united states

For months before carrying out Canada’s deadliest school shooting in almost four decades, Jesse Van Rootselaar was consulting an unlikely adviser on how to perpetrate mass murder.

“In a hallway, indoors, or a crowded classroom, the 870 [Remington shotgun] is brutal … Close quarters is its playground,” OpenAI’s ChatGPT guided the 18-year-old, according to reports.

On February 10, 2026, Van Rootselaar shot his mother and half-brother at home before going to a school in the small British Columbia town of Tumbler Ridge, where he killed another six people – including five students – before taking his own life.

Earlier this week, on October 14, US authorities charged a Washington State man with allegedly conspiring with Van Rootselaar to plan the attack. But the mass shooting incident has raised questions that go beyond the traditional legal understanding of culpability.

The British Columbia government in September filed a civil lawsuit against OpenAI and its CEO Sam Altman, accusing them of failing to prevent the incident and claiming they were aware of the conversations that turned deadly. Families of the victims also filed separate lawsuits. OpenAI’s leadership issued a public apology for their failure to notify authorities.

The company has not responded to requests from Al Jazeera for its comments on the lawsuits.

But as the case against OpenAI progresses, it has spurred a familiar debate: Where should a line be drawn between reporting potentially dangerous behaviour and protecting an individual’s privacy?

“The question of whether companies should be required to turn such information over to law enforcement is extraordinarily difficult, particularly if they don’t already screen chats for indications of such types of threats,” United States-based civil liberties lawyer Jenin Younes told Al Jazeera.

“Forcing companies to implement a surveillance system implicates very serious civil liberties concerns, and that’s probably a bridge too far for me,” Younes added.

“On the other hand, AI gives individuals access to types and quantities of information they didn’t have previously that may facilitate the commission of mass casualty events, a concern it’s not easy to dismiss.”

AI’s ability to distinguish thoughts from threats

One of the biggest challenges facing AI companies is determining whether a user expressing violent thoughts actually intends to act on them.

In August, Anthropic, the company behind AI chatbot Claude, flagged a user to San Francisco police after discovering conversations allegedly threatening its CEO, Dario Amodei.

According to the San Francisco Standard, citing a police report, the user had claimed to possess an AR-15 gun and suggested he had Amodei “in his sights”.

However, when contacted by the newspaper, the man said he was joking and had no intention of carrying out any form of violence. The person was neither charged nor detained, the Standard said.

Fazl Barez, a senior researcher at the University of Oxford specialising in AI safety and governance, said current AI models cannot “reliably” determine whether an interaction with an AI chatbot “is purely hypothetical or is likely to lead to harmful behaviour”.

“Suppose you are a creative writer working on a fictional story and want to explore how a murder plot might unfold. From the context, it may be clear that this is simply a fictional narrative. If the threshold for flagging potentially harmful content is too low, such a writer could be wrongly flagged,” he told Al Jazeera.

“Similarly, consider a graduate student in biology or chemistry studying pathogens that, if misused, could have serious consequences. They might be trying to understand the risks associated with these pathogens and how to mitigate them. Such discussions may be necessary for legitimate research and education. Even when the subject matter is sensitive, they should not automatically be flagged without considering the broader context.”

The researcher said identifying a credible threat may require examining a user’s interactions across multiple conversations, rather than relying on isolated statements.

Barez said someone experiencing intrusive violent thoughts might turn to a chatbot for support, while another person planning an attack may reveal their intentions gradually across several conversations.

“Distinguishing between the two requires careful consideration of context, intent and patterns of behaviour, rather than relying on individual statements alone,” he added.

Chinmayi Sharma, a law professor at Fordham University, said the debate has parallels with the duty imposed on mental health professionals to warn identifiable third parties about credible threats.

However, she said there was a key difference – therapists have professional training, knowledge of their patients and enforceable standards governing their conduct. AI companies do not necessarily have comparable safeguards.

“My concern with AI companies is that right now there’s not a concerted effort to hire mental health professionals, sociologists, individuals that would have the unique expertise on what the indicators of threat are here,” Sharma told Al Jazeera.

“Secondly, licensed professionals are accountable to concrete, legally enforceable standards in their discipline. We don’t have something like that for AI companies.”

The privacy dilemma

The privacy implications extend beyond whether AI companies can accurately identify threats. Millions of people use chatbots to discuss relationships, emotional distress, mental health concerns and deeply personal experiences.

Civil liberties lawyer Younes said many users may not realise how vulnerable those conversations could be to disclosure.

“They often reflect a person’s innermost thoughts, questions, and desires. The majority of people assume that these dialogues will never be viewed by another person,” Younes, president and legal director of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, said.

Younes warned that the consequences of greater monitoring could extend well beyond those planning violence.

“If people fear their chats can be turned over to law enforcement simply because they express disturbing thoughts/violent fantasies etc, many will be dissuaded from using them,” she told Al Jazeera.

Younes argued that forcing companies to establish systems for monitoring users and reporting conversations could raise serious constitutional concerns in the US, including protections against unreasonable searches.

Meanwhile, Fordham’s Sharma also raised an issue about who could be disproportionately affected by heavy monitoring by AI chatbots.

“The concern is always there about either intentional or unintentional targeting, because if you have models trained on what we consider dangerous speech, they’re almost always going to reflect biases,” she said. “Certain minorities’ speech is over‑flagged as a threat, while other comparable speech is not.

“Even in a world in which everyone is benevolent, we should still be concerned about disparate outcomes,” she said, warning that machines could reproduce such disparities at scale.

‘Not a licensed therapist’ – When do AI companies become liable to report?

While AI companies may face moral pressure to prevent violence, their legal obligations are less clear, legal experts say.

Bryan Choi, a professor of law at the University of Colorado Boulder, said US law recognises a duty to warn in certain circumstances, including when mental health professionals become aware of imminent threats or when a special relationship exists between parties.

But those principles do not necessarily apply to AI companies.

“Under present case law, it seems unlikely that a company such as OpenAI would be held to have such duties to warn,” Choi told Al Jazeera. “The chatbot is not a licensed therapist. There is no special relationship between the company and the victims.”

Choi said existing negligence and product liability laws could potentially be applied to AI companies, but proving responsibility would present significant challenges.

Finding a balance

Fordham’s Sharma suggested that independent institutions could help establish reporting standards rather than leaving decisions entirely to private companies or requiring immediate disclosure to police.

Such bodies she said could develop procedures for assessing threats and explore ways of sharing only relevant information while protecting users’ identities and other personal details.

Meanwhile, Younes argued that users should, at a minimum, be clearly informed about whether their conversations are monitored and what circumstances could lead to information being shared with law enforcement.

“This is almost certainly an issue that will be wrestled with over the coming years, and I’m not sure anyone knows the solution at this particular point in time,” she said.

“Events that have not yet occurred will likely influence how these policies are shaped.”

US president’s executive order comes two days before sanctions deadline and a week after diesel deal with Putin.

US President Donald Trump has put on hold a sweeping package of sanctions on Russia that he signed into law last month, telling Congress the pause is in the national interest.

Trump signed an executive order on Friday, two days before a deadline in the law that would put the sanctions into effect.

The law – named after Lindsey Graham, the Republican senator who died unexpectedly in July after returning from Ukraine – had passed in the House of Representatives and the Senate by large margins. The bipartisan legislation was drafted by Graham and Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal.

It sought to starve Moscow of money for the war by sanctioning Russian officials, banks and a shadow fleet of tankers carrying its energy.

It also directed Trump to impose tariffs of up to 100 percent on the five biggest importers of Russian oil or gas, with an exception for countries that import less than 15 percent of Russia’s natural gas exports and are taking steps to cut them.

Diesel deal and criticism

The decision to suspend the sanctions comes a week after Trump said the US had signed a deal to buy diesel from Russia to try to lower global fuel prices.

Both Republicans and Democrats, criticising the deal, said it would help Russia’s war effort without affecting fuel prices.

Democratic Representative Don Beyer said he and others had “warned” that Trump might do this, in reference to Trump’s deal with Moscow.

Beyer called on Congress to “fix this flawed law to stop Trump from capitulating to Putin and ensure that it truly supports Ukraine”.

Trump has also increasingly criticised Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy lately for failing to reach a deal with Russia.

As Republicans try to keep control of Congress in the November 3 midterm elections, an AP-NORC poll released on October 1 found Americans disapprove of Trump’s handling of the Iran war and blame him for higher prices among several other domestic policy issues.

The fast-spreading Norte Fire in Orange County is fuelled by intense warm winds and unseasonably high temperatures.

A fast-spreading wildfire in Orange County, in Southern California, has engulfed several coastal properties and prompted widespread evacuation orders.

The Orange County Fire Authority said on Friday that the Norte Fire had scorched about 188 hectares (465 acres), with the state’s Cal Fire agency putting it at about 231 hectares (570 acres) by the evening, and that at least six homes had been damaged or destroyed in the San Juan Capistrano area.

The fire authority said firefighters were “aggressively attacking the fire from the ground and air” and issued pleas for people to stay clear of the area.

Unseasonably high temperatures and low humidity are fuelling the rapid growth of the fire, the AFP news agency reported.

The Norte Fire started in the coastal city of San Clemente on Friday and moved to the city of San Juan Capistrano, with some 6,000 homes and 16,000 residents under evacuation orders by the evening. An evacuation shelter has opened in each city while helicopters attempt to douse the flames.

Intense warm winds

The Norte Fire is one of several in the region driven by Santa Ana winds, intense warm gusts that blow from the southwest US interior towards the California coast.

The Santa Ana winds typically arrive in the autumn, right when Southern California’s vegetation is at its driest after a long, rainless summer, according to The Weather Channel.

Forecasters said winds blew at between 55km/h and 90km/h (35mph and 55mph) within coastal areas.

The strongest winds were expected through Friday, but the high heat and low humidity conditions that contribute to the growth of the fire are expected to last through Saturday night.

Tens of thousands of people in Los Angeles County were left without power as authorities attempted to lessen the possibility of electrical sparks that the heavy wind gusts could carry.

Other ongoing fires

California firefighters were also busy battling the Bryson Fire, which broke out on the outskirts of the Malibu beach community in Los Angeles County on Thursday. As of Friday, the fire had burned about 59 hectares (147 acres) and was 17 percent contained, according to Cal Fire.

The Henderson Fire was 20 percent contained and had burned 842 hectares (2,080 acres) in San Diego County by Friday, Cal Fire said. The blaze impacted Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton and prompted freeway closures.

At least 11 people believed to still be missing, with rescue operations underway.

The US coastguard has said it rescued 16 people from the Pacific Ocean after a boat sank off Mexico’s Baja coast.

The coastguard said on Friday it responded to a Mayday call reporting that a boat was sinking. The search is ongoing for 11 people believed to be still missing.

The boat went down about 225km (140 miles) west of Ensenada, Mexico.

A rescue helicopter reached the site about two hours after someone on the boat transmitted the Mayday call at about 1am (08:00 GMT) on Friday, said coastguard Lieutenant Santiago Tamburini.

It took about 90 minutes for the coastguard crew, which included a rescue swimmer, to pull the 16 people from the water, Tamburini said.

The people rescued were Mexican nationals, according to the Mexican consulate.

One survivor was being treated for a suspected shark bite and two were in critical condition, authorities said.

The rescued were flown by helicopter to San Diego, California, and transported to hospitals. The Mexican consulate in San Diego said it offered consular assistance.

The coastguard and US Navy are continuing to search the area with two helicopters, a fixed-wing plane, a cutter and a navy combat ship.

The boat sank in an area frequented by smugglers transporting migrants to the US. It is also popular with fishing and leisure boats.

Details about the boat’s origin, destination and what it was doing are not clear. No vessel, only debris, was found, and it was unclear what type of boat was involved, the coastguard said.

“Boats in that area can be for fishing, leisure, personal recreation. We just don’t know what they were doing out there. We all know it’s a suspected smuggling route,” Tamburini said.

A teacher fought the teenage shooter and a parent shot him dead, police say on Friday, a day after four people were killed.

The 16-year-old who killed three children and a teacher at an elementary school in the US state of Oregon was a former special-needs student at the school, police and school officials have said.

Bend Police Chief Mike Krantz identified the attacker on Friday, a day after the shooting at Silver Rail Elementary School, as Griffin J. John II.

He said the teenager attacked a classroom of special-needs students, where all the victims were shot.

Steven Cook, superintendent of Bend-La Pine Schools, said John was not enrolled in the local public school system at the time.

“That classroom was a special needs classroom, and the suspect was a special needs student in that school,” Cook told a news conference.

Krantz said John shot his way through locked doors with a 12-gauge shotgun, firing as many as 15 shots, and had about 44 rounds left when he was killed. Police are still trying to determine how he obtained the gun.

Under Oregon law, a minor may possess a shotgun if provided by a parent or with a parent’s consent.

The shooter’s mother, Shauntai Nickerson, separately told reporters outside her apartment: “I’m so sorry, I wish I could have done something.”

A teacher threw her phone at the gunman, then tackled and fought him, likely saving lives, Krantz said, calling her actions “heroic”. She was not injured.

A 36-year-old father, Kaylub Giamanco, who has two children at the school, then followed the gunman inside and shot him dead minutes after the first 911 call.

US President Donald Trump called Giamanco a “great hero”. “It’s a terrible thing, but thank goodness for a man that had a gun and knew how to use it,” Trump said.

The children killed were aged five, eight and 11, and the teacher was Meghan Lambert, 25, police said.

A seven-year-old child and a 54-year-old teacher were taken to hospital in critical condition.

The shooting is the 28th mass killing in the US this year, according to a database by The Associated Press, USA Today and Northeastern University.

The Gun Violence Archive in the US has documented 369 mass shootings in 2026, defined as incidents in which four or more people are shot.

The Everytown for Gun Safety group has counted at least 100 incidents of gunfire on school grounds this year, with 34 deaths.

The UK Foreign Office says it advises against “all but essential travel” to Saudi Arabia, after attacks by Yemen’s Houthis on the country.

China is increasing its gold reserves in a bid to reduce its dependence on US dollar assets and protect against financial and geopolitical risks, analysts say, while households are turning to the precious metal amid uncertainty over the domestic economy.

The People’s Bank of China reported buying gold for a 23rd consecutive month in September, when the country’s central bank also made its largest monthly purchase in nearly three years. The sustained buying points to a longer-term effort to spread risk associated with its vast reserves, experts say.

Among concerns is high US debt and Western governments’ freezing of assets, which has highlighted the inherent risk in holding money overseas, particularly for emerging market and Global South economies. Gold bought and stored domestically offers protection against that risk because access does not depend on the will of another government.

But central bank buying and household demand for gold in China have different drivers. While Beijing is managing its financial exposure, private investors are seeking somewhere to preserve their savings. Here is what we know.

How much gold has China bought?

China’s central bank added approximately 23 tonnes of gold in September, bringing its reported holdings to about 2,410 tonnes, according to the World Gold Council. That was its largest monthly purchase since October 2023. Gold accounted for 8.5 percent of China’s total official reserves at the end of September, compared with 5.5 percent at the end of 2024.

Reserves are assets central banks hold to ensure they can meet international payments and respond to financial disruption. They usually include foreign currencies, foreign government debt and gold.

Private demand for gold within China has also risen, with purchases of gold bars and coins 28.4 percent higher in the first half of 2026 than during the same period last year, according to the China Gold Association. The buying of gold has continued amid falling prices, with gold down around 8.5 percent over the month.

The World Gold Council attributed the decline in gold prices partly to a stronger dollar and higher returns on US government debt. With interest rates going up in an attempt to curb inflation, these investments are attractive for buyers as they pay interest, making them more attractive to private investors than gold, which does not.

Why is China buying more gold?

A key objective is to reduce dependence on US government debt, known as Treasuries, according to Thu Lan Nguyen, head of commodity research at Commerzbank in Frankfurt.

China holds substantial reserves in dollar-based assets and, therefore, buying gold reduces its exposure to decisions taken in Washington. “China’s gold purchases are part of a broader effort to make its reserves more resilient,” Nguyen told Al Jazeera.

The freezing by Western countries of roughly $300bn in Russian Central Bank overseas assets following Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 demonstrated how reserves held abroad can quickly become inaccessible.

The concern for China may be that a future confrontation with Washington could expose some of its overseas assets to similar restrictions. “Gold held domestically has a crucial advantage in this respect: it does not represent a claim on another country and is therefore much less exposed to sanctions or asset freezes,” Nguyen said.

“I would interpret it primarily as risk management,” she added, pointing to increased geopolitical tensions and economic and fiscal risks.

America’s rising debt, which hit $40 trillion for the first time in history earlier this year, adds another source of uncertainty. In February, the US Congressional Budget Office projected that federal debt held by the public would rise from 101 percent of the size of the US economy in 2026 to 120 percent in 2036. That provides context for concerns about Washington’s ability to repay that debt going forward should an economic crash occur. Much of this debt is held by China. Gold, therefore, offers a less volatile and risky asset to hold.

Chinese households have different motivations for buying gold. When confidence in other investments weakens, gold can become more attractive as a way to hold savings. “Strong demand for gold can partly reflect a search for alternative stores of value,” Nguyen said.

The World Gold Council has identified weak Chinese share markets as one factor supporting domestic demand for gold, while its property market is burdened by heavy borrowing and overbuilding, contributing to a fall in housing prices, making it a poorer investment.

What this means for the US dollar

Analysts warned that China’s increased buying of gold does not signal an imminent end to the dollar’s global dominance. “I would be cautious about describing this as a major shift away from the dollar,” Nguyen said. “The dollar remains by far the dominant global reserve currency.”

But a gradual shift could still matter if China and other central banks put more of their new reserves into gold, buying fewer US assets than they normally would. That could weaken one source of demand for US government debt. But the effect would depend on how widely and quickly the shift developed.

“The key point is, therefore, that this is likely to be a slow diversification process rather than a sudden abandonment of the dollar,” Nguyen said. She added that the consequences for the US economy would remain limited unless the trend broadened and accelerated substantially.

Central banks also need readily available foreign currency to support international payments and the dollar remains central to those transactions. So gold can provide financial protection, but it cannot directly replace all the functions of dollar reserves.

Who else is buying gold?

China is part of a wider trend, particularly among central banks in emerging economies, Nguyen said.

“The trend is particularly visible among emerging market central banks,” Nguyen said. “But sanctions are only part of the story.”

Poland has also become a more prominent buyer. Its central bank purchased 31 tonnes in the first quarter of 2026 and another eight tonnes in July, according to the World Gold Council.

Large holdings do not necessarily indicate recent purchases. India, for example, confirmed in June that its physical gold stock remained unchanged at about 880.5 tonnes. India’s gold reserves have changed little since mid-2025, according to the World Gold Council. It bought about four tonnes in 2025, down from 73 tonnes in 2024.

Despite China’s sustained buying, its reserves remain far smaller than those of the United States. Its holdings of about 2,300 tonnes at the end of 2025 amounted to less than one-third of the US stockpile of approximately 8,133 tonnes.

United States President Donald Trump has for the first time explicitly ruled out the use of a nuclear weapon against Iran, but has not denied US media reports that his administration is considering deploying the US’s most lethal non-nuclear munition, nicknamed the “mother of all bombs” in the near future.

In an interview published on Thursday by right-wing American news site Newsmax, Trump suggested he does not plan to use nuclear weapons, but also clarified that the devastating aerial weapon, the GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast Bomb (MOAB – ‘mother of all bombs ) “is not nuclear”.

“I wouldn’t use nuclear. We don’t have to. We’re the greatest nuclear power in the world,” he told Newsmax.

The comments marked Trump’s first definitive statement on the nuclear topic following speculation about a possible atomic conflict earlier in the US and Israel’s war on Iran. They also appeared to confirm speculation that another phase of the war is imminent, likely after the US midterm elections on November 3.

Here’s what we know:

What did Trump say?

Trump told Newsmax that the US might indeed launch another strike on Iran’s nuclear sites, particularly on Pickaxe Mountain, where Tehran is believed to be hiding a nuclear facility deep under layers of granite.

He ruled out using a nuclear weapon or a tactical nuclear weapon.

“I wouldn’t use nuclear. We don’t have to. We’re the greatest nuclear power in the world,” he said.

He also clarified that the MOAB, which CNN reported the US government is considering using, “is not nuclear”.

Responding to a question about whether the MOAB is “tactical nuclear” – meaning smaller nuclear munitions – Trump reiterated that it is not.

“Well, the mother of all bombs is not nuclear,” Trump said. “It’s not nuclear at all. This is just an extremely large bomb.”

Trump declined to say whether he had authorised its use in Iran.

Trump also suggested renewed attacks are likely in the near future. The US cannot end the war now because it has to ensure Iran cannot produce a nuclear weapon, he argued, saying he believes that “if they had it, they would use it, in my opinion, instantaneously”.

Trump also reiterated that the war would end “very soon” whether by force or diplomacy and that oil prices would then drop.

When asked if he would put “troops on the ground”, Trump said: “No, I don’t see that, I don’t see it.” Earlier in the war, Trump had made comments regarding sending in troops, a move analysts said would be devastating for US soldiers because of Iran’s mountainous territory.

What is the ‘mother of all bombs’?

The MOAB carries a massive payload of about 8,500kg (18,000 pounds or 8.5 tonnes) of high explosives. It weighs 9,800kg (21,605 pounds or nearly 10 tonnes) – about the same as four cars – and is just over nine metres (about 30 feet) long. Stealth bombers are too small to carry it, so it has to be deployed by larger, Lockheed C-130 Hercules transporters.

It is designed to explode a few metres above the ground, sending out intense fireballs that can blast buildings and other hard-surface structures within a 1km radius, experts have told Al Jazeera. It is so powerful that a mushroom cloud from its blast has been seen 32km (20 miles) away in tests, the US Air Force has said.

“Its large explosive charge can produce devastating blast effects against exposed personnel, equipment and vulnerable structures,” Brussels-based military and weapons analyst Elijah Magnier said. “Its purpose is to generate an exceptionally powerful blast across a surface area.”

However, Magnier said there is doubt about whether using the massive surface explosive would be effective against deeply buried nuclear installations in Iran. He added that the terrain in Iran could be difficult for larger cargo aircraft to access.

What has Trump previously said about nuclear weapons?

Trump has never explicitly mentioned using a nuclear weapon, but he has also never ruled it out.

Speculation regarding whether Washington might use nuclear weapons was rife in the early days of the conflict, largely because of the extreme nature of Trump’s numerous threats against Tehran.

In April, for example, as Iran enforced a blockade on ships in the Strait of Hormuz, Trump posted on his Truth Social site that “…a whole civilisation will die tonight, never to be brought back again”, if Iran did not agree to a peace deal and reopen the strait.

He also threatened to destroy Iran’s infrastructure, saying a bombing campaign “will be Power Plant Day and Bridge Day, all wrapped up in one”, in Iran.

Experts widely interpreted his statements as a threat of nuclear destruction, but one that still failed to force Iran to the table.

Although Trump largely moved away from his sabre-rattling rhetoric in the following weeks, he reiterated at the United Nations General Assembly in New York last month that he could “annihilate” Iran. He also told the assembly that he believed a deal would emerge after the midterms.

What is a ‘tactical’ nuclear weapon?

“Tactical” nuclear weapons (TNW) are smaller nuclear munitions designed for the battlefield as opposed to strategic nuclear munitions designed for mass destruction.

Some perceive TNWs as having a lesser impact than an atomic bomb, but experts warn that their names are misleading and they can nevertheless be devastating. Their explosive yield, between 0.3 and 50 kilotons, can impact areas within a 500-600km radius.

The US dropped a 15-kiloton nuclear bomb on Hiroshima, meaning that weapon would today be considered a TNW. The US, North Korea and Russia have TNWs in their arsenals, although no country has ever used them. TNWs are not subject to any international treaties and are largely unregulated.

What might another US attack on Iran look like?

With Trump failing to rule out dropping the MOAB, analysts speculate that the US might launch another – perhaps final – intensive bombing campaign targeting Iran’s nuclear and defence sites, particularly Pickaxe Mountain.

The US could also continue its naval blockade on Iranian ports, while providing escorts for commercial ships through the Strait of Hormuz.

Iran has vowed to respond to escalatory strikes by targeting oil and digital infrastructure in neighbouring Gulf states.

Senior defence officials have also warned that Iran will invade its neighbours if the US launches a ground operation, although Trump appears to have ruled that out.

Earlier in the war, he hinted at the possibility of sending ground forces to retrieve some 400kg of “yellowcake” – highly enriched uranium that Washington and Israel claim Tehran has hidden underground.

Trump’s phone calls in March to Kurdish militia groups fighting Iran provoked speculation that Washington could coordinate with them for an invasion, although that did not happen.