not an easy thing to be under those circumstances!”

Biesecker and Santana write for the Associated Press. AP reporters Alanna Durkin Richer and Eric Tucker contributed to this report from Washington.

Man charged with throwing explosive device into a crowd at Invasion Day protest in Western Australia’s Perth.

Police may investigate an alleged bombing attempt during an Indigenous rights protest in Perth, Western Australia, as a possible “terrorist” incident, following calls from Indigenous leaders and human rights groups for a more robust response from authorities.

The Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) reported on Thursday that the incident was now being investigated by police as a “potential terrorist act”, two days after a 31-year-old man was charged with throwing a “homemade improvised explosive device” at an Invasion Day protest attended by thousands of people on Monday.

Police charged the man with throwing the device, which consisted of nails and ball bearings, into a large crowd during a protest on Australia’s national holiday, Australia Day, which is also referred to as Invasion Day, since it commemorates the 1788 arrival of a British fleet in Sydney Harbour.

The device did not explode and there were no injuries, police said.

A search of the suspect’s home was conducted, where it was further alleged that a combination of chemicals and materials consistent with the manufacture of homemade explosives was found, Western Australia Police Force said in a statement.

The suspect was charged with an attempt to cause harm and with making or possessing explosives under suspicious circumstances.

Hannah McGlade, a member of the Indigenous Noongar community, told national broadcaster ABC on Thursday that it appeared police had “heard our concerns” regarding the attack.

“A lot of people have been adding concern that it hasn’t been looked at properly as a hate crime or even possibly as a terror crime,” said McGlade, an associate professor of law at Curtin University in Australia.

Indigenous people felt “absolute horror that so many people could have been injured and killed at an event like this, a peaceful gathering”, McGlade added.

The Human Rights Law Centre also called for “the violent, racist attack on First Nations people” to be “investigated as an act of terrorism or hate crime”.

“Reports by rally organisers and witnesses raise serious questions about [Western Australia] Police’s response and communication with organisers, both before and after the attack,” the legal group said in a statement.

The group also said reports that police failed “to address credible threats received ahead of the rally” should be “fully and independently investigated”.

Police alleged that the suspect removed the device from his bag and threw it from a walkway into a crowd of more than 2,000 people during the Invasion Day protest in Perth on Monday.

Alerted by a member of the public, police took the man into custody and bomb response officers inspected the device, the Western Australia Police Force said in a statement.

“It was confirmed to be a homemade improvised explosive device containing a mixture of volatile and potentially explosive chemicals, with nails and metal ball bearings affixed to the exterior,” police said.

Reporting from New York, NY — Media outlets are reporting that federal prosecutors have granted immunity to the executive in charge of the National Enquirer amid an investigation into hush-money payments made on behalf of President Trump.

Vanity Fair and the Wall Street Journal, citing anonymous sources, were first to report Wednesday’s development involving David Pecker, CEO of the tabloid’s publisher, American Media Inc., and a longtime friend of the president.

Court papers connected to ex-Trump lawyer Michael Cohen’s guilty plea Tuesday say Pecker offered to help Trump squash negative stories during the 2016 campaign.

The Journal said Pecker shared details with prosecutors about payments Cohen says Trump directed to buy the silence of two women alleging affairs with him.

Trump’s account has shifted. He said recently he knew about payments “later on.”

Commission President Ursula von der Leyen says Europe will not ‘tolerate unthinkable behaviour, such as digital undressing of women and children’.

The European Commission has launched an investigation into Elon Musk’s AI chatbot, Grok, regarding the creation of sexually explicit fake images of women and minors.

The commission announced on Monday that its investigation would examine whether the AI tool used on X has met its legal obligations under the European Union’s Digital Services Act (DSA), which requires social media companies to address illegal and harmful online content.

Brussels said the investigation would examine whether X had properly mitigated “risks related to the dissemination of illegal content in the EU, such as manipulated sexually explicit images, including content that may amount to child sexual abuse material”.

In a statement to the AFP news agency, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said Europe will not “tolerate unthinkable behaviour, such as digital undressing of women and children”.

“It is simple – we will not hand over consent and child protection to tech companies to violate and monetise. The harm caused by illegal images is very real,” she added.

Grok has faced a recent outcry after it was uncovered that users could ask the chatbot to create deepfakes of women and children by simply using prompts such as “put her in a bikini” or “remove her clothes”.

EU tech commissioner Henna Virkkunen said the rights of women and children in the EU should not be “collateral damage” of X’s services.

“Non-consensual sexual deepfakes of women and children are a violent, unacceptable form of degradation,” Virkkunen said in a statement.

X has been under investigation by the EU over its digital content rules since December 2023.

This month, Grok said it would restrict image generation and editing to paying customers after criticism of the tool’s capabilities.

A nonprofit organisation, the Centre for Countering Digital Hate, published a report last week that found Grok had generated an estimated 3 million sexualised images of women and children in a matter of days.

In December, the EU ordered X to pay a 120-million-euro ($140m) fine for violating the DSA’s transparency obligations.

The EU is not the only body investigating Grok’s tool; the United Kingdom’s media regulator, Ofcom, announced it had launched an investigation into X to determine whether it had complied with requirements under the UK’s Online Safety Act.