Due to market decline

Vinod Nair, Head of Research, Geojit Investments Ltd, said, “It seems that there will be widespread selling in the near future as the market has performed well since the beginning of the month, which has led to profit booking. The possibility of low participation of foreign investment investors (FIIs) due to Lunar New Year holidays in Asian markets is also playing an important role in this.”

Additionally, transactions remain closed on Thursday as it is a banking holiday. He further said that although these factors do not usually affect the direction of the market, they can affect the functioning, liquidity and volume of trading.

“High volatility in crude oil prices – with Brent crude rising above US$ 70 amid US-Iran deal delay and rising tensions in the Strait of Hormuz – is putting the Indian stock market under pressure,” Nair said.

The debate over U.S. missile defense is increasingly focused on space, as defense experts argue that stopping threats in the earliest moments after launch could determine whether the homeland remains protected against Russia and China’s expanding arsenals.

At a policy discussion marking roughly a year since the rollout of the “Golden Dome” homeland defense initiative, former senior defense officials said the United States can no longer rely primarily on deterrence and retaliation to shield the country from missile attacks.

“I think geography is no longer” a shield, former Air Force Undersecretary Kari Bingen said during a C-SPAN panel Friday. “There are different types of threats that can reach the homeland.”

TRUMP UNVEILS ‘GOLDEN DOME’ MISSILE SHIELD, BLINDSIDES KEY SENATORS

The Golden Dome initiative stems from a January 2025 executive order signed by President Donald Trump directing the Pentagon to accelerate development of a next-generation homeland missile defense architecture. The order calls for integrating existing ground-based interceptors with advanced tracking networks, new space-based sensors and potentially space-based interceptors capable of detecting and defeating ballistic, cruise and hypersonic missile threats earlier in flight.

Administration officials have framed the effort as a response to rapid modernization by Russia and China. 

Russia has fielded new intercontinental ballistic missiles and hypersonic glide vehicles designed to penetrate missile defenses, while China has expanded its nuclear arsenal and constructed hundreds of new missile silos in recent years. 

Both countries have invested heavily in maneuverable reentry vehicles and countermeasures intended to complicate U.S. interception efforts.

Stopping missiles early

Supporters of a stronger space layer argue that intercepting a missile early in flight — before it can deploy warheads or countermeasures — simplifies the defensive challenge and reduces the strain on systems closer to U.S. territory.

“It gives the ability to neutralize before they manifest here at home,” missile defense expert Thomas Karako said, referring to space-enabled capabilities that could track and potentially intercept threats sooner in their trajectory.

Karako said there is “a compelling case” for space-based interceptors “not just against nonnuclear attack but even limited nuclear attacks,” arguing that raising the threshold for adversaries contemplating a strike strengthens deterrence overall.

“If you raise the threshold for having enough capability to meaningfully invest in enemies … there’s goodness in there,” he said.

Panelists emphasized that the objective is not absolute protection against thousands of intercontinental ballistic missiles, but improving the odds of defeating smaller or more limited attacks — including those that could involve large salvos or advanced countermeasures.

Threats are evolving

Melissa Dalton, a former senior Pentagon official, said missile and drone use has become increasingly normalized in recent conflicts, lowering the perceived threshold for employment.

“They don’t respect the boundaries,” Dalton said, noting the growing frequency of missile and drone attacks.

Bingen argued that the U.S. historically leaned heavily on the threat of retaliation to deter attacks, but that changing technologies and adversary capabilities require a broader approach.

“Americans would be surprised how reliant we have been on vulnerability and retaliation,” she said.

Space and integration challenges

While space-based missile defense once drew skepticism due to cost and technical hurdles, Karako said advances in commercial launch and satellite technology have changed the feasibility calculus.

“This is not the Soviet Union in the ’80s or the ’90s,” he said. “The technology has evolved quite a bit.”

Still, experts acknowledged that integration — linking sensors, interceptors and command-and-control systems at machine speed — may be the most difficult challenge.

“We have to remember this is a layered defense system,” Bingen said. “We’re not asking the space layer to do it all.”

PENTAGON WARNS FUTURE WARS MAY HIT US SOIL AS ‘DIRECT MILITARY THREATS’ GROW

Participants also stressed that any major expansion of homeland missile defense will require bipartisan political support to endure through election cycles and shifting budget priorities.

“If you don’t persuade people what it’s about, it will never be built,” Karako said.

Officials have floated an aggressive timeline — including a three-year push to stand up initial capabilities — but Golden Dome is still in early development, with much of the work focused on planning, prototypes and initial contracts. Significant technical and acquisition hurdles remain, particularly for any space-based interceptor layer, which defense officials acknowledge would take years to fully field.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

The effort marks a broader shift in how the U.S. approaches homeland defense. Rather than relying mainly on midcourse interceptors and the threat of retaliation, Golden Dome is designed to push defenses earlier in a missile’s flight — and further into space — with the goal of stopping threats before they can deploy countermeasures or overwhelm existing systems.

Donald Trump has once again criticised the UK’s decision to hand the Chagos Islands to Mauritius, in a deal that includes a formal transfer of Diego Garcia, home to a key US military base.

Writing on his TruthSocial platform, Mr Trump warned against the loss of the US-UK military base on Diego Garcia, which the UK is retaining through a 99-year lease of the island.

He praised his relationship with Sir Keir Starmer, but said the prime minister was “losing control of this important Island by claims of entities never known of before”.

Follow the latest on Trump

Mr Trump added that the Sir Keir “should not lose control, for any reason, of Diego Garcia, by entering a tenuous, at best, 100 Year Lease”.

He continued: “This land should not be taken away from the U.K. and, if it is allowed to be, it will be a blight on our Great Ally. We will always be ready, willing, and able to fight for the U.K., but they have to remain strong in the face of Wokeism, and other problems put before them.

“DO NOT GIVE AWAY DIEGO GARCIA!”

A UK government spokesperson said the deal was “crucial to the security of the UK and our key allies, and to keeping the British people safe.”

They added: “The agreement we have reached is the only way to guarantee the long-term future of this vital military base.”

What has Trump said before?

Mr Trump previously slammed the deal on 20 January, saying giving away the island was “an act of great stupidity”, and that the UK took the decision for “no reason whatsoever”.

But the UK government stood firm. An official spokesperson said the government acted because the base on Diego Garcia was “under threat after court decisions undermined our position and would have prevented it operating as intended in future”.

“The UK will never compromise on our national security,” the spokesperson added.

Mr Trump later rowed back his criticism of the deal following a phone call with Sir Keir on 5 February. Mr Trump described the treaty then as “the best [Starmer] could make”.

The UK and Mauritius have agreed to the deal, but it is yet to be ratified (made officially valid) by the UK parliament, so the islands currently remain British territory.

So what is the deal really about, why has it sparked controversy and what does it mean for the UK-US military presence on the archipelago?

Where are the Chagos Islands?

The Chagos Islands are made up of more than 600 islands lying in the Indian Ocean, halfway between Africa and Indonesia. Around 4,000 people are stationed there.

Why are they so controversial?

The islands were a dependency of Mauritius when it was a French colony, but the UK claimed them as part of Mauritius in the early 19th Century and kept them beyond the country’s independence in 1968.

In the early 1970s, the UK expelled everyone from the archipelago so the US could build a naval support facility on the biggest island, Diego Garcia.

Up to 2,000 native inhabitants, who are often referred to as Chagossians or Ilois, were removed to Mauritius or the Seychelles.

The expulsions are regarded as one of the most shameful parts of Britain’s modern colonial history and Chagossians have spent decades fighting to return.

Why is the Diego Garcia base so important?

Diego Garcia serves as a key military base for both the US and UK.

It is leased to the US but operates as a joint UK-US base. Since 1971, only military employees have been allowed access.

The UK government said its “strategic location” made it “vital to UK and US power projection in the Indian Ocean and beyond”. It is described as “a unique shared platform” enabling a UK-US military presence across the Middle East, Indo-Pacific and Africa.

Sir Keir has noted that it was used to deploy aircraft to “defeat terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan”.

More recent operations launched from the base include bombing strikes against ‍Houthi targets in Yemen in 2024 and 2025 and humanitarian aid deployments to Gaza.

Why did the UK agree to return the islands?

Mauritius and the UK have been in dispute over the islands for the past 50 years.

In 2010, Mauritius started proceedings against the UK to challenge the legality of how Britain had declared sovereignty, including its declaration of a marine protected area around the archipelago, which it argued stopped Chagossians from returning.

It demanded compensation and repatriation of former inhabitants.

In 2018, the fight made it to the International Court of Justice.

Under the Conservative government in 2022 sovereignty negotiations with Mauritius began, but halted a year later after a paper by three academics said transferring the islands would be a “major self-inflicted blow”.

Two years later, in October 2024, the UK agreed to transfer sovereignty of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius. The deal, however, drew some criticism from lawmakers as ‌well as Britons born on Diego Garcia.

At the time, the US said it “welcomed the historic agreement”, commending both countries’ leaders for their vision.

In February ​2025, ahead of the signing, Mr Trump also expressed preliminary support for the deal. Canada, Australia, New Zealand and India have also backed the agreement.

What is in the final deal?

Last May, Sir Keir Starmer’s Labour government signed the deal to return the islands, which would mean Britain formally gives up sovereignty of the Indian Ocean territory.

The deal states:

• The UK will hand sovereignty of the territory over to Mauritius and lease the Diego Garcia base from the Mauritian government over 99 years;
• It will ban other powers from using the islands around Diego Garcia without agreement with the UK;
• Mauritius will be free to arrange for resettlement of Chagossians on all islands except Diego Garcia;
• The period can be extended by a further 40 years, if both parties agree;
• Sir Keir said the average cost per year is £101m. Sky News analysis suggests the total cost could rise as high as £30bn;
• Both the Commons and the Mauritian parliament need to ratify the deal.

Sir Keir said the UK might otherwise have lost the island over Mauritius’s legal claim on the Chagos Islands, which may have allowed hostile countries to set up their own bases or carry out exercises.

The government said the final deal also addressed “wrongs of the past” and demonstrated “the commitment of both parties to support the welfare” of Chagossians.

Why is there concern over the deal?

Concerns over the deal include any future Mauritian government not adhering to the agreement and subsequently allowing China, which is heavily invested in Mauritius, to take over the base.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio echoed these concerns in February last year, saying the deal could cause potential threats to US security.

While Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch said the deal made “us and ​our NATO allies weaker”.

Read more from Sky News:
What is the Hillsborough Law?
What UK social media ban on children could look like

Some Chagossians, many of whom ended up living in Britain after being removed from the archipelago, have protested against the agreement on the grounds that they were not consulted on its detail.

The UK’s House of Lords also objected to elements of the deal in January of this year. The House inflicted four defeats over the details of the leasing of Diego Garcia – and the publication of any detailed payments made to Mauritius.

The government pulled the bill from the Lords, and has yet to reschedule it.

TUCSON, Ariz. – Advanced DNA testing which combines crime scene DNA analysis and information from commercial genealogy databases could take weeks or months to process after the DNA found on a glove near Nancy Guthrie‘s home didn’t produce a match in an FBI database, according to an expert. 

During an interview with Fox News on Tuesday, Pima County Sheriff Chris Nanos said that DNA recovered from Guthrie’s home, as well as a glove found near the house, wasn’t a match for any records found in the FBI database known as the Combined DNA Index System. An FBI official told Fox News Digital that investigative genetic genealogy is underway in the Guthrie investigation.

Guthrie was forcibly taken from her Tucson, Arizona home in the early morning hours of February 1 and didn’t leave on her own, Nanos said previously. She is still missing.

Retired FBI special agent Jason Pack told Fox News Digital that Investigative genetic genealogy is a technique used by the FBI that “combines DNA analysis from crime scenes with searching publicly available commercial genealogy databases and old-fashioned genealogy research.”

BURGLARY THEORY IN MISSING GUTHRIE CASE ‘RIDICULOUSLY RARE’ SAYS LAW ENFORCEMENT SOURCE

The technique is different from CODIS, as that database compares “crime scene DNA against people who have already been arrested or convicted,” he added.

Pack said the investigative genetic genealogy could take several weeks up to several months in a case like this, noting it’s “not a quick database check.”

“Once the DNA profile is built from the glove, a genealogist builds a family tree working outward from partial matches in consumer databases like GEDmatch or FamilyTreeDNA. You are essentially reconstructing someone’s family history from distant cousins and working your way inward until you can identify a common ancestor and then narrow down to a specific individual. The timeline depends on a few variables,” he said.

FIVE CRITICAL CLUES IN FBI FOOTAGE COULD PINPOINT SUSPECT IN NANCY GUTHRIE DISAPPEARANCE: EXPERTS

Pack said the time it takes to complete investigative genetic genealogy depends on several factors, such as the number of relatives who have submitted consumer DNA tests and how clean a DNA sample is. The less participation in commercial DNA testing by a suspect’s family, Pack says, the more time the process takes.

A spokesperson for Othram, which conducts investigative genetic genealogy, told Fox News Digital that the amount of time needed to find a match depends on several factors, but it could be done in a fairly quick process.

“It took 48 hours for Kohberger. It took 24 hours to create a profile. Now we’ve created software to do it faster. Genealogy for the Kohberger case was very quick,” the spokesperson said.

The technique was used to catch the Golden State Killer in 2018, who killed at least 13 people and sexually assaulted another 50 women after investigators uploaded DNA found at the crime scene to a genecology database and found a distant cousin. The distant cousin was used to build a family tree, which eventually led investigators to Joseph DeAngelo.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

In an emotional video released Sunday, NBC “Today” show host Savannah Guthrie said, “it is never too late to do the right thing”.

“I just wanted to come on and say that we still have hope and we still believe. And I wanted to say to whoever has her or knows where she is. It’s never too late. And you’re not lost or alone,” Guthrie said. “We believe in the essential goodness of every human being. And it’s never too late.”

Nancy Guthrie disappearance timeline: 
Jan. 31, 2026
• Between 9:30–9:45 p.m. – Family drops Nancy off at home
• 9:50 p.m. – Garage door closes (per authorities)
Feb. 1, 2026
• 1:47 a.m. – Doorbell camera disconnects
• 2:12 a.m. – Security camera detects motion
• 2:28 a.m. – Pacemaker disconnects from phone application
• 11:56 a.m. – Family checks on Nancy after she misses weekly church livestream gathering
• 12:03 p.m. — 911 called
• 12:15 p.m. — Sheriff’s deputies arrive at home

A former gamekeeper accused of murder has said “why would I wait all that time” to shoot an old colleague dead as he branded the police investigation a “monumental shambles”.

Prosecutors are claiming David Campbell, 77, gunned down Brian Low, 65, on a remote track near Aberfeldy, Perthshire, on 16 February 2024.

Campbell told jurors at the High Court in Glasgow on Wednesday that he last made contact with Mr Low in 2017, stating: “Why would I wait all that time if I was going to do something like that.”

He added: “He never did anything to me, why would I want to do such a thing.”

Campbell has pleaded not guilty to eight charges and has lodged a special defence of alibi in connection with the shotgun murder accusation – claiming he was at home at the time of the alleged shooting.

Both men had previously worked at Edradynate Estate, where Campbell was head gamekeeper and Mr Low was a groundsman before retirement.

The court has already heard how Police Scotland initially treated Mr Low’s death as a “medical event” despite the alleged victim having died of gunshot wounds to the neck and chest.

The blunder meant the crime scene was not sealed off and forensically examined until days after Mr Low’s body was found.

Tony Lenehan KC, defending, asked his client about the beginning of the inquiry.

Campbell made reference to images previously shown to the jury of Mr Low’s bloodstained face, stating: “They made a monumental shambles of the whole investigation.

“To say after the pictures I have seen and to hear that it was a non-suspicious death is ridiculous.”

When asked if he had anything to do with Mr Low’s death, Campbell replied: “I most certainly did not.”

He also told the court: “He never did anything to me, as far as I know, and I didn’t do anything to him.”

Jurors were told of the moment Campbell was arrested at his home in Aberfeldy on 24 May 2024.

The accused said he was in the toilet with no clothes on when a female officer “burst into the room” along with Detective Constable David Budd.

When asked by Mr Lenehan how it felt to then be handcuffed to the woman, Campbell said “not good” and agreed the incident affected his mood during the subsequent police interview.

The accused noted: “I said a lot of things I should not have said.”

Read more from the trial:
Man accused of shotgun murder ‘loathed victim’
Alleged killer thought murder victim was trying to ‘set him up’
Murder suspect admits he ‘didn’t like’ alleged victim

Campbell was also questioned on his movements on the day of the alleged murder.

It has been accepted that the accused twice placed duct tape over his doorbell camera, once at 7.35am and again at 11.10am on 16 February 2024.

Campbell told jurors that he wrongly believed he had two doorbell devices – one at the front and one at the back of his home – despite being told otherwise by his wife and daughter.

In the mistaken belief that his front door camera had been “stolen”, Campbell claimed he covered up the rear doorbell in a bid to track down the “missing” device as any movement would be flagged up to his wife’s phone.

In an agreed timeline of events, Campbell’s home CCTV system was also found to have been shut down at 10.09am.

The accused admitted: “It had to be me.”

Campbell described himself as a “dinosaur” with technology, adding: “I certainly didn’t mean to switch it off.”

The defendant left his home twice during the morning of the alleged murder, first to visit a property he owned in Aberfeldy’s Dunkeld Street and then to a bowling club with a friend.

He also phoned Perth and Kinross Council between 3.41pm and 3.55pm.

Campbell was not seen on his doorbell camera again until shortly after 7.30pm.

When questioned on his whereabouts, he stated: “I was sitting watching telly. That was my day.”

He also claimed he spent around seven hours between 15 and 16 February 2024 reviewing CCTV footage at his home as he then thought someone had pinched his front doorbell device.

Crown witnesses previously testified how Campbell had told them he suspected Mr Low of trying to “set him up” in regards to wildlife offences after dead birds were found on the estate.

Campbell told advocate depute Greg Farrell that he was “ordered” by Michael Campbell, his former boss at Edradynate Estate, to lie about Mr Low planting rat poison at his home.

The accused admitted spreading “absolute lies”.

When asked by the prosecutor why, Campbell replied: “Because I was ordered to do so.”

He claimed Mr Campbell told him: “If you don’t, you’ll find yourself out of a job and out of a house by the end of the month.”

The defendant described Mr Campbell, who is no relation to the accused and has since died, as a “mega bully”.

He claimed Mr Campbell wanted to get rid of Mr Low, but when asked “why not just fire him”, Campbell said “times were different” back then.

In a statement given to police in April 2024, Mr Campbell said “things started to get less pleasant” ahead of Campbell’s retirement.

Mr Campbell said: “I would say that David leaving was not on good terms.”

Campbell told the court he did not see it as retirement and was instead “sacked” in 2017.

Speaking about Mr Low, Mr Campbell said: “Brian left on very good terms.”

Mr Low was said to have been given a car and money as a retirement gift.

The trial, before Lord Scott, continues.

United Nations, New York – Iran has been elected vice-chair of the United Nations Charter Committee, a body tasked with examining and strengthening the principles of the U.N. Charter, drawing criticism from Israel and renewed scrutiny of the organization’s selection processes.

The appointment was approved during the committee’s opening meeting as part of its executive composition, through an agreed procedure and without a formal vote.

At a U.N. press briefing, Fox News Digital asked whether Iran’s record aligns with the values of the Charter and whether the Secretary-General would condemn the move.

UPROAR AFTER IRAN NAMED VICE-CHAIR OF UN BODY PROMOTING DEMOCRACY, WOMEN’S RIGHTS

“The election of any member state to a body is the result of voting by member states themselves,” Stéphane Dujarric, spokesperson for the Secretary-General said. “So questions about who gets elected to which bodies is a question for member states. We expect every member state of this organization to uphold the Charter, to uphold the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, given that they themselves signed on to this club that the UN is and those are founding, some of our founding documents.”

Pressed on whether the Secretary-General would condemn Iran’s election, the spokesperson added: “It is not for him to condemn the election of any member state to a body. He will condemn and has when member states, through their actions, he feels, violate the charter or human rights.”

The Charter Committee operates under the UN Legal Committee and meets annually. Its mandate includes examining issues related to the Charter and proposing ways to reinforce its implementation, though its work typically requires consensus among member states and rarely results in binding action.

ISRAELI UN AMBASSADOR SENDS STARK WARNING TO IRAN AMID GROWING UNREST

Anne Bayefsky, president of Human Rights Voices and director of the Touro Institute on Human Rights and the Holocaust, sharply criticized the move, linking it to longstanding concerns about the U.N.’s performance.

“The U.N. created a committee back in 1974 supposedly to ‘enhance the ability of the UN to achieve its purposes.’ The trouble is that ever since, the UN has been a downward trajectory on actually achieving its primary purposes, namely, maintaining international peace and security, and promoting respect for fundamental human rights,” Bayefsky said.

“Given that Iran is the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism and a country committed to the annihilation of the Jewish state and the bloody repression of its own people, the UN appointment helps clarify that in our time, UN purposes are in fact antithetical to peace, rights and human dignity.”

Israel’s Ambassador to the U.N. Danny Danon sharply criticized Iran’s appointment. “This is a moral absurdity,” Danon said. “A regime that violates the basic principles of the UN cannot represent them.”

Danon added: “A country that systematically violates the basic principles of the UN cannot sit in a leadership position that deals with strengthening them. The UN cannot continue to grant legitimacy to regimes that violate the very principles of its own charter.”

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

The committee has in recent years served as a forum for political disputes among member states, including criticism directed at Israel, diplomats say. Iran’s selection to a leadership role comes amid ongoing debate over how the UN balances representation among member states with concerns about human rights records and adherence to the organization’s founding principles.

The U.N. maintains that leadership positions across its committees are determined by member states, not the Secretariat, and reflect internal diplomatic processes rather than endorsement of any government’s policies or record.