A recent ruling has annulled the environmental permit for Brussels Airport, following a legal challenge that raised concerns over the validity of its flight restrictions. The Flemish Council for Permit Disputes found that the permit, initially issued in March 2024, did not comply with European law. This decision supports complaints from Brussels Airlines and various stakeholders, emphasizing that the Flemish government must issue a revised permit by June 30, 2029.

The annulled permit introduced several controversial measures aimed at reducing the airport’s environmental impact. Among these were a cap of 240,000 annual flight movements by 2032 and a mandate for a 30% reduction in night-time noise by 2030. These provisions prompted 21 appeals from airlines, regional governments, and municipalities, many of which argued that the measures were overly restrictive and legally flawed.

Brussels Airlines contested the permit, asserting that the Flemish government had overlooked the EU’s required “balanced approach” when imposing flight restrictions. According to European regulations, such limitations should only be considered after exploring alternative solutions, including quieter aircraft, improved flight paths, or effective land-use planning. The airline maintained that the permit’s restrictions adversely affected its network and growth strategies.

The council agreed with Brussels Airlines, stating that the restrictions lacked a solid legal foundation and could not be justified by procedural delays. Following the court’s ruling, Dorothea von Boxberg, CEO of Brussels Airlines, expressed her support for the decision in a LinkedIn post. She stated, “We welcome the ruling on the environmental permit for Brussels Airport. We’re committed to working closely with the Flemish government to help shape a new permit that works for everyone — protecting not only the connectivity for the Belgians but also local communities and their jobs.”

With the permit now invalidated, the Flemish government must issue a compliant version by the end of June 2029. Until that time, operations at Brussels Airport will continue under the annulled authorization, with flights remaining unaffected. Arnaud Feist, CEO of Brussels Airport Company, emphasized that the airport operator would take all necessary actions to secure an updated permit before the deadline. He remarked, “We will take all necessary steps to obtain an amended permit in good time to ensure the continuity of our operations beyond 2029 and the long-term, sustainable development of the airport.”

Brussels Airport has indicated that it is actively collaborating with government and industry stakeholders to establish a framework that balances connectivity with environmental objectives. The airport has reported a significant reduction in overall noise levels, achieving a 60% decrease since 2000. Additionally, it aims to increase the proportion of quieter aircraft in its fleet, targeting that two-thirds of all flights will meet this criterion by 2032.

Located approximately 12 kilometers northeast of the Brussels city center, Brussels Airport is the principal international airport for Belgium and stands as one of the busiest airports in Europe. In the first half of the year, it welcomed over 11 million passengers, with June alone recording around 2.2 million passengers, reflecting a 4% increase compared to the same month last year.

The CEO of the tech company Astronomer, Andy Byron, has resigned following a widely circulated video showing him sharing a kiss with the Head of Human Resources during a Coldplay concert in Boston. The company confirmed the resignation on March 15, 2024, stating that the board of directors accepted Byron’s decision.

In a statement, Astronomer emphasized its commitment to the values and culture established since its inception. “Our leaders are expected to set the standard in both conduct and accountability, and recently, that standard was not met,” the company noted. The statement underscored the importance of maintaining integrity within the organization.

Pete DeJoy, the co-founder and Chief Product Officer of Astronomer, will assume the role of interim CEO while the board begins the search for a new chief executive. This leadership transition comes at a pivotal time for the company, recognized as a pioneer in the DataOps sector, providing essential support for data teams engaged in modern analytics and production AI.

Despite the sudden change in leadership, Astronomer reassured its customers and stakeholders that its mission remains unchanged. “While awareness of our company may have changed overnight, our product and our work for our customers have not. We’re continuing to do what we do best: helping our customers with their toughest data and AI problems,” the statement concluded.

The incident has generated significant media attention, prompting discussions about corporate behavior and accountability, particularly in the tech industry. As the board of directors navigates this transition, the focus will likely remain on how Astronomer maintains its reputation and operational integrity in the coming months.

The U.S. government has decided to destroy nearly $9.7 million worth of contraceptives rather than send them to women in need abroad. This decision, confirmed by a spokesperson from the State Department, is expected to cost taxpayers approximately $167,000. The contraceptives, primarily long-acting methods such as intrauterine devices (IUDs) and birth control implants, were reportedly intended for distribution in regions including Africa.

According to two senior congressional aides, who visited a warehouse in Belgium housing the contraceptives, the destruction was anticipated to occur by the end of July 2025. The exact timing of the destruction remains unclear. Senator Jeanne Shaheen, a Democrat from New Hampshire, criticized the move, stating, “It is unacceptable that the State Department would move forward with the destruction of more than $9 million in taxpayer-funded family planning commodities purchased to support women in crisis settings, including war zones and refugee camps.” Alongside Senator Brian Schatz of Hawaii, Shaheen has introduced legislation aimed at halting the destruction of these vital resources.

The State Department’s rationale for destroying the contraceptives is rooted in the inability to sell them to “eligible buyers,” a situation influenced by U.S. laws that restrict aid to organizations providing abortion services or counselling. The spokesperson indicated that most of these contraceptives have less than 70 percent of their shelf life remaining. However, the congressional aides noted that the earliest expiration date observed on the contraceptives was not until 2027, and approximately two-thirds did not require USAID rebranding.

This decision reflects broader changes under the Trump administration, which has significantly reduced the operations of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), the largest global funding agency for humanitarian aid. Following substantial program cuts, Senator Marco Rubio announced in June 2025 that USAID’s international workforce would be dissolved, with foreign assistance programs shifting to the State Department. According to a recent study published in the journal The Lancet, these funding cuts could result in more than 14 million additional deaths by 2030, with a disproportionate impact on children.

Sarah Shaw, associate director of advocacy at MSI Reproductive Choices, a global family planning organization, emphasized the dire consequences of the destruction. “If you have an unintended pregnancy and you end up having to seek unsafe abortion, it’s quite likely that you will die,” she stated. Shaw criticized the destruction of the contraceptives, describing the situation as “egregious” given the widespread need.

Despite efforts to purchase the contraceptives from the U.S. government, Shaw reported that MSI was unable to afford the full price, especially considering additional transport costs and the approaching expiration dates. The State Department did not address this specific allegation but noted that MSI provides abortions, which may have disqualified them as a buyer under existing regulations.

An internal survey conducted by MSI revealed that programs in ten countries, including the Democratic Republic of Congo and Mali, expect to face stock shortages of at least one contraceptive method within the coming month. Shaw expressed concern that the surplus contraceptives would be incinerated rather than distributed where they are badly needed.

The destruction of these contraceptives illustrates the dismantling of a once-robust system that provided essential support to women and families globally. Shaw highlighted the vital role of USAID funding in maintaining the supply chain for family planning aid, noting that without it, many logistical operations are now stalled. In Mali, for instance, USAID funding was used for gas to transport contraceptives, leaving many vehicles unable to operate and causing delays in distribution.

The situation is not isolated to contraceptives. Reports indicate that nearly 500 metric tons of emergency food aid are set to expire and be destroyed instead of feeding approximately 1.5 million children in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Additionally, almost 800,000 Mpox vaccines intended for Africa have also become unusable due to expiration concerns.

The impending cuts to foreign aid are expected to deepen, with Congress recently passing a bill to rescind nearly $8 billion earmarked for international assistance. Shaw poignantly summarized the broader implications: “It’s not just about an empty shelf. It’s about unfulfilled potential. It’s about a girl having to drop out of school. It’s about someone having to seek an unsafe abortion and risking their lives.”

Former President Donald Trump has initiated legal action against media mogul Rupert Murdoch and his companies, News Corp and Dow Jones, following a report by the Wall Street Journal that linked him to a letter for the late financier Jeffrey Epstein. The lawsuit was officially filed in the federal court in Florida on March 15, 2025, specifically targeting the parent companies of the Journal, two of its reporters, and Murdoch himself.

The controversy erupted when the Wall Street Journal published a story alleging that Trump had written a letter for Epstein’s 50th birthday in 2003. The report claims that this letter was part of a compilation that included a graphic drawing and expressed wishes for Epstein’s birthday, stating, “may every day be another wonderful secret.” The details of the complaint have not yet been made public, but the implications of the article have caused a significant backlash from Trump.

In response to the publication, Trump labeled the report as “false, malicious, and defamatory.” He expressed his outrage through a series of social media posts, where he threatened to take legal action against Murdoch and the Wall Street Journal. Trump’s remarks included a vow to “sue his ass off, and that of his third-rate newspaper,” highlighting the tension between the former president and the media outlet.

Trump had reportedly attempted to persuade Murdoch, Wall Street Journal editor Emma Tucker, and News Corp chief executive Robert Thomson to halt the publication of the story prior to its release.

The lawsuit coincides with a turbulent period for the Trump administration, particularly regarding Epstein. Earlier in March, a memo from the Department of Justice and the FBI indicated that there was no substantiated “client list” associated with Epstein, nor credible evidence that he had blackmailed prominent individuals. This statement was a notable shift from Trump’s previous campaign promise to release files related to Epstein’s death by suicide in 2019.

Pam Bondi, the U.S. Attorney General, had previously mentioned in February that a “client list” was under review, adding further scrutiny to the ongoing Epstein investigation.

Representatives for Murdoch, News Corp, and Dow Jones have not yet responded to requests for comment regarding the lawsuit. The White House has also declined to provide any statements on this matter.

As the legal proceedings unfold, the implications of this lawsuit may extend beyond the courtroom, potentially influencing public perception of both Trump and the media entities involved.