INTERNACIONAL
UK’s elite soldier unit faces exodus over ‘lawfare’ fears — warning sign for US military?
My heart breaks for these soldiers: Navy SEAL
Ret. Navy SEAL Jason Redman says there are a ‘lot of players’ in the Middle East who could be responsible for the ambush of two U.S. soldiers and one civilian interpreter on ‘Fox Report.’
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
Britain’s elite Special Air Service (SAS) is facing a growing exodus as soldiers resign over fears they could face years of legal scrutiny for actions taken on the battlefield, according to a report in The Telegraph.
Several sources told the British newspaper that members of 22 SAS, the British Army’s most elite regiment, have applied for premature release amid anger over investigations into alleged war crimes in Afghanistan, Syria and Northern Ireland.
The debate is not confined to Britain.
American troops could face similar concerns if political leaders fail to distinguish between legitimate investigations and politically motivated campaigns, according to John Spencer, executive director of the Urban Warfare Institute.
SIX DEMOCRATS URGE MILITARY MEMBERS TO ‘REFUSE ILLEGAL ORDERS’ IN VIRAL VIDEO; HEGSETH RESPONDS
«I welcome timely investigations of allegations of violations,» Spencer told Fox News Digital, «but want our leaders to protect all our forces, special or not, from agenda or politicized ‘witch hunts.’»
Australian Cpl. Ben Roberts-Smith attends a Victoria Cross and George Cross Association Reunion Service at St. Martin-in-the-Fields Church on May 30, 2012, in London. (Max Mumby/Indigo/Getty Images)
In Australia, the case of Victoria Cross recipient Ben Roberts-Smith has become a rallying point for veterans who fear elite soldiers could face years of legal battles after serving in combat.
Roberts-Smith, Australia’s most decorated living soldier, has denied allegations that he committed war crimes in Afghanistan. Earlier in April, Australian authorities charged him with five counts of murder related to his service in Afghanistan.
To many British veterans, the Australian case reinforces fears that the same trend could spread across other Western militaries, including the United States.
British armed forces work with the U.S. military to evacuate eligible civilians and their families on Aug. 21, 2021, in Kabul, Afghanistan. (MoD Crown Copyright/Getty Images)
At least two SAS squadrons have been affected, with several current and former members describing the losses as a «threat to national security.» The paper did not publish the precise number of departures for security reasons.
The resignations come as Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s government faces criticism over both defense spending and the treatment of veterans.
Britain’s armed forces have faced mounting scrutiny over their size and readiness in recent years. But the U.K. government says it is reversing that trend, reporting that total armed forces strength stood at 182,050 personnel as of Jan. 1, 2026, including 136,960 regular troops, an increase from the previous year.
The government also has pledged what it calls the largest sustained rise in defense spending since the Cold War, with military spending set to reach 2.6% of GDP by 2027, backed by an additional £5 billion this financial year and £270 billion in defense investment over the course of the current Parliament. Britain also has said it aims to raise defense spending to 3% of GDP by the end of the next Parliament.
Former and current soldiers said they believe Britain’s legal system has turned against troops who were sent to fight on behalf of the government.
«If a soldier discharges their weapon, they are almost certainly going to get a knock at their door one day,» George Simm, a former regimental sergeant major of 22 SAS, told The Telegraph. «It feels like a betrayal and a break in the trust.»
RETIRED GENERAL BLASTS DEMOCRATIC LAWMAKERS’ ‘IRRESPONSIBLE’ VIDEO URGING TROOPS TO REFUSE ‘ILLEGAL’ ORDERS
Britain’s elite Special Air Service (SAS) is facing a growing exodus as soldiers resign over fears they could face years of legal scrutiny for actions taken on the battlefield, according to a report in The Telegraph. (Omar Sobhani/Reuters)
The controversy centers on ongoing investigations into British special forces operations.
A total of 242 special forces troops, including 120 still serving, are currently involved in legal inquiries costing roughly £1 million per month. Those inquiries involve operations in Afghanistan, Northern Ireland and Syria.
Critics say those investigations have created a culture in which soldiers fear that decisions made in combat would later lead to prosecution.
Andrew Fox, a former British Army officer and senior fellow at the Henry Jackson Society, a London-based think tank, told Fox News Digital the relationship between soldiers and the government has been badly damaged.
«Soldiering contains a pact between the government and those they employ to use lethal force,» Fox said. «Soldiers will take human life within the rules set for them by international law, and in return, their governments should support them.
«This has been inverted, and international law has been weaponized and exploited by our enemies to persecute our soldiers. All too often, governments are coming down on the side of those enemies, not our troops.»
Fox said it was understandable that some soldiers would no longer want to serve.
«Of course, law breaking should be punished, but we are seeing a breakdown in trust between governments and their armed forces when politicians allow troops to be hounded through the courts unjustly,» he said.
Spencer said professional militaries depend on maintaining public trust through a strong internal justice system.
«A professional military holds the trust of its society because it lives by a strict ethical code, its laws, and its rules,» Spencer told Fox News Digital. «That trust is what gives soldiers the unique authority to use lethal force in the worst conditions a human being can face.»
Spencer said allegations of wrongdoing should be investigated quickly and fairly.
«We need investigations that move quickly and fairly on any credible allegation,» he said. «If there’s real evidence of wrongdoing under the law of armed conflict or the rules of engagement, then both the military and society must act on it. That’s how you keep the trust alive.»
PRINCE HARRY FIRES BACK AT TRUMP OVER NATO CRITICISM: ‘I LOST FRIENDS’ IN AFGHANISTAN
American troops could face similar concerns if political leaders fail to distinguish between legitimate investigations and politically motivated campaigns, according to John Spencer, executive director of the Urban Warfare Institute. (Matt Cardy/Getty Images)
At the same time, Spencer warned that some legal campaigns risk crossing the line into what troops perceive as politically motivated «witch hunts.»
«I’ve seen too many human rights lawyers blur the line between basic human rights and the actual law of armed conflict,» Spencer said. «They don’t always understand the application of the use of force in context or the split-second chaos of combat. When that turns into what troops call witch hunts, it eats away at morale and readiness.»
Spencer said governments have a responsibility both to investigate credible accusations and to protect troops from what he called agenda-driven campaigns.
«It’s also the duty of the government to shield the military from agenda-driven witch hunts,» he said. «A rigorous military justice system and honest self-policing are essential for an ethical force. Without them, the profession loses the very trust that lets it do its job.»
Britain’s Ministry of Defense spokesperson told Fox News digital that, «While it is a long-standing policy of successive governments to not comment on U.K. Special Forces, we are immensely proud of all our Armed Forces and their extraordinary contribution to keeping the U.K. safe at home and abroad.»
«We are committed to ensuring that the legal framework governing our Armed Forces reflects the practical realities of military operations — and that those who served with honor are properly protected,» he added, «Where the U.K. undertakes military action, it complies fully with U.K. and international law. We are clear that upholding those standards does not prevent our Armed Forces from conducting effective operations.»
Former British military chiefs warned in an open letter to Starmer in late 2025 that soldiers increasingly believe they must worry about «not only the enemy in front of them but the lawyer behind them.»
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
To many British veterans, the Australian case reinforces fears that the same trend could spread across other Western militaries, including the United States. (Guvendemir/Getty Iamges )
«Make no mistake,» the retired generals wrote, «our closest allies are watching uneasily, and our enemies will be rubbing their hands.»
national security, army, armed forces, investigations, veterans, united kingdom
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
President Donald Trump said the ceasefire with Iran is on «massive life support,» as retired U.S. commanders and national security experts are increasingly split whether Washington should resume military operations against Tehran or avoid what critics warn could become another prolonged Middle East conflict.
«I would say the ceasefire is on massive life support,» Trump told reporters Monday. «Where the doctor walks in and says, ‘Sir, your loved one has approximately a 1% chance of living.’»
Trump also dismissed Iran’s latest response to a proposed agreement as «a piece of garbage,» amid reports the White House is reviewing military options should negotiations collapse.
Retired Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster, former national security adviser under Trump, said he believes Iran’s leadership is unlikely to make the concessions Trump considers necessary for a deal.
WHITE HOUSE WARNS IRAN AGAINST BALKING AT DEAL: TRUMP READY TO ‘UNLEASH HELL’
President Donald Trump said the ceasefire with Iran is on «massive life support,» as retired U.S. commanders and national security experts are increasingly split whether Washington should resume military operations. (Atta KENARE / AFP via Getty Images)
«I think the Iranian leadership and IRGC are unwilling to make the kind of concessions that President Trump thinks are at the minimum,» McMaster told Fox News Digital, referring to Iran’s hardline Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.
«President Trump always wants a deal,» he added. «But he’s not going to sign up for a bad deal.»
The emerging debate now centers on a core question facing Washington: whether additional military pressure could force Iran to abandon its nuclear and missile ambitions, or whether renewed strikes would deepen a regional conflict without producing decisive results.
Retired Vice Adm. Mark Fox, former deputy commander of U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), said he believes the current ceasefire and diplomatic track are unlikely to force Iran to back down.
«I really cannot envision anything other than a full return to combat operations,» Fox told Fox News Digital. «The only thing that they will respond to, I think ultimately, is force.»
Fox argued the U.S. military remains capable of reopening and securing commercial shipping through the Strait of Hormuz despite ongoing Iranian threats against vessels transiting the waterway.
HORMUZ CHOKE POINT PERSISTS AS IRAN HALTS OIL TRAFFIC DESPITE TRUMP CEASEFIRE
Supporters of renewed military action argue Iran is weaker than it has been in decades and that stopping now risks allowing Tehran to regroup, rebuild its missile arsenal and preserve leverage over one of the world’s most important energy choke points. (AP Photo)
«This is a militarily obtainable objective,» he said, outlining a strategy involving guided missile destroyers, attack helicopters, drones and expanded aerial surveillance to create a protected maritime corridor through the Strait.
Fox acknowledged the U.S. Navy is smaller than it was during the 1980s tanker wars, but argued American forces still possess the capability to secure the chokepoint if Washington commits enough naval assets and persistent monitoring operations.
«It’s not easy,» Fox said. «But the geography is fixed.»
He described a possible strategy that would rely on destroyers, drones and attack aircraft to create what he called an «unblinking eye» over the strait, allowing U.S. forces to identify and neutralize Iranian speedboats, drones and anti-shipping threats before they can strike commercial vessels.
Fox also warned against allowing Iran to preserve leverage over Hormuz while continuing to advance its missile and nuclear programs.
«If not now, when?» he said. «If they had a nuclear weapon, they would use it.»
EXPERTS WARN IRAN’S NUCLEAR DOUBLE-TALK DESIGNED TO BUY TIME, UNDERMINE US PRESSURE
But not everyone agrees that renewed military action would produce a better outcome. (Contributor/Getty Images)
Fox, who also signed onto a recent policy paper by the Jewish Institute for National Security of America, echoed the report’s argument that Iran is using negotiations to buy time while preserving its military capabilities.
The paper was authored by several retired senior U.S. military officials and national security experts, including retired Gen. Chuck Wald, former deputy commander of U.S. European Command and retired Vice Adm. Robert Harward, former deputy commander of CENTCOM, argued the current ceasefire and diplomatic track «cannot reliably compel Iran» to meet U.S. demands and warned Tehran was seeking to «drag out talks, erode U.S. resolve, and use the time to strengthen itself.»
The report called for expanded military operations targeting Iran’s maritime capabilities, missile infrastructure and internal coercive apparatus while avoiding broad attacks on civilian infrastructure that could trigger wider regional escalation.
But not everyone agrees that renewed military action would produce a better outcome.
Retired Lt. Col. Daniel Davis, a senior fellow at Defense Priorities and longtime critic of expanded U.S. military interventions, warned that calls to «finish the job» ignore the realities exposed during the recent fighting.
«To ‘finish the job,’ as they say, is irrational,» Davis told Fox News Digital. «It’s illogical, and it violates any kind of military principle.»
KEITH KELLOGG URGES US TO ‘FINISH THE JOB’ AGAINST IRAN BY SEIZING ISLANDS, STRANGLING ECONOMY
A screengrab from a video released by U.S. Central Command shows smoke and dust rising after an explosion at an unknown location during the operation dubbed Epic Fury, an attack by the United States and Israel on Iran, released Feb. 28, 2026. (CENTCOM/Reuters)
Davis argued that despite thousands of strikes and weeks of fighting, Iran retained significant missile and maritime capabilities.
«We couldn’t knock them out with 14,000 targets hit,» he said. «Why does anybody think that going back another time is going to have a different result?»
He described Iran’s geography, dispersed missile infrastructure and asymmetric naval tactics as creating what he called «a militarily unsolvable problem.»
«The only thing left is a diplomatic outcome,» Davis said.
The disagreement reflects a broader divide emerging in Washington as officials weigh what comes next if negotiations fail.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
Supporters of renewed military action argue Iran is weaker than it has been in decades and that stopping now risks allowing Tehran to regroup, rebuild its missile arsenal and preserve leverage over one of the world’s most important energy choke points.
Critics counter that even extensive U.S. and Israeli strikes failed to fundamentally break the regime’s control or eliminate its military capabilities, raising the risk that further escalation could drag the United States into another drawn-out regional conflict with uncertain results.
war with iran, defense, middle east, national security, iran
INTERNACIONAL
Una tradicional ceremonia del rey Carlos III en el Parlamento desnuda la fragilidad del gobierno laborista en el Reino Unido
El rey Carlos III presentará el miércoles a los legisladores el programa legislativo del gobierno para el próximo año con toda la pompa y los elementos históricos que acompañan la ceremonia de apertura del Parlamento británico.
La cuestión es si el primer ministro Keir Starmer estará presente para implementarlo y, aun si sobrevive a la última crisis de gobierno, si tendrá la autoridad para impulsar sus propuestas en el Parlamento.
El discurso del rey será el segundo intento de Starmer por salvar su mandato, después de que su Partido Laborista sufriera enormes pérdidas en las elecciones locales y regionales de la semana pasada. Esto debilitó aún más su ya precaria posición en el poder y avivó las peticiones de dimisión por parte de miembros de su propio partido, quienes consideran que Starmer ha sido demasiado tibio a la hora de abordar el creciente coste de la vida, la desigualdad económica y el deterioro de los servicios públicos del país.
La presión sobre Starmer no ha hecho más que aumentar desde su discurso del lunes ante simpatizantes del partido, presentado como el primer paso de su contraataque. Sin embargo, fue criticado por su falta de sensibilidad y por carecer de las políticas audaces necesarias para abordar los problemas de Gran Bretaña. La ex ministra de Protección Infantil, Jess Phillips, dimitió del Gabinete el martes, afirmando que el gobierno necesitaba «discutir, contraatacar, argumentar y convencer a la gente».
El discurso del rey será un momento en el que el poder histórico y la grandeza de Gran Bretaña chocarán con la realidad del Reino Unido moderno, un país de tamaño medio con un ejército con fondos insuficientes, una deuda creciente y una influencia internacional menguante. Es un país que lucha por controlar la inmigración y financiar servicios públicos como la sanidad y la educación.
El discurso es solo uno de los elementos de la apertura oficial del Parlamento, un evento tradicional del calendario político que utiliza una puesta en escena cuidadosamente coreografiada para mostrar la evolución de Gran Bretaña desde una monarquía absoluta a una democracia parlamentaria donde el poder real reside en la Cámara de los Comunes, cuyos miembros son elegidos democráticamente.
La edición de este año será seguida de cerca debido a la precaria situación de Starmer.
Se espera que el discurso incluya propuestas para abordar la crisis del costo de vida, crear un fondo nacional de riqueza para estimular la inversión privada en infraestructura pública y endurecer las normas para los solicitantes de asilo. También podría incluir la controvertida propuesta del gobierno de abolir los juicios con jurado en algunos casos en Inglaterra y Gales, reducir la edad para votar a 16 años e introducir un “deber de honestidad” para los funcionarios públicos, que les obligaría a decir la verdad y cooperar con las investigaciones.
El problema para Starmer es que muchas de las propuestas que se espera que aparezcan en su discurso ya se han anunciado con anterioridad. Esto plantea la duda de si logrará convencer a sus detractores.
Aun así, el discurso es el punto central de una jornada de ceremonia y tradición que se sigue desde 1852, con elementos del programa que datan del siglo XVI.
Tradicionalmente, el monarca se desplaza desde el Palacio de Buckingham hasta el Parlamento, una distancia de menos de un kilómetro y medio, en un carruaje tirado por caballos. Allí se coloca la Corona Imperial y la túnica de Estado antes de encabezar una procesión hacia la Cámara de los Lores, cuyos miembros no son elegidos.
Un funcionario de la Cámara de los Lores, conocido como Vara Negra por la vara de ébano que porta, se dirige a la Cámara de los Comunes para convocar a sus miembros a una sesión conjunta del Parlamento. Las puertas de la Cámara de los Comunes se cierran de golpe en la cara de Vara Negra para simbolizar la independencia de la Cámara respecto a la monarquía, y no se abren hasta que Vara Negra las golpea tres veces.
Una vez que los miembros de la Cámara de los Comunes se han congregado en la cámara de los Lores, el rey pronuncia un discurso redactado por el gobierno en el que expone su programa legislativo para la próxima sesión del Parlamento.
Tras la lectura del discurso y la partida del rey, las dos cámaras del Parlamento inician varios días de debate sobre su contenido.
(con información de AP)
Domestic Politics,Royals,Europe,Government / Politics,Royals
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
As President Donald Trump and hundreds of aides, security personnel and officials prepare to travel to China, many will leave behind one of the most basic tools of modern government: their everyday cellphones.
Instead, officials entering China often travel with stripped-down «clean» devices, temporary laptops and tightly controlled communications systems designed to minimize the risk of surveillance, hacking or data collection in what U.S. officials consider one of the world’s most aggressive cyber environments.
The precautions can transform even routine tasks into logistical headaches. Messages that would normally travel instantly through encrypted apps or synced devices are instead routed through controlled channels, temporary accounts or relayed in person.
CHINA-LINKED HACKING GROUP TARGETS PHONES BELONGING TO TRUMP FAMILY, BIDEN AIDES: REPORT
Contacts disappear. Cloud access is limited. Some officials operate for days without their normal digital footprint.
Current and former officials say the measures reflect a longstanding assumption inside the U.S. government: anything brought into China — phones, laptops, tablets or even hotel Wi-Fi connections — should be treated as potentially compromised.
As President Donald Trump and hundreds of aides, security personnel and officials prepare to travel to China this week, many will leave behind one of the most basic tools of modern government: their everyday phones. (Evelyn Hockstein/Reuters)
«China is a mass surveillance state,» said Bill Gage, a former Secret Service special agent and now director of executive protection for Safehaven Security Group. «Briefings for U.S. officials begin well before the president arrives, and they make clear that everything is monitored.»
«We always tell people to assume everything you say and do — both in person and digitally — could be monitored,» said Theresa Payton, former White House chief information officer and CEO of cybersecurity firm Fortalice Solutions. «And to conduct themselves accordingly.»
Ahead of Trump’s high-stakes meetings with Chinese President Xi Jinping, the digital precautions underscore the broader mistrust shaping the relationship between Washington and Beijing, where cybersecurity, espionage and surveillance concerns now permeate nearly every aspect of official engagement.
TRUMP TO CONFRONT XI AT HIGH-STAKES SUMMIT OVER CHINA BACKING FOR IRAN, RUSSIA
The precautions will extend beyond government officials. The delegation traveling with Trump also is expected to include executives from major American firms, including Apple, Boeing, Qualcomm and BlackRock — companies operating at the center of the U.S.–China economic and technological relationship.
In Washington, officials are often told to leave their phones behind when entering places like the Chinese Embassy. Those same concerns are amplified when traveling to China itself, where U.S. officials operate under the assumption that devices, networks and even hotel rooms could be monitored.
Even charging a phone can become a security concern.
Federal cybersecurity guidance has long warned travelers to avoid plugging devices into unknown USB ports or untrusted charging systems because compromised hardware can potentially be used to extract data or install malicious software — a tactic commonly referred to as «juice jacking.»
As a result, officials traveling to high-risk countries often carry preapproved charging equipment, external battery packs and government-issued accessories rather than relying on local infrastructure.
«There are no safe electronic communications in China,» Gage said, noting officials are advised to limit digital activity to only what is necessary for the mission.
The Chinese government has rejected claims that it engages in improper surveillance.
«In China, personal privacy is protected by law,» Chinese Embassy spokesperson Liu Pengyu told Fox News Digital. «The Chinese government places a high priority on protecting data privacy and security in accordance with the law. It has never required—and will never require—enterprises or individuals to collect or store data in violation of the law.»
«China is a mass surveillance state,» said Bill Gage, a former Secret Service special agent and now director of executive protection for Safehaven Security Group. «Briefings for U.S. officials begin well before the president arrives, and they make clear that everything is monitored.» (iStock)
Payton said officials may also be issued temporary devices configured with known «golden images,» allowing security teams to detect whether a device has been altered or accessed during the trip.
«You may see executives issued loaner phones with a known ‘golden image,’ meaning security teams can compare the device before and after use to see if it’s been tampered with,» she said.
«There may be controlled ‘safe zones’ set up where officials can communicate back to the U.S., but everything is tightly managed,» Payton added.
When sensitive conversations need to happen, the logistics become even more complex.
U.S. officials traveling overseas frequently rely on temporary sensitive compartmented information facilities, or SCIFs — secure spaces designed to prevent electronic surveillance and eavesdropping. Those facilities can be established inside hotels or other controlled locations during major diplomatic trips.
«The White House Military Office and communications teams create controlled spaces where they can monitor both physical and digital access to ensure sensitive conversations remain secure,» Payton said.
The precautions can create a surprisingly analog environment for a modern presidential delegation. Paper documents become more common, digital access is restricted and aides accustomed to constant communication often operate through tightly controlled channels.
Officials entering China often travel with stripped-down «clean» devices, temporary laptops and tightly controlled communications systems designed to minimize the risk of surveillance, hacking or data collection in what U.S. officials consider one of the world’s most aggressive cyber environments. (iStock)
The White House could not immediately be reached for comment.
U.S. officials have spent years warning about Chinese cyber espionage campaigns targeting American government agencies, critical infrastructure, defense contractors and telecommunications networks.
Intelligence officials have accused Beijing-linked hackers of infiltrating everything from federal systems to power grids and water utilities, while repeatedly attempting to collect information on senior American officials and policymakers.
«China will conduct extensive research on every member of the U.S. delegation — from senior officials down to junior personnel,» Gage said, describing the level of intelligence targeting officials are warned about before traveling.
Payton said the high-profile nature of a presidential visit only increases the risk.
«This is a well-publicized event, so you have to assume everything from nation states to opportunistic actors may be trying to listen in,» she said.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
The issue exploded into public view in 2023, when a suspected Chinese surveillance balloon crossed the continental United States before being shot down by the U.S. military after traversing sensitive military sites. U.S. officials later said the balloon was part of a broader surveillance effort linked to Beijing.
More recently, federal officials have warned about sophisticated China-linked cyber groups such as Volt Typhoon and Salt Typhoon, which U.S. authorities say targeted critical infrastructure and telecommunications systems in ways that could support espionage or disruption during a future conflict.
security, laptops, cybercrime, xi jinping, apple
Cuánto sale alquilar un departamento de dos ambientes en cada zona del Gran Buenos Aires
Trump faces split among retired US commanders over whether to resume Iran strikes
Caos en Arabia Saudita: se desató una batalla campal en las tribunas durante un partido del Al Nassr
El Gobierno aguarda una definición de la Justicia antes de avanzar sobre la AFA
Una tradicional ceremonia del rey Carlos III en el Parlamento desnuda la fragilidad del gobierno laborista en el Reino Unido
La City advierte en pleno «Adornigate»: el piso del riesgo país será alto por el riesgo político
El dólar subió en la primera semana de mayo y se acercó a los 1.400 pesos
¡BOMBAZO POLÍTICO! Martín Tetaz revela las pruebas del oscuro financiamiento de las SIRA: ¿Massa financió el inicio de Milei?
Caputo dio precisiones sobre el Súper RIGI: “Estamos hablando de una inversión que puede ser de USD 20 mil o USD 30 mil millones”
Plan de Alfabetización, universidades, becas y salarios docentes: cuáles son los recortes que el Gobierno hizo en educación horas antes de la marcha
POLITICA3 días ago¡BOMBAZO POLÍTICO! Martín Tetaz revela las pruebas del oscuro financiamiento de las SIRA: ¿Massa financió el inicio de Milei?
- ECONOMIA23 horas ago
Plan de Alfabetización, universidades, becas y salarios docentes: cuáles son los recortes que el Gobierno hizo en educación horas antes de la marcha
- SOCIEDAD2 días ago
ALERTA ROJA POR HANTAVIRUS: ¿La nueva amenaza global? Por qué su incubación de 40 días podría superar el alcance del COVID-19
