Category: Trending Now

It’s towards the end of our interview that Bill Gates reveals new numbers on how much his charitable Foundation has now spent in its efforts to combat preventable diseases and reduce poverty.

“I’ve given over 100 billion,” he says, “but I still have more to give.”

That’s dollars, just to clarify, worth about £80bn.

It’s roughly equivalent to the size of the Bulgarian economy or the cost of building the whole HS2 line.

But to put it in context, it’s also around the same as just one year of Tesla sales. (Tesla owner Elon Musk is now the richest man on the planet, a position Gates held for many years.)

The co-founder of Microsoft and his fellow philanthropist Warren Buffett are combining their billions through the Gates Foundation he originally set up with his now ex-wife Melinda.

Gates says philanthropy was instilled in him early on. His mother regularly told him “with wealth came the responsibility to give it away”.

His Foundation’s 25th anniversary is in May & Gates exclusively revealed the $100bn figure to the BBC.

He tells me, for his part, he enjoys giving his money away (and around $60 billion of his fortune has gone into the Foundation so far).

When it comes to his day-to-day lifestyle, he doesn’t actually notice the difference: “I made no personal sacrifice. I didn’t order less hamburgers or less movies.” He can also, of course, still afford his private jet and his various huge houses.

He plans to give away “the vast majority” of his fortune, but tells me he has talked “a lot” with his three children about what might be the right amount to leave them.

Will they be poor after he’s gone? I ask him. “They will not,” he replies with a quick smile, adding “in absolute, they’ll do well, in percentage terms it’s not a gigantic number”.

Gates is a maths guy and it shows. At Lakeside School in Seattle, in eighth grade, he competed in a four-state regional maths exam and did so well that, at 13, he was one of the best high school maths students of any age in the region.

Maths terminology comes second nature to him. But to translate, if you’re worth $160bn, which Bloomberg’s Billionaires Index claims he is, even leaving your children a tiny percentage of your fortune still makes them very rich.

I’m with one of only 15 people on the planet who are centibillionaires (worth more than $100bn), according to Bloomberg. We’re in his childhood home in Seattle, a mid-century modern four-bedroom house set into a hill, and we’re meeting because he’s written a memoir, Source Code: My Beginnings, focusing on his early life.

I want to find out what shaped a challenging, obsessive child who didn’t fit the norm into one of the tech pioneers of our age.

He’s brought along his sisters, Kristi and Libby, and all three excitedly tour the home where they grew up. They haven’t been back in some years and the current owners have refurbished (fortunately, the Gates siblings seem to approve of the changes).

But it’s bringing back memories including, as they walk into the kitchen, of the now-long-gone intercom system between rooms beloved by their mother. She used it to “sing to us in the morning”, Gates tells me, to get them out of their bedrooms for breakfast.

Mary Gates also set their watches and clocks eight minutes fast so the family would work to her time. Her son often rebelled at her efforts to improve him, but now tells me “the crucible of my ambition was warmed through that relationship”.

He puts his competitive spirit down to his grandmother “Gami”, who was often with the family in this house and who taught him to outsmart the competition early on with games of cards.

I follow him down the wooden stairs as he heads off to find his old childhood bedroom in the basement. It’s a neat guest room now, but young Bill spent hours, even days, in here “thinking”, as his sisters put it.

At one point, his mum was so fed up with the mess that she confiscated any item of clothing she found on the floor and charged her stubborn son 25 cents to buy it back. “I started wearing fewer clothes,” he says.

By this time, he was hooked on coding and, with some tech-savvy school friends, had been given access to a local firm’s one computer in return for reporting any problems. Obsessed with learning to program in those nascent days of the tech revolution, he would sneak out at night through his bedroom window without his parents knowing to get more computer time.

“Do you think you could do it now?” I ask.

He starts unwinding the catch and opens the window. “It’s not that hard,” he says with a smile as he climbs up and out. “It’s not hard at all.”

There is a famous early clip of Gates in which a TV presenter asks him if it’s true he can jump over a chair from a standing position. He does it right there in the studio. I’m in the Gates childhood bedroom for something that feels like “a moment”. The guy’s nearly 70. But he’s still game.

He seems at ease – and it isn’t just because we’re in a familiar environment. In the memoir, he’s revealed publicly for the first time that he thinks if he were growing up today, he’d probably be diagnosed on the autism spectrum.

The only time I met him before was in 2012. He barely looked me in the eye as we did a quick interview about his goal to protect children from life-threatening diseases. There was certainly no pre-interview small talk. I wondered after our interaction whether he was on the spectrum.

The book lays it out: his ability to hyperfocus on subjects he was interested in; his obsessive nature; his lack of social awareness.

He says at elementary school he turned in a 177-page report on Delaware, having written off for brochures about the state, even sending stamped addressed envelopes to local companies asking for their annual reports. He was 11.

His sisters tell me they knew he was different. Kristi, who’s older, says she felt protective of him. “He was not a normal kid… he would sit in his room and chew pencils down to the lead,” she said.

They’re obviously close. Libby, a therapist, tells me she wasn’t surprised to hear he believes he is on the spectrum. “The surprise was more his willingness to say ‘this might be the case’,” she says.

Gates says he hasn’t had a formal diagnosis and doesn’t plan to. “The positive characteristics for my career have been more beneficial than the deficits have been a problem for me,” he says.

He thinks neurodiversity is “certainly” over-represented in Silicon Valley because “learning something in great depth at a young age – that helps you in certain complex subjects”.

Elon Musk has also said he is on the spectrum, referencing Asperger’s syndrome. The Tesla, X and SpaceX billionaire is famously courting Donald Trump, as are the other modern-day tech bros, Meta’s Mark Zuckerberg and Amazon’s Jeff Bezos among other Silicon Valley attendees at Trump’s inauguration.

Gates tells me although “you can be cynical” about their motives, he too reached out to the president. They had a three-hour dinner on 27 December “because he’s making decisions about global health and how we help poor countries, which is a big focus of mine now”.

I ask Gates, himself a target of some pretty wild conspiracy theories, what he thinks of the decision taken by Zuckerberg after Trump’s election to dump fact-checking in the US on his sites. Gates tells me he’s not “that impressed” by how governments or private companies are navigating the boundaries between free speech and truth.

“I don’t personally know how you draw that line, but I’m worried that we’re not handling that as well as we should,” he says.

He also thinks children should be protected from social media, telling me there’s a “good chance” that banning under-16s, as Australia is doing, is “a smart thing”.

Gates tells me “social networking, even more than video gaming, can absorb your time and make you worry about other people approving you” so we have to be “very careful how it gets used”.

The Bill Gates origin story isn’t rags to riches. His dad was a lawyer, money wasn’t tight, although the decision to send their son to private school to try to motivate him was “a stretch, even on my father’s salary”.

If they hadn’t, we might never have heard of Bill Gates.

He first got access to an early mainframe computer via a teletype machine at the school, after the mothers held a jumble sale to raise the money. The teachers couldn’t figure it out, but four students were on it day and night. “We got to use computers when almost nobody else did,” he says.

Much later, he would set up Microsoft with one of those school friends, Paul Allen. Another, Kent Evans, Gates’ best friend, would die tragically age 17 in a climbing accident. As we walk around Lakeside School, we pass the chapel where they held his funeral and where Gates remembers crying on the steps.

Together, they’d had big plans. When they weren’t on computers, they were reading biographies to work out what factors made people successful.

Now Gates has written his own. His philosophy? “Much of who you are was there from the start.”

The Making of Bill Gates is on BBC Two at 19:00 on Monday 3 February and on iPlayer

Source Code: My Beginnings is published on Tuesday 4 February

Warning: This story contains distressing details from the start

A former surgeon who is accused of abusing hundreds of young patients, often while they were under anaesthetic, is set to go on trial this month in the largest child abuse trial in French history.

Joel Le Scouarnec, 73, is accused of assaulting or raping 299 children – the majority former patients of his – between 1989 and 2014, mostly in Brittany.

He has admitted to some charges, but not all.

The trial in Vannes, north- west France, follows a painstaking police investigation lasting several years.

It is likely to raise uncomfortable questions over whether Le Scouarnec was protected by his colleagues and the management of the hospitals that employed him, despite an FBI warning to the French authorities that he had been consulting child abuse websites, after which he was given only a suspended sentence.

A staggering number of opportunities to stop the former surgeon from having contact with children appear to have been missed or rejected.

Members of his own family also knew of Le Scouarnec’s paedophilia but failed to stop him, it is claimed.

“It was the family’s omertà which meant his abuse was allowed to continue for decades,” one lawyer involved in the case told the BBC.

Le Scouarnec, once a respected small-town surgeon, has been in jail since 2017, when he was arrested on suspicion of raping his nieces, now in their 30s, as well as a six-year-old girl and a young patient. In 2020 he was sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment.

After his arrest, police searched his home and found child-sized sex dolls, more than 300,000 child abuse images, and thousands of pages of meticulously compiled diaries in which Le Scouarnec is alleged to have logged assaults he carried out on his young patients over 25 years.

He has denied assaulting or raping children, arguing that his diaries merely detailed his “fantasies”.

In several instances, however, he had also written: “I am a paedophile”.

Le Scouarnec is facing more than 100 rape charges and more than 150 charges of sexual assault.

Some of his former patients, who are all now adults, have said they remember the surgeon touching them under the guise of medical examinations, sometimes even when their parents or other doctors were in the room.

But because a huge number of his alleged victims were under the effect of anaesthetics when it is claimed the assaults took place, they had no recollection of the events and were shocked to be contacted by police and told their names – alongside graphic descriptions of abuse – allegedly appeared in Le Scouarnec’s diaries.

Le Scouarnec felt “all-powerful” and liked the feeling of “flirting with danger” through “calculated transgressions,” French daily Le Monde quoted the court order against the former surgeon as saying.

Some of the alleged victims have said the unsettling revelations helped them make sense of unexplained symptoms of trauma that had burdened them their whole lives.

Lawyer Francesca Satta, who represents several alleged victims, told the BBC that among her clients are “the families of two men who did remember, and who ended up taking their own lives.”

Olivia Mons of the France Victimes association spoke to many of the alleged victims and said several only had blurry recollections of events which they were never able to “find the words to explain”.

When the surgeon’s case came to light, “it provided them with the beginning of an explanation,” Ms Mons said.

But she added that most of the alleged victims were people who had no memories of being raped or assaulted, and who were living ordinary lives before police contacted them. “Today, many of these people are understandably very shaken,” Ms Mons said.

One woman told French media that when police showed her an entry under her name in Le Scouarnec’s diary, memories instantly flooded in. “I had flashbacks of someone coming into my hospital room, lifting the bedsheets, saying he would check if everything had gone well,” she said. “He raped me.”

Margaux Castex, a lawyer for one of the alleged victims, told the BBC her client is “traumatised that he ever gave his trust to a medical professional, and that’s been hard to shake”.

“He wishes he had never been told what happened,” Ms Castex said.

Another woman called Marie, now a married mother in her mid-thirties, said that police came to her house and revealed that her name appeared in the diaries of a surgeon who was accused of child abuse.

“They read out what he had written about me and I wanted to read it back myself but it was impossible,” she told outlet France Bleu. “Can you imagine reading hardcore pornography and knowing that it is about you, as a child?”

Marie said she had seen mental health specialists for years because of “issues” she had with regards to men, and that doctors had wondered whether she had experienced childhood trauma.

“I have to believe that my memory protected me from that. But the [police] examination brought it all back to the surface – images, sensations, memories came back to me day by day,” she said. “Today, I feel this as if it had just happened.”

Marie added that when she was shown a photo of Le Scouarnec, “everything came back to me… I remembered his icy gaze.”

She wondered how the surgeon had been able to commit his alleged crimes unnoticed for so long.

It is a haunting question that is bound to be explored at length during the trial.

The first court proceedings heard claims that several members of Le Scouarnec’s family had been aware since the mid-1980s of his disturbing behaviour towards children, but did not intervene.

His ex-wife has denied knowing what her husband – and father of their three children – allegedly did until he was arrested.

Le Scouarnec – a medical professional and a lover of opera and literature – had long been the pride of his middle-class family. He was a respected small town medical practitioner for many years, which may have afforded him a significant degree of protection in the workplace.

“A huge degree of dysfunction allowed Le Scouarnec to commit his deeds,” lawyer Frederic Benoist told the BBC.

Mr Benoist represents child protection advocacy group La Voix de L’Enfant (The Child’s Voice), which is pressing to highlight what it calls the “crucial institutional and judicial missteps” which allowed Le Scouarnec to allegedly continue abusing children for decades.

In the early 2000s, an FBI alert to the French authorities that Le Scouarnec had been accessing child abuse websites only resulted in a four-month suspended sentence with no obligation to follow medical or psychological treatment.

Mr Benoist said prosecutors never shared this information with the medical authorities and there were no consequences for Le Scouarnec, who continued in his role as a surgeon, often operating on children and managing their aftercare.

When a colleague – who already harboured suspicions against Le Scouarnec – read about the charges against him in the local press in 2006, he urged the regional medical association to take action.

All but one doctor – who abstained – voted that Le Scouarnec had not violated the medical code of ethics, which states that doctors “must in all circumstances be trustworthy and act with integrity and devotion to duty”. No sanctions were imposed.

“We therefore have proof that all these colleagues knew, and none of them did anything,” Mr Benoist said. “There were many circumstances which meant he could have been stopped; he wasn’t, and the consequences are tragic.”

The BBC has approached both the regional medical association and prosecutors for comment.

Le Scouarnec was eventually arrested when the six-year-old victim told her parents that he had assaulted her. By then, he was living like a recluse in a large derelict home, surrounded by child-sized dolls.

Ms Driguez, the nieces’ lawyer, sat opposite Le Scouarnec during the 2020 trial in the south-western town of Saintes. “His answers were cold and calculated,” she said. “He is extremely clever, but showed no empathy whatsoever.”

The trial uncovered more allegations of child abuse within Le Scouarnec’s family, Ms Driguez said, but the former surgeon never had any particular reaction and mostly looked at the floor.

At one point, the court was shown lurid videos of Le Scouarnec and his dolls. “Everyone was watching the screen but I was watching him,” Ms Driguez said. “Up to that point he had always kept his gaze down. But at that moment, he looked up, staring intently at the video. His eyes were twinkling.”

As the city of Vannes prepares to host the trial, three lecture halls in a former university building nearby have been made available to accommodate the hundreds of alleged victims, their legal representatives and families. The trial starts on 24 February and is due to last until June.

Whether the press and the public are allowed in will depend on all of the alleged victims giving up their right to a closed trial.

Many lawyers believe the trial could be a moment of reckoning for the authorities that failed to take provisions against Le Scouarnec, as well as an important moment for the victims to voice their trauma.

Ms Satta said that although many people involved in this case have no memory of what happened to them, they were still victims, adding that the former surgeon had enjoyed the “impunity of silence” for too long.

“The trial will be a moment for the victims to speak out,” Mr Benoist agreed. “It would be terrible, in my eyes, if it was held behind closed doors.”

Correcting what was widely seen as an historic wrong, Beyoncé won best album at the 67th Grammy Awards in Los Angeles.

The star was recognised for her eighth album, Cowboy Carter, which celebrates and contextualises the black roots of country music. She had previously been passed over for the ceremony’s main prize on four separate occasions.

As her name was read out, Beyoncé hugged her daughter Blue Ivy, then her husband Jay-Z, before walking to the stage in a gold paisley dress to accept the trophy.

“I just feel very full and very honoured,” she said. “It’s been many, many years.”

The singer dedicated her award to Linda Martell, one of the pioneers for black musicians in country music and the first black woman to perform solo at the Grand Ole Opry (Ms Martell features on several of Cowboy Carter’s songs).

“I hope we just keep pushing forward [and] opening doors,” Beyoncé continued. “God bless y’all. Thank you so much.”

The star’s victory comes 25 years after her first Grammy nomination, as part of the R&B group Destiny’s Child.

She went on to become the most-awarded artist in Grammys history, with a haul of 35 trophies – but the main prize eluded her until Sunday night.

In the end, it took a switch of genre to earn the Texas-born musician a win.

Focusing on country and Americana, Cowboy Carter is the second part of a trilogy of albums that interrogates American musical traditions and uncovers the often unheralded contributions made by black artists.

Notably, it makes Beyoncé the first black woman to win album of the year since 1999, when Lauryn Hill’s The Miseducation of Lauryn Hill took the title.

Earlier in the evening, Cowboy Carter also won the Grammy for best country album – to Beyoncé’s evident surprise.

A stunned expression shot across the 43-year-old’s face as her name was read out.

In a moment laced with symbolism, that announcement came from Taylor Swift – another artist who successfully switched genres, and who previously beat Beyoncé to the album of the year prize in 2010.

“Wow, I really was not expecting this,” said Beyoncé in her acceptance speech, thanking “all of the incredible country artists” who had voted for the prize.

The recognition came five months after she was snubbed at the Country Music Awards – even after she became the first black woman to have a number one hit on the Hot Country Songs chart, with Texas Hold ‘Em.

That song was also nominated for record of the year at the Grammys, but lost to Kendrick Lamar’s Not Like Us.

The rap hit, which was the knock-out blow in Lamar’s long-running rap battle with Drake, scooped all five of the awards it was nominated for, including song of the year, best rap song and best music video.

It was only the second hip-hop song win record of the year (following Childish Gambino’s This Is America in 2019) but Lamar played the achievement down, focusing instead on his hometown of Los Angeles, which was recently ravaged by wildfires.

“We’re gonna dedicate this one to the city,” he said.

“Compton, Long Beach Inglewood, Hollywood, out to the valley… This is my neck of the woods that held me down since a young pup.”

The impact of the wildfires was the main theme of the ceremony, which doubled up as a fund-raiser, raising more than $7 million (£5.7 million) for those affected.

Comedian Trevor Noah, who hosted the ceremony, admitted that “just a few weeks ago, we weren’t sure that this show would even happen”.

“Thankfully, due to the heroic efforts of firefighters, the fires have now been contained, and despite all the devastation, the spirit of the city has emerged,” he added, to generous applause.

Squads of firefighters were invited to the awards to honour their efforts; and they walked the red carpet taking selfies with the biggest stars in music.

The show opened with a special performance by the local band Dawes, whose homes were destroyed in the inferno, playing Randy Newman’s classic song I Love LA.

Los Angeles native Billie Eilsh was the second artist on stage, and played her award-nominated song Birds Of A Feather against a backdrop inspired by California’s natural beauty.

“I love you LA,” she said as the music ended.

Later, Lady Gaga and Bruno Mars delivered a rousing version of California Dreamin’, originally by The Mamas & Papas, dedicated to the first responders who helped tackle the fires.

Noah also joked that winners whose speeches ran longer than one-and-a-half minutes would be forced to donate $1,000 for every extra second they spoke.

Elsewhere, British pop star Charli XCX took home three prizes for her intoxicating club opus Brat – including best dance/pop album.

And the Beatles took home the prize for best rock performance, a mere 55 years after they split up.

Their award recognised Now And Then, a song assembled from a demo by the late John Lennon, which was made possible by machine learning, a form of Artificial Intelligence.

Chappell Roan won best new artist, and used her speech to call for equitable pay and conditions in the music industry.

“I told myself, if I ever won a Grammy and I got to stand up here in front of the most powerful people in music, I would demand that labels and the industry profiting millions of dollars off of artists, would offer a liveable wage and health care, especially to developing artists,” she said.

“Labels, we got you, but do you got us?”

Meanwhile, Lady Gaga was one of many artists to stand up for the LGBTQ+ community, after President Trump issued executive orders that banned diversity, equity and inclusion in the government, as well as one that recognised two sexes, male and female.

“I just want to say tonight that trans people are not invisible,” she said, accepting the award for best pop duo/group performance with Bruno Mars, for their duet Die With A Smile.

“Trans people deserve love, the queer community deserves to be lifted up. Music is love. Thank you.”

The first prize of the main ceremony was best rap album, which went to Florida-born rapper Doechii, for her mixtape Alligator Bites Never Heal.

She noted it was only the third time a woman had won the category since it was introduced in 1989, with a shout-out to her predecessors Lauryn Hill and Cardi B.

“There are so many black women out there that are watching me right now, and I want to tell you, you can do it,” she added.

“Anything is possible. Don’t allow anybody to project any stereotypes on you [or] tell you that you can’t be here, that you’re too dark, or that you’re not smart enough, or that you’re too dramatic or you’re too loud.

“You are exactly who you need to be to be right where you are and I am a testimony. Praise God.”

And, in a strong year for female artists, newcomer Sabrina Carpenter won two awards: Best pop solo performance for her caffeinated summer anthem, Espresso, and best pop album for Short n’ Sweet.

However, a strong field for female pop artists meant that both Taylor Swift and Billie Eilish went home empty-handed, despite having 13 nominations between them.

Further performances came from Charli XCX, Teddy Swims, Chappell Roan, Benson Boone and Shakira; while Alicia Keys picked up a lifetime achievement award.

The show also featured a lengthy tribute to Quincy Jones, who died last year at the age of 91, after producing some of the most iconic tunes in pop history for artists including Frank Sinatra, Dizzie Gillespie, Michael Jackson and Chaka Khan.

The segment was introduced by Will Smith, making his first appearance at a televised awards ceremony since since he slapped Chris Rock onstage at the Oscars in 2022.

The musician said he owed his career to Jones, who cast him in the 1990s sitcom Fresh Prince of Bel Air, and called him “one of the most groundbreaking and influential figures of our times”.

He then introduced Wicked star Cynthia Erivo and pianist Herbie Hancock, who performed Jones’s arrangement of Fly Me To The Moon.

The tribute continued with Stevie Wonder performing We Are The World, and Janelle Monaé delivering a pitch-perfect version of Michael Jackson’s Don’t Stop ‘Til You Get Enough, in a replica of the star’s glittery tuxedo and silver crystal ankle socks.

Taiwanese actress Barbie Hsu, who was best-known for starring in the hit 2001 TV series Meteor Garden, has died from pneumonia at the age of 48, according to local media.

One of the biggest stars in the Mandarin-speaking world, Hsu became a familiar face even in the Philippines, Indonesia and Thailand after Meteor Garden was dubbed in local languages.

“I can’t believe it,” read one comment on Chinese social media platform Weibo, echoing the sentiments of millions of shocked fans who have been paying tribute.

She is believed to have fallen ill while visiting Japan. Her sister, Dee Hsu, confirmed her death to Taiwan’s TVBS News on Monday.

“During the Lunar New Year, our family came to Japan for vacation. My dearest sister Barbie has unfortunately left us after getting pneumonia, triggered by influenza,” Dee Hsu said in a statement shared by her manager.

Hsu, who had a history of epilepsy and heart disease, was hospitalised previously due to seizures.

She leaves behind her husband, South Korean singer DJ Koo, and two children from an earlier marriage.

She and her ex-husband, Chinese businessman Wang Xiaofei, were married for 10 years, before an acrimonious divorce in 2021.

Hsu began her career at 17, as part of a pop duo with her sister Dee. They became famous as TV hosts, known for their animated style and sense of humour.

But it was Meteor Garden, a TV adaptation of a 1990s Japanese comic of the same name, that turned Hsu into a star whose fame stretched beyond Chinese entertainment.

In the drama, Hsu played Shancai, a teen from a middle-class family who attends an elite private school and finds herself entangled in a love web with the heirs of wealthy families.

Her four male co-stars in Meteor Garden would later form the Taiwanese boyband F4, one of the most popular Mandopop groups of the 2000s.

On Monday, F4 member Ken Chu shared a black, empty screen as well as a group photo with Hsu on Instagram. Then on Weibo, he wrote: “What a bolt from the blue.”

Aya Liu, a host and long-time friend of the Hsu sisters, wrote on Weibo that she had met Hsu at a gathering last month, where they had promised to meet more often.

“I didn’t think that would be our last gathering,” Liu wrote. “Rest in peace, the most beautiful queen.”

Hsu was the top trending topic on Weibo on Monday. “She was only 48 years old… this is too sudden. This is a little difficult to accept,” read one comment.

Posts about influenza in Japan were also trending as fans tried to understand how she had fallen sick.

Meteor Garden captivated Asian audiences in the 2000s. In the Philippines alone, a local broadcaster reportedly aired the entire series eight times to satisfy fan demand. Bootleg copies of the series were also sold at roadside stalls.

Meteor Garden’s theme songs were released in other languages, quickly becoming hits on the radio and on TV.

More than 20 years on, th show’s popularity has endured even as remakes attracted new fans. It has inspired versions in Japan, South Korea, China and India.

On social media, tributes to Hsu have poured in from across the region, from Chinese users on Weibo, to Southeast Asian fans on X, to Meta’s Threads, which is particularly popular in Taiwan.

“Big S has always been a part of my youth,” wrote one fan on Threads, referring to Hsu by her nickname.

An X user wrote: “Meteor Garden raised an entire generation of Asians. Thank you Barbie Hsu for giving life to Shancai.”

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio has demanded that Panama make “immediate changes” to what he calls the “influence and control” of China over the Panama Canal.

America’s top diplomat said Panama must act or the US would take necessary measures to protect its rights under a treaty between the two countries.

The warning follows President Donald Trump’s vow to retake the canal and a meeting between Rubio and Jose Raul Mulino, Panama’s conservative president, in Panama City on Sunday.

The two men appeared to emerge from their two-hour meeting with different interpretations.

Mulino told reporters he did not see a serious threat of US military force to seize the canal, saying he had proposed technical-level talks with the US to address Mr Trump’s concerns about Chinese influence.

However, Trump’s vow to retake the canal has sparked a significant backlash in Panama. Protesters in Panama City on Friday burned effigies of Trump and Rubio.

Riot police moved in on another crowd of demonstrators, firing tear gas and wrestling people away. The clashes were small-scale, but the resistance to the US president’s stance is widely felt.

On Thursday, Mulino said the issue of the canal’s ownership would not be up for discussion with Rubio.

“I cannot negotiate or even open a negotiation process about the canal. It’s sealed, the canal belongs to Panama,” he said.

Mr Trump’s comments about the canal included an unfounded claim that Chinese soldiers are operating it. He also said American ships were unfairly charged more than others, despite the fact such a practice would be unlawful under treaty agreements.

The waterway is in fact owned and operated by the Panamanian government, under a neutrality treaty signed with the US decades ago. However, Chinese companies have invested heavily in ports and terminals near the canal. A Hong Kong based company runs two of the five ports close to its entrances.

But President Trump’s muscular approach – even refusing to rule out military action to take the canal – has aroused a strongly patriotic reaction in the small strategic nation.

“It’s ridiculous,” says Panama City resident Mari, who asked not to have her surname published.

“There’s a treaty that he has to respect, and there’s nothing in the treaty that says that we cannot have ports run by the Chinese,” she told the BBC, pointing out that there is Chinese investment in American ports and cities.

Surrounded by tourists and stalls hawking Panama hats and souvenirs, Mari explained that many residents have strong memories of US control of the canal and don’t want to go back.

The US and Panama signed a treaty in 1979, starting a handover process that saw Panama take full control of the canal in 1999.

“We could not cross into the canal zone without being arrested if we didn’t follow all the American rules. The minute you stepped across that border, you were in the United States,” Mari said.

“We had no rights within our own country, and we will not put up with that again… We are very insulted by [Trump’s] words.”

For some, Trump’s refusal to rule out the use of military force has also triggered suspicion and fear. It evokes memories of the 1989 US invasion of Panama to depose de facto ruler General Manuel Noriega, a conflict that lasted several weeks and rapidly overwhelmed Panamanian forces.

“I was the political leader of the opposition when Noriega said he was going to kill all the leaders of the opposition if the US were to invade,” recalled former Panama congressman Edwin Cabrera, speaking to the BBC by the locks of the canal’s Pacific entrance.

“I heard the bombs and started seeing people dying… The only thing President Trump and Rubio have left to say is that they will invade us,” he told the BBC. “I wouldn’t like to live that again in the 21st Century, relive the imperial experience. Panama is in the middle of war between two powers, the USA and China, while we are looking at the sky.”

Marco Rubio is the first Hispanic Secretary of State and is well known for his hawkish positions on some leaders in the region and on China. While Panama closely co-operates with the US on many issues, Mr Rubio’s visit is meant to signal the administration’s intolerance of countries soaking up Chinese investment in what the US sees as its own backyard.

In Panama, he claims China could ultimately use its interests at the ports to block US merchant or war ships in the event of a conflict or trade war.

“If China wanted to obstruct traffic in the Panama Canal, they could. That’s a fact… That’s what President Trump is raising and we’re going to address that topic… That dynamic cannot continue,” Mr Rubio said on The Megyn Kelly Show last week.

Despite the overwhelming support among ordinary Panamanians for their country’s ownership of the canal, some remain sceptical of their own leadership, arguing profits from the waterway don’t filter through to enough ordinary Panamanians.

“What you see here – that the United States and Donald Trump want to take back the canal – that’s what we call cause and effect,” says Andre Howell, a hotel worker in the historic centre of Panama City.

“They’re not administrating the Panama Canal the right way… No Panamanians have [the] benefits,” he said.

The Beatles and the Rolling Stones have both won Grammy Awards, as the ceremony gets underway in Los Angeles.

The Fab Four picked up best rock performance for Now And Then, their “final” song, which was assembled from a demo by the late John Lennon; while the Stones won best rock album for their 2023 comeback, Hackney Diamonds.

The awards were handed out at the Grammys’ “premiere ceremony”, which precedes the main event at 5pm Los Angeles / 1am London time.

Other winners in the early stages included Sabrina Carpenter, who won best pop solo performance for her percolating summer anthem, Espresso; and British star Charli XCX, who scooped three prizes, including best dance/pop album for Brat.

The show started with an all-star rendition of Simon & Garfunkel’s Bridge Over Troubled Water, dedicated to the victims of the LA Wildfires.

Yolanda Adams and Angelique Kidjo were among the artists performing a raw, gospel-infused version of the 60s classic, dedicated to the first responders who risked their lives to tackle the inferno and protect the vulnerable.

Grammys CEO Harvey Mason Jr told the audience at the Crypto.com arena that the awards would “honour music’s great power to inspire, to heal and to unite”.

He added: “Because of the recent fires that devastated Los Angeles, we’re also going to recognise the resilience of our community and celebrate our first responders and do our very best to lift up this city that we love.”

Beyoncé is the main nominee at this year’s ceremony, with her country-adjacent album Cowboy Carter shortlisted for 11 awards.

She has already won best country performance by a duo or group, for her duet with Miley Cyrus, II Most Wanted.

However, she was beaten to best country song by Kacey Musgraves, whose song The Architect questions the existence of God after a school shooting.

Taking to the stage, Musgraves said: “There’s so much darkness in the world right now, and it just feels so good to be able to fight some of that darkness through song”.

Musgraves previously won album of the year in 2019 for Golden Hour.

The nominees for that prize this year include Billie Eilish, Beyoncé (who has never won the category, despite four previous nominations) Taylor Swift, Chappell Roan and rapper André 3000, who is nominated for his spiritual jazz flute album New Blue Sun.

Charli XCX and Sabrina Carpenter are also up for best album – and fans are already speculating whether their early wins increase their odds of taking the night’s biggest prize.

Neither artist was there in person to collect their initial trophies, as they are due to perform at the headline ceremony later in the evening.

However Charli’s producer, Finn Keane, accepted the award for dance/pop single (Von Dutch) on her behalf, calling her an “amazing collaborator”.

“She has been making this kind of music for 10 years, but everyone’s just caught up to it,” he added.

Her album, Brat, also won the “best packaging” award, recognising the deliberately ugly, low resolution lime green artwork that became a key part of her branding last year.

John Lennon’s son, Sean Ono Lennon, picked up the Beatles’ award, calling them “the greatest band of all time”.

“I just want to say, play the Beatles music to your kids,” he added. “I feel like the world can’t afford to forget about people like the Beatles. We need this music in the world, we need peace and love, and we need the magic of the ’60s to stay alive.”

Meanwhile, Kendrick Lamar won three consecutive prizes – best rap song, best rap performance and best music video – for Not Like US, his no-holds-barred takedown of fellow musician Drake.

His producer, Mustard, accepted the awards, noting: “He performed his ass off on that song, didn’t he?”

The Grammy Awards have kicked off in Los Angeles, where more than 94 prizes will be handed out over the course of the night.

This list of the main category winners will be updated as the ceremony progresses.

Album of the year

• André 3000 – New Blue Sun
• Beyoncé – Cowboy Carter
• Sabrina Carpenter – Short n’ Sweet
• Charli XCX – Brat
• Jacob Collier – Djesse Vol 4
• Billie Eilish – Hit Me Hard and Soft
• Chappell Roan – The Rise and Fall of a Midwest Princess
• Taylor Swift – The Tortured Poets Department

Record of the year

• The Beatles – Now And Then
• Beyoncé – Texas Hold ‘Em
• Sabrina Carpenter – Espresso
• Charli XCX – 360
• Billie Eilish – Birds of a Feather
• Kendrick Lamar – Not Like Us
• Chappell Roan – Good Luck, Babe!
• Taylor Swift ft Post Malone – Fortnight

Song of the year

• Beyoncé – Texas Hold ‘Em
• Sabrina Carpnter – Please Please Please
• Billie Eilish – Birds Of A Feather
• Lady Gaga & Bruno Mars – Die With a Smile
• Kendrick Lamar – Not Like Us
• Chappel Roan – Good Luck, Babe!
• Shaboozey – A Bar Song (Tipsy)
• Taylor Swift ft Post Malone – Fortnight

Best new artist

• Benson Boone
• Sabrina Carpenter
• Doechii
• Khruangbin
• Raye
• Chappell Roan
• Shaboozey
• Teddy Swims

Best pop vocal album

• Sabrina Carpenter – Short n’ Sweet
• Billie Eilish – Hit Me Hard And Soft
• Ariana Grande – Eternal Sunshine
• Chappell Roan – The Rise and Fall of a Midwest Princess
• Taylor Swift – The Tortured Poets Department

Best pop solo performance

• Winner: Sabrina Carpenter – Espresso
• Beyoncé – Bodyguard
• Charli XCX – Apple
• Billie Eilish – Birds of a Feather
• Chappell Roan – Good Luck, Babe!

Best pop duo/group performance

• Gracie Abrams ft Taylor Swift – Us
• Beyoncé ft Post Malone – Levii’s Jeans
• Charli XCX & Billie Eilish – Guess
• Ariana Grande, Brandy & Monica – The Boy Is Mine
• Lady Gaga & Bruno Mars – Die With A Smile

Best dance/electronic recording

• Winner: Justice & Tame Impala – Neverender
• Disclosure – She’s Gone, Dance On
• Four Tet – Loved
• Fred Again & Baby Keem – Leavemealone
• Kaytranada ft Childish Gambino – Witchy

Best dance/electronic album

• Winner: Charli XCX – Brat
• Four Tet – Three
• Justice – Hyperdrama
• Kaytranada – Timeless
• Zedd – Telos

Best dance/pop recording

• Winner: Charli XCX – Von Dutch
• Madison Beer – Make You Mine
• Billie Eilish – L’Amour De Ma Vie [Over Now Extended Edit]
• Ariana Grande – Yes, and?
• Troye Sivan – Got Me Started

Best traditional pop vocal album

• Winner: Norah Jones – Visions
• Cyrille Aimée – À Fleur De Peau
• Lake Street Dive – Good Together
• Aaron Lazar – Impossible Dream
• Gregory Porter – Christmas Wish

Best Latin pop album

• Anitta – Funk Generation
• Luis Fonsi – El Viaje
• Kenny García – García
• Shakira – Las Mujeres Ya No Lloran
• Kali Uchis – Orquídeas

Best rock performance

• Winner: The Beatles – Now And Then
• The Black Keys – Beautiful People (Stay High)
• Green Day – The American Dream Is Killing Me
• Idles – Gift Horse
• Pearl Jam – Dark Matter
• St. Vincent – Broken Man

Best rock song

• Winner: St Vincent – Broken Man
• The Black Keys – Beautiful People (Stay High)
• Pearl Jam – Dark Matter
• Green Day – Dilemma
• Idles – Gift Horse

Best rock album

• Winner: The Rolling Stones – Hackney Diamonds
• The Black Crowes – Happiness B******s
• Fontaines DC – Romance
• Green Day – Saviors
• Idles – TANGK
• Pearl Jam – Dark Matter
• Jack White – No Name

Best alternative music album

• Winner: St Vincent – All Born Screaming
• Nick Cave & The Bad Seeds – Wild God
• Clairo – Charm
• Kim Gordon – The Collective
• Brittany Howard – What Now

Best alternative music performance

• Winner: St Vincent – Flea
• Cage The Elephant – Neon Pill
• Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds – Song of the Lake
• Fontaines D.C. – Starburster
• Kim Gordon – Bye Bye

Best metal performance

• Winner: Gojira, Marina Viotti & Victor Le Masne – Mea Culpa (Ah! Ça ira!)
• Judas Priest – Crown of Horns
• Knocked Loose Featuring Poppy – Suffocate
• Metallica – Screaming Suicide
• Spiritbox – Cellar Door

Best rap performance

• Winner: Kendrick Lamar – Not Like Us
• Cardi B – Enough (Miami)
• Common & Pete Rock ft Posdnuos – When The Sun Shines Again
• Doechii – Nissan Altima
• Eminem – Houdini
• Future, Metro Boomin & Kendrick Lamar – Like That
• GloRilla – Yeah Glo!

Best melodic rap performance

• Winner: Rapsody ft Erykah Badu – 3:AM
• Jordan Adetunji ft Kehlani – Kehlani
• Beyoncé ft Linda Martell & Shaboozey – Spaghettii
• Future & Metro Boomin ft The Weeknd – We Still Don’t Trust You
• Latto – Big Mama

Best rap song

• Winner: Kendrick Lamar – Not Like Us
• Rapsody ft Hit-Boy – Asteroids
• Kanye West & Ty Dolla $Ign – Carnival
• Future & Metro Boomin ft Kendrick Lamar – Like That
• GloRilla – Yeah Glo!

Best rap album

• J Cole – Might Delete Later
• Common & Pete Rock – The Auditorium, Vol 1
• Doechii – Alligator Bites Never Heal
• Eminem – The Death Of Slim Shady (Coup De Grâce)
• Future & Metro Boomin – We Don’t Trust You

Best country solo performance

• Winner: Chris Stapleton – It Takes A Woman
• Beyoncé – 16 Carriages
• Jelly Roll – I Am Not Okay
• Kacey Musgraves – The Architect
• Shaboozey – A Bar Song (Tipsy)

Best country duo/group performance

• Winner: Beyoncé ft Miley Cyrus – II Most Wanted
• Kelsea Ballerini With Noah Kahan – Cowboys Cry Too
• Brothers Osborne – Break Mine
• Dan + Shay – Bigger Houses
• Post Malone ft Morgan Wallen – I Had Some Help

Best country song

• Winner: Kacey Musgraves – The Architect
• Shaboozey – A Bar Song (Tipsy)
• Jelly Roll – I Am Not Okay
• Post Malone ft Morgan Wallen – I Had Some Help
• Beyoncé – Texas Hold ‘Em

Best country album

• Beyoncé – Cowboy Carter
• Post Malone – F-1 Trillion
• Kacey Musgraves – Deeper Well
• Chris Stapleton – Higher
• Lainey Wilson – Whirlwind

Best R&B performance

• Winner: Muni Long – Made For Me (Live On BET)
• Jhené Aiko – Guidance
• Chris Brown – Residuals
• Coco Jones – Here We Go (Uh Oh)
• SZA – Saturn

Best R&B song

• Winner: SZA – Saturn
• Kehlani – After Hours
• Tems – Burning
• Coco Jones – Here We Go (Uh Oh)
• Muni Long – Ruined Me

Best progressive R&B album

• Joint Winner: Avery*Sunshine – So Glad to Know You
• Joint Winner: NxWorries (Anderson .Paak & Knxwledge) – Why Lawd?
• Durand Bernarr – En Route
• Childish Gambino – Bando Stone And The New World
• Kehlani – Crash

Best R&B album

• Winner: Chris Brown – 11:11 (Deluxe)
• Lalah Hathaway – Vantablack
• Muni Long – Revenge
• Lucky Daye – Algorithm
• Usher – Coming Home

Best African music performance

• Winner: Tems – Love Me JeJe
• Yemi Alade – Tomorrow
• Asake & Wizkid – MMS
• Chris Brown ft Davido & Lojay – Sensational
• Burna Boy – Higher

Producer of the Year, Non-Classical

• Winner: Daniel Nigro
• Alissia
• Dernst “D’Mile” Emile II
• Ian Fitchuk
• Mustard

Songwriter of the Year, Non-Classical

• Winner: Amy Allen
• Edgar Barrera
• Jessi Alexander
• Jessie Jo Dillon
• Raye

Best comedy album

• Winner: Dave Chappelle – The Dreamer
• Ricky Gervais – Armageddon
• Jim Gaffigan – The Prisoner
• Nikki Glaser – Someday You’ll Die
• Trevor Noah – Where Was I

Best compilation soundtrack for visual media

• Winner: Maestro: Music By Leonard Bernstein – London Symphony Orchestra, Yannick Nézet-Séguin, Bradley Cooper
• The Color Purple – Various Artists
• Deadpool & Wolverine – Various Artists
• Saltburn – Various Artists
• Twisters: The Album – Various Artists

Best score soundtrack for visual media (includes film and televison)

• Winner: Hans Zimmer – Dune: Part Two
• Laura Karpman – American Fiction
• Trent Reznor & Atticus Ross – Challengers
• Kris Bowers – The Color Purple
• Nick Chuba, Atticus Ross & Leopold Ross – Shōgun

Best score soundtrack for video games and other interactive media

• Winner: Winifred Phillips – Wizardry: Proving Grounds of the Mad Overlord
• Pinar Toprak – Avatar: Frontiers of Pandora
• Bear McCreary – God of War Ragnarök: Valhalla
• John Paesano – Marvel’s Spider-Man 2
• Wilbert Roget, II – Star Wars Outlaws

Best song written for visual media

• Winner: Jon Batiste – It Never Went Away (From American Symphony)
• Luke Combs – Ain’t No Love In Oklahoma (From Twisters: The Album)
• *NSYNC & Justin Timberlake – Better Place (From Trolls Band Together)
• Olivia Rodrigo – Can’t Catch Me Now (From The Hunger Games: The Ballad of Songbirds & Snakes)
• Barbra Streisand – Love Will Survive (From The Tattooist of Auschwitz)

Best audio book narration

• Winner: Jimmy Carter – Last Sunday in Plains: A Centennial Celebration
• George Clinton – …And Your Ass Will Follow
• Guy Oldfield – All You Need Is Love: The Beatles In Their Own Words
• Dolly Parton – Behind the Seams: My Life in Rhinestones
• Barbra Streisand – My Name Is Barbra

Best music video

• Winner: Kendrick Lamar – Not Like Us
• A$AP Rocky – Tailor Swif
• Charli XCX – 360
• Eminem – Houdini
• Taylor Swift ft Post Malone – Fortnight

Best music film

• Winner: American Symphony
• June
• Kings From Queens
• Stevie Van Zandt: Disciple
• The Greatest Night In Pop

Best jazz vocal album

• Winner: Samara Joy – A Joyful Holiday
• Christie Dashiell – Journey In Black
• Kurt Elling & Sullivan Fortner – Wildflowers Vol 1
• Milton Nascimento & Esperanza Spalding – Milton + Esperanza
• Catherine Russell & Sean Mason – My Ideal

Best jazz instrumental album

• Winner: Chick Corea & Béla Fleck – Remembrance
• Ambrose Akinmusire ft Bill Frisell & Herlin Riley – Owl Song
• Kenny Barron ft Kiyoshi Kitagawa, Johnathan Blake, Immanuel Wilkins & Steve Nelson – Beyond This Place
• Lakecia Benjamin – Phoenix Reimagined (Live)
• Sullivan Fortner – Solo Game

Best alternative jazz album

• Winner: Meshell Ndegeocello – No More Water: The Gospel Of James Baldwin
• Arooj Aftab – Night Reign
• André 3000 – New Blue Sun
• Robert Glasper – Code Derivation
• Keyon Harrold – Foreverland

Best jazz performance

• Winner: Samara Joy feat. Sullivan Fortner – Twinkle Twinkle Little Me
• The Baylor Project – Walk With Me, Lord
• Lakecia Benjamin feat. Randy Brecker, Jeff “Tain” Watts, & John Scofield – Phoenix Reimagined (Live)
• Chick Corea & Béla Fleck –Juno
• Dan Pugach Big Band feat. Nicole Zuraitis & Troy Roberts – Little Fears

Best musical theatre album

• Winner: Hell’s Kitchen
• Merrily We Roll Along
• The Notebook
• The Outsiders
• Suffs
• The Wiz

Best opera recording

• Winner: Saariaho: Adriana Mater – Esa-Pekka Salonen, conductor (San Francisco Symphony; San Francisco Symphony Chorus; Timo Kurkikangas)
• Adams: Girls Of The Golden West – John Adams, conductor (Los Angeles Philharmonic; Los Angeles Master Chorale)
• Catán: Florencia En El Amazonas – Yannick Nézet-Séguin (The Metropolitan Opera Orchestra; The Metropolitan Opera Chorus)
• Moravec: The Shining – Gerard Schwarz, conductor (Kansas City Symphony; Lyric Opera Of Kansas City Chorus)
• Puts: The Hours – Yannick Nézet-Séguin, conductor (Metropolitan Opera Orchestra; Metropolitan Opera Chorus)

Best orchestral performance

• Winner: Ortiz: Revolución Diamantina – Gustavo Dudamel, conductor (Los Angeles Philharmonic)
• John Adams: City Noir – Fearful Symmetries & Lola Montez Does The Spider Dance – Marin Alsop, conductor (ORF Vienna Radio Symphony Orchestra)
• Kodály: Háry János Suite; Summer Evening & Symphony In C Major – JoAnn Falletta, conductor (Buffalo Philharmonic Orchestra)
• Sibelius: Karelia Suite, Rakastava, & Lemminkäinen – Susanna Mälkki, conductor (Helsinki Philharmonic Orchestra)
• Stravinsky: The Firebird – Esa-Pekka Salonen, conductor (San Francisco Symphony)

A few hours after President Donald Trump announced that he would impose steep tariffs on Canada, hockey fans in the capital Ottawa booed the Star-Spangled Banner during a National Hockey League game against a visiting US team.

On Sunday, during a National Basketball Association game between the Toronto Raptors and the Los Angeles Clippers, it happened again, continuing throughout the song and almost drowning out the 15-year-old’s singer’s arena performance.

The vocal displeasure from usually respectful fans is a clear sign of Canadians’ deep dismay at Trump’s move to hit its nearest ally with punitive taxes, which threaten to spark an unprecedented trade war on the North American continent.

The 25% tariffs imposed by Trump on all Canadian imports into the US – with a lower 10% levy on energy – are set to take effect on Tuesday.

And they come as President Trump doubles down on his push – no longer dismissed as a joke – for Canada to join America and become the 51st state.

While many economists project the tariffs will also drive up costs for Americans on everyday essentials, from gas to groceries, Canada is the more exposed trade partner. If they last for months, the country could tip into a painful economic recession.

Anger is building – and with it, a desire to mount a fightback that has been echoed by political leaders in the country of 40 million.

“Many among us will be affected by this, and we will have some hard times. I ask you to be there for each other,” said Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in a Saturday evening address. “Now is the time to choose Canada.”

Some Canadians have already heeded the calls for solidarity. On social media, guides have circulated on how to avoid American-made products. One local grocery store in Toronto even began labelling its Canadian yogurt for shoppers, according to an image posted by Toronto doctor Iris Gorfinkel on X.

Others have stated they will be cancelling travel plans to the US, or forgoing visiting there altogether.

“Yesterday, in response to Trump tariffs, we cancelled our family March break to the US,” wrote Seth Klein, a Canadian author, on Bluesky on Sunday. “Took a small hit on cancelled train tickets, but it needed to be done.”

In some Canadian provinces – namely Ontario, the largest by population – American booze will be pulled off the shelves indefinitely starting on Tuesday.

This is in addition to a total of C$155bn ($105bn; £86bn) of American goods that Canada has said it will tariff in retaliation, including vegetables, clothing, sports equipment, perfume and other items. Goods originating from Republican-led states, like Florida orange juice, are specifically being targeted.

The US imports more of its oil from Canada than any other country, and Trudeau’s government has signalled “all options remain on the table” for further retaliation.

Trump’s follow-through on his threat of steep tariffs – which were long speculated to be a negotiation tactic to get concessions on border security – have bewildered Canadians, who have enjoyed close economic, social and security ties to the US for decades.

“It’s a shock,” Michael Ignatieff, the former leader of Canada’s Liberal Party, told the BBC.

“We’re into a new world, in which the question on whether you can trust America becomes the fundamental question in foreign policy for every country.”

Pierre Poilievre, leader of Canada’s opposition Conservative Party, called the tariffs on Sunday “massive, unjust and unjustified.”

“Canada is the United States’ closest neighbour, greatest ally and best friend,” he said, noting that Canada fought alongside the US in two world wars, as well as in Korea and Afghanistan. “There is no justification whatsoever for this treatment.”

Prime Minister Trudeau questioned in his Saturday address why the US would target Canada instead of looking to “more challenging parts” of the world.

A portion of his speech was directly addressed to Americans, and he too, pointed to a history of shared bloodshed. “We have fought, and died, alongside you,” Trudeau said.

Thomas Juneau, a professor at the University of Ottawa with a focus on national security, told the BBC that Trump’s tariffs “undoubtedly represent an earthquake in Canada-US relations.”

“This is extremely destabilising for Canada,” Prof Juneau said. “As a country, we have massively benefited from our extremely close trade and security partnership with the US for decades.”

While the trade battle would likely force Canada to look for partners elsewhere, it ultimately can’t escape geography, he said. It will remain reliant on the economic superpower next door.

“That is why Canada must absolutely now focus on salvaging the relationship as much as possible,” Prof Juneau said.

The big unknown remains how long the US will keep the tariffs in place, and what steps Canada could take to appease the Trump administration, which has said it expects action on cross-border fentanyl trafficking and illegal migration.

TD Economics projects that the longer the tariffs remain in place, the worse the impact will be. Canada could enter a recession in five to six months, and its unemployment rate could hit more than 7%.

Theo Argitis, managing director of the Ottawa-based public affairs firm Compass Rose Group, said the unknowns had left Canada no choice “but to hit (Trump) back hard.”

“At the end of the day, we don’t even really know why he’s doing this,” Mr Argitis told the BBC.

Trump says the flow of fentanyl, a highly potent and deadly drug, into the US from Canada and Mexico, is one key reason. US officials say the levies will remain in place “until the crisis is alleviated.”

In response, the Canadian government has noted that less than 1% of fentanyl and illegal border crossings into the US come from Canada. It has offered to spend an additional C$1.3bn to secure the US-Canada border

But Trump has also spoken publicly about his frustration with the trade deficit between Canada and the US, and more broadly his view that tariffs could be a source of revenue for Washington’s coffers.

On Sunday, he wrote on Truth Social that the US does not need Canadian products, and said the US pays “hundreds of billions of dollars to subsidize Canada.”

“Without this massive subsidy, Canada ceases to exist as a viable country,” Trump wrote, before repeating his view that Canada should instead become a US state.

He has warned that the White House will enact harsher penalties on Canada should it choose to retaliate. For now, Canada has chosen to try and inflict some targeted pain on its more powerful neighbour, even if the economic scales are tipped against it.

“We prefer to solve our disputes with diplomacy,” Trudeau told his country on Saturday. “But we are ready to fight when necessary.”

An entrepreneur who grew the firm Slimming World from a single weight loss group to a network of more than 3,500 consultants has died.

Margaret Miles-Bramwell started the business in 1969 in Alfreton, Derbyshire, next to Somercotes, where the firm today employs 400 staff at its headquarters.

Mrs Miles-Bramwell died on Sunday morning at her Mallorca home surrounded by family, the firm said in a statement.

It added: “She leaves the world a healthier place”.

Mrs Miles-Bramwell, 76, from Mansfield Woodhouse in Nottinghamshire, was awarded an OBE in 2009 for her services to the health of the British public.

She was a “loving and much-loved” daughter, wife, mother, grandmother and great-grandmother, said Slimming World.

Managing director Lisa Salmon said: “Margaret steered her ship in the way she lived her life – with a generous spirit, passionate conviction, a wicked and rebellious sense of humour, and a fierce belief in doing the right thing.

“Our job now is to continue to keep her legacy alive by doing the very same thing.”

Mrs Miles-Bramwell was born in April 1948 and grew up in South Normanton.

According to Slimming World, she had struggled with her own weight since childhood.

She set up her first group in a church hall in Alfreton in 1969, to help people with both their weight and with “the sometimes far heavier burden of shame and self-criticism”.

The firm said it held those founding principles key to their strategy.

Speaking about her career after she received her royal honour, she said: “In the early days, in the sixties, there was some help around, but it was the sort that used humiliation tactics.

“I really felt that we needed to treat overweight people with respect and courtesy and as adults and not as children who needed a slap or something. That was really what inspired me.”

Mrs Miles-Bramwell remained chairwoman of the firm until her death.

In a statement, Slimming World said: “Margaret touched the hearts and changed the lives of millions of people, including all of Slimming World’s consultants and staff, who will feel her loss deeply.

“Right now, our thoughts are with Margaret’s family. We take comfort, as we’re sure they do, in the hope that Margaret is now reunited with her beloved husband Tony, who passed away in 2021.”

The Grammys are music’s biggest night, both literally and figuratively.

The ceremony, which takes place in LA on Sunday night, runs for a staggering eight hours, attracting the biggest stars in pop, rock, country and hip-hop.

Organisers will hand out 94 awards, recognising everything from best pop album to best choral performance.

Beyoncé and Taylor Swift have both confirmed their attendance, as they square off in the album of the year category for the first time since 2010 (Swift won on that occasion, fact fans).

There’ll also be performances from Charli XCX, Sabrina Carpenter, Benson Boone, Shakira, Stevie Wonder, Teddy Swims and Raye – and an in memoriam tribute to Thriller producer Quincy Jones.

Here’s everything you need to know about the ceremony.

The big question of the night is whether Beyoncé will finally win album of the year, after four previous losses in the category?

During last year’s ceremony, her husband Jay-Z addressed the oversight, telling the audience: “I don’t want to embarrass this young lady, but she has more Grammys than everyone and never won album of the year. So even by your own metrics, that doesn’t work.”

Beyoncé’s latest record, Cowboy Carter, is a wildly ambitious attempt to contextualise and commemorate the black roots of country music. It’s the sort of thing that delights Grammy voters, who traditionally prefer albums that elevate America’s musical history over contemporary, cutting-edge productions.

But the album’s excessive length – including a few weaker tracks in its latter half – could count against it.

Billie Eilish is currently the bookmakers’ favourite with her third album Hit Me Hard and Soft. Mixing passionate power ballads with violent electronic shifts and hip-hop swagger, it marks a new evolution in the star’s songwriting partnership with her brother, Finneas.

Charli XCX’s Brat is a career-defining pop record that became a cultural phenomenon. The best-reviewed album of 2024, it’s probably too abrasive for the Grammys’ more conservative voters, but that’s their loss.

And you’d have to be crazy to ignore Taylor Swift. Her 11th album, The Tortured Poets Department, was the biggest-seller of last year; a fact that will undoubtedly be taken into account, even if the record is one of her weaker efforts.

If she wins, Swift will collect her fifth album of the year trophy – more than any other artist in Grammy history.

One of the year’s most stacked categories is record of the year – better understood as “best single”.

Aside from a rogue nomination for The Beatles (see below), the shortlist reflects a stellar year for pop music, with Sabrina Carpenter’s Espresso and Charli XCX’s 360 up against Beyoncé’s Texas Hold ‘Em and Billie Eilish’s Birds Of A Feather.

But the front-runner is Kendrick Lamar’s Not Like Us. A furious take-down of his rap nemesis, Drake, it’s as catchy as it is legally contentious. If it wins, it would be only the second hip-hop single to win the category, following Childish Gambino’s This Is America in 2019.

In the parallel song of the year prize – which recognises achievement in songwriting – the smart money is on Bruno Mars and Lady Gaga’s Die With A Smile.

Both artists are perennial Grammy favourites, and their virtuoso ballad will be catnip to voters.

Their competition includes Shaboozey’s A Bar Song (Tipsy), which was America’s longest-running number one single of 2024. However, the fact that it’s based on a previous hit (J-Kwon’s Tipsy) is likely to count against it.

Chappell Roan’s breakout single Good Luck Babe is another strong contender, notable for its soaring high notes and a piercing lyric that skewers internalised homophobia. Billie Eilish’s gossamer ballad Birds of a Feather is a similar masterclass in songcraft – making this category one of the hardest to predict.

By contrast, the coveted best new artist prize is pretty much a two-way split between Chappell Roan and Sabrina Carpenter, both of whom established a dominant chart presence in 2024 after years on the pop sidelines.

That’s bad news for the sole British nominee, six-time Brit Award winner Raye. But at least she’s in good company, alongside breakout rap star Doechii and big-hearted pop singer Teddy Swims.

Beyoncé’s Cowboy Carter has 11 nominations, potentially making it the most-rewarded album in Grammy history.

The record is currently held by Santana, who got nine trophies for his album Supernatural in 2000 (coincidentally, the same year that Beyoncé received her first Grammy nomination, as part of Destiny’s Child).

And if Cowboy Carter doesn’t take home best album, Beyoncé still breaks a record, for the most nominations in that category without a win.

Billie Eilish could become the first female artist to win Record of the Year three times with Birds of a Feather. Paul Simon and Bruno Mars are the only other artist with three wins in the category.

Rapper turned flautist André 3000 is also poised to make history. If he wins best instrumental composition, he does so with the longest song title in Grammy history: I Swear, I Really Wanted To Make A ‘Rap’ Album But This Is Literally The Way The Wind Blew Me This Time.

The current record holders, in case you were wondering, are Oklahoma band The Flaming Lips. In 2007, they won best rock instrumental performance for the magnificently-titled The Wizard Turns on the Giant Silver Flashlight and Puts On His Werewolf Moccasins.

More than 13,000 members of the Recording Academy vote for the Grammys every year – including musicians, producers, lyricists, and even the people who write CD liner notes.

To qualify, they must be currently working in the music industry, and pay an annual subscription of $150 (£120). All former winners are also eligible to vote.

Every member is allowed to vote in up to 10 categories across three fields, such as rock, classical and R&B. They are encouraged only to vote in genres where their expertise lies.

Additionally, every member, regardless of their background, gets to vote for the six biggest awards of the night. Those are: album of the year, record of the year, song of the year, best new artist, songwriter of the year and producer of the year.

The 2025 awards recognise music released between 16 September 2023 and 30 August, 2024. The winners are not revealed until the ceremony.

The Beatles might have broken up 55 years ago, but they’re up for two prizes on Sunday: record of the year and best rock performance.

Both nominations recognise Now and Then, a song that John Lennon demoed in the 1970s, and which was finally completed by his surviving bandmates Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr last year.

Grammy voters, with their eyes firmly trained on the past, rarely miss an opportunity to reward the Beatles. Eight years ago, for example, the band’s documentary Eight Days a Week: The Touring Years beat Beyoncé’s groundbreaking Lemonade for best music film.

In some ways, that’s correcting an historic wrong. In their prime, the Beatles were nominated for record of the year four times – for I Want to Hold Your Hand, Yesterday, Hey Jude and Let It Be – but lost every time.

A win in 2025 would prove that Beatlemania never fades – but voters may be put off by The Beatles’ use of machine learning (a form of artificial intelligence), which was used to clean up Lennon’s scratchy old cassette recordings.

The Recording Academy’s rules on AI say that “only human creators” can win Grammys, and that “the human authorship component of the work submitted must be meaningful”.

That’s true in the case of Now And Then, but many creators remain sceptical of the technology.

Quite a lot.

All the hoopla surrounding the Grammys has gone. No pre-parties, no after-parties. Everything except the ceremony itself has been cancelled. All the money that would have been spent on champagne and vol au vents is being funnelled into relief efforts.

The Recording Academy and its affiliated MusiCares charity have also set up a Fire Relief fund, which has so far pledged more than $3.2 million (£2.6 million) in emergency aid to assist music professionals affected by the fires.

And the telecast itself will reflect the devastation, with segments honouring the first responders who risked their lives to tackle the inferno and protect the vulnerable.

“We’ll still have performances, we’ll still have awards and honour music,” Recording Academy CEO Harvey Mason, Jr told Variety magazine.

“But you’ll know that something’s happened, and you’ll know that we’re using music to do good.”

As part of that effort, Bruno Mars and Lady Gaga will “a special tribute to the city of Los Angeles and those affected by the wildfires,” the Grammys announced on Saturday.

You betcha. So far, the list includes:

• Benson Boone
• Sabrina Carpenter
• Jacob Collier
• Sheryl Crow
• Billie Eilish
• Cynthia Erivo
• Charli XCX
• Doechii
• Herbie Hancock
• Lady Gaga
• Brittany Howard
• John Legend
• Bruno Mars
• Chris Martin
• Janelle Monáe
• Brad Paisley
• Raye
• Chappell Roan
• Shakira (pictured)
• Teddy Swims
• Lainey Wilson
• Stevie Wonder
• St. Vincent

The ceremony is split into two parts, with the first 80 awards distributed during what’s called the “premiere ceremony” at 12:30 in Los Angeles / 20:30 in London on Sunday.

It’s often worth tuning in. The winners in the more obscure categories are less polished and more excited about winning, and the performances are looser and, dare I say it, more musical than the grandiose set pieces you’ll see later.

You can watch the whole thing on the Recording Academy’s YouTube channel, and on live.grammy.com.

That’s also where you want to go to watch red carpet coverage, which kicks off at 15:00 in Los Angeles / 23:00 in the UK.

Finally, the main show kicks off at 17:00 Los Angeles / 01:00 Monday in the UK. It’s broadcast live in the US on CBS and streamed internationally on Paramount Plus. Speeches and select performances are usually uploaded to YouTube the following day.

Of course not! But have you seen what’s going on everywhere else in the world?

Musicians, however take the Grammys very seriously indeed. A big win can boost album sales and bump you up festival bills.

That said, the awards themselves are notoriously ridiculous. According to legend, they were created in 1959 as a panicked reaction to the popularity of rock ‘n’ roll. Record companies hoped that by highlighting “good” music, they’d steer the public away from Elvis’s swivelling hips.

As if to illustrate that point, they didn’t hand Mr Presley a trophy until 1968, and even that was for “best sacred performance”, recognising his first gospel album, How Great Thou Art.

Since then, the awards have remained wilfully arbitrary, woefully out of touch, or a combination of the two.

Famously, The Beatles won more awards after they split up than they did together; and there were no rap categories until 1989.

And if anyone still thinks that Herbie Hancock’s jazz tribute to Joni Mitchell was the best album of 2008 – the year of Amy Winehouse’s Back To Black and Kanye West’s Graduation – I’d be interested to hear your arguments.

So if Beyoncé doesn’t win on Sunday (or even if she does) don’t let it affect your enjoyment of her music.

Horrendous and dangerous – or fresh and vibrant?

The California Cross junction in Finchampstead, Berkshire, has been described as both.

The product of a broader £5.5m seven-month revamp, the double roundabout and five crossings with distinctive leaf designs has divided opinion amongst locals, with 1,400 signing a petition calling for it to be gone.

Residents have raised concerns about the cost of the work, as well as the safety of a junction that doesn’t exactly follow convention.

But how dangerous is it?

The junction consists of two roundabouts, each with three exits. Each exit has a crossing for pedestrians.

But instead of a zebra crossing with black and white stripes, there is a distinctive white leaf design – and instead of a roundabout with a standard central island, there’s an array of rainbow leaves painted on the road.

The changes were made as part of a wider project for the area, which also included drainage works.

I drove to the California Cross junction at midday on a sunny Thursday.

On approach, it didn’t look much like a roundabout, although this wasn’t helped by the fact my sat nav app didn’t register it as one.

I drove across the first white leaf crossing and round the rainbow leaf roundabout with no issues, pausing only slightly before the second crossing, suddenly unsure of where the “give way” line was.

Once I was across the second roundabout, I parked up and tried it by foot. And, as a pedestrian, the unease of other road users was far more obvious.

I found I couldn’t stand still for more than a few seconds without a driver thinking I was waiting to cross and stopping, even if I wasn’t anywhere near the white leaf crossings.

People who were waiting to cross at the pedestrian crossings often waited for the go-ahead from cars, despite the fact they had priority.

On more than one occasion I saw a driver fail to give way to the right, cutting up another driver – but the other driver didn’t seem angry, as if they couldn’t be completely sure it had even been their right of way.

In the 15 minutes I was there, I saw three near-misses where drivers had to brake suddenly, all that appeared to have been caused by road users not knowing who had priority.

And at the other end of the scale were the drivers who ripped across the junction, either knowingly or accidentally taking advantage of others’ hesitancy.

This was something that pedestrian Victoria also noted.

“It kind of goes from one extreme to the other, you’ve either got people hurtling through it not stopping or everybody stopping and nobody quite sure who is to go first,” she said.

She said the design was a “nice idea in theory” but, in reality, there was too much confusion about what the rules were.

She had to stop as she was telling me about the near-misses she had seen there because a van nearly collided with a car behind us.

Another pedestrian, Samuel, agreed the roundabout was unsafe because people did not know when they had priority.

“People don’t know when to stop, who should go first, it’s terrible,” he said.

“You stand here and you watch what these people are doing and how they’re driving, it’s horrendous. It’s dangerous.”

But others disagreed.

Local resident Lynn told the BBC she thought the work was a “great improvement”.

“I really don’t know what all the fuss is about,” she said.

“I think they’ve done a great job.”

Wokingham Borough Council’s executive member for transport, Martin Alder, said the aim of the design was to slow down traffic and make drivers more aware of pedestrians.

From my experience, at least, it does appear to have done this, at least in some cases.

The council said there was not space for a traditional junction.

Mr Alder said guidance from the Department for Transport (DfT) said imaginative road designs – for example, the nautical road decorations in Poole or multicoloured spots in Colchester – “can be very safe”.

So, is the junction here to stay?

Some local residents think it shouldn’t be, at least in its current form.

“I would like to think they could make it better,” said Victoria.

“Even if they just turned the white leaves into zebra crossings, everybody knows what a zebra crossing is.”

And Samuel said he thought it should be redesigned again.

“It’s a hazard,” he said.

Even with the petition against the design hitting 1,400 signatures, it would appear the junction is destined to stay as it is, certainly for now.

The council said there are currently no plans to change it but did say the roundabouts would be continually monitored.

While it would appear the design is here to stay for the foreseeable, perhaps both sides of the debate will intersect again before too long.

The owners of a 700-year-old castle and estate have said it has been a “privilege” to have been its custodians.

Ripley Castle, near Harrogate, has been the home of the Ingilby family since the 14th Century.

However, Sir Thomas and Lady Ingilby have put the property up for sale with a £21m price tag.

The baronet and his wife said the decision was due to a desire to retire and do other things after decades working to maintain the large estate.

“There are days when we are very positive about it, there are other days when we are sad for what we will miss,” Sir Thomas said.

“I’ve been looking after the place for over 50 years, so this has been my whole life. I don’t want to be carried out of here feet first, I’ve got things I want to do.”

Lady Ingibly said the estate was run commercially and the couple were hoping to “spend some time together in retirement”.

Sir Thomas inherited the estate at the age of 18, and said when he married Emma in 1984 they had a list of things they wanted to achieve for the castle, including replacing the majority of the roof.

“We’ve ticked every box on that list.

“We’ve left it in the best state possible and safeguarded the heritage for future generations.”

Lady Ingibly said plenty of people sold their homes but “ours just happens to be bigger”.

“Someone else can have the experience, because it has been a privilege, such a privilege, to be able to live here.”

The couple said the final family events at the castle would include the weddings of their daughter and youngest son, which Sir Thomas said was rather apt given the estate was acquired through marriage in the early 1300s.

The estate includes 445 acres of land, a cricket pitch, hotel, tea room, gift shop and wedding venue.

It has been divided into nine lots, which can ether be bought individually or as a whole.

The Grade I-listed castle has three reception rooms, 11 bedrooms, and six bath/shower rooms.

Lady Ingilby added: “I hope the new owner does appreciate the history, because the history of the Ingilbys is the history of England.

“But nothing stands still, they must do what they like with it, as long as they just love it and take care of it.”

Sir Thomas said he could reassure whoever bought it they did not have to stay for 700 years.

“They shouldn’t feel under that pressure. They can reflect after 100 years or so and I hope that they enjoy it.”

Listen to highlights from North Yorkshire on BBC Sounds, catch up with the latest episode of Look North or tell us a story you think we should be covering here.

Donald Trump has imposed new tariffs on goods entering the US from Canada, Mexico and China.

The US president signed an executive order putting a 25% tariff – or tax on imports – on all goods coming from Canada and Mexico, to get both countries to crack down on illegal immigration and drug trafficking.

Goods coming from China will also be hit with a 10% tariff “above any additional tariffs” until it cuts fentanyl smuggling. He has already pledged to target the country with a 60% rate, and has mulled a 200% tax on some car imports.

Tariffs are a central part of Trump’s economic vision – he sees them as a way of growing the US economy, protecting jobs and raising tax revenue.

During his election campaign, he told voters that the taxes were “not going to be a cost to you, it’s a cost to another country”.

That was almost universally regarded by economists as misleading.

In practical terms, a tariff is a domestic tax levied on goods as they enter the country, proportional to the value of the import.

So a car imported to the US with a value of $50,000 (£38,000) subject to a 25% tariff, would face a $12,500 charge.

The charge is physically paid by the domestic company that imports the goods, not the foreign company that exports them.

So, in that sense, it is a straightforward tax paid by domestic US firms to the US government.

Over the course of 2023, the US imported around $3.1tn of goods, equivalent to around 11% of US GDP.

And tariffs imposed on those imports brought in $80bn in that year, around 2% of total US tax revenues.

The question of where the final “economic” burden of tariffs falls, as opposed to the upfront bill, is more complicated.

If the US importing firm passes on the cost of the tariff to the person buying the product in the US in the form of higher retail prices, it would be the US consumer that bears the economic burden.

If the US importing firm absorbs the cost of the tariff itself and doesn’t pass it on, then that firm is said to bear the economic burden in the form of lower profits than it would otherwise have enjoyed.

Alternatively, it is possible that foreign exporters might have to lower their wholesale prices by the value of the tariff in order to retain their US customers.

In that scenario, the exporting firm would bear the economic burden of the tariff in the form of lower profits.

All three scenarios are theoretically possible.

But economic studies of the impact of the new tariffs that Trump imposed in his first term of office between 2017 and 2020 suggest most of the economic burden was ultimately borne by US consumers.

A survey by the University of Chicago in September 2024 asked a group of respected economists whether they agreed with the statement that “imposing tariffs results in a substantial portion of the tariffs being borne by consumers of the country that enacts the tariffs, through price increases”. Only 2% disagreed.

Let’s use a concrete example.

Trump imposed a 50% tariff on imports of washing machines in 2018.

Researchers estimate the value of washing machines jumped by around 12% as a direct consequence, equivalent to $86 per unit, and that US consumers paid around $1.5bn extra a year in total for these products.

There is no reason to believe the results of even higher import tariffs from a future Trump administration would be any different in terms of where the economic burden would fall.

The non-partisan Peterson Institute for International Economics has estimated Trump’s new proposed tariffs would lower the incomes of Americans, with the impact ranging from around 4% for the poorest fifth to around 2% for the wealthiest fifth.

A typical household in the middle of the US income distribution, the think tank estimates, would lose around $1,700 each year.

The left-of-centre think tank Centre for American Progress, using a different methodology, has an estimate of a $2,500 to $3,900 loss for a middle-income family.

Various researchers have also warned that another major round of tariffs from the US would risk another spike in domestic inflation.

Yet Trump has used another economic justification for his tariffs: that they protect and create US domestic jobs.

“Under my plan, American workers will no longer be worried about losing your jobs to foreign nations, instead, foreign nations will be worried about losing their jobs to America,” he said on the campaign trail.

The political context for Trump’s tariffs was longstanding concern about the loss of US manufacturing jobs to countries with lower labour costs, particularly after the signing of the North American Free Trade Agreement (Nafta) with Mexico in 1994 and the entry of China into the World Trade Organisation in 2001.

In January 1994, when Nafta came into effect, the US had just under 17 million manufacturing jobs. By 2016, this had declined to around 12 million.

Yet economists say it is misleading to attribute this decline to trade, arguing that growing levels of automation are also an important factor.

And researchers who studied the impact of Trump’s first-term tariffs found no substantial positive effects on overall employment in US industrial sectors that were protected.

Trump imposed 25% tariffs on imported steel in 2018 to protect US producers.

By 2020, total employment in the US steel sector was 80,000, still lower than the 84,000 it had been in 2018.

Trump has criticised America’s trade deficit, which is the difference between the value of all the things the country imports and the value of its exports in a given year.

“Trade deficits hurt the economy very badly,” he has said.

In 2016, just before Trump took office, the total goods and services deficit was $480bn, around 2.5% of US GDP. By 2020, it had grown to $653bn, around 3% of GDP, despite his tariffs.

Part of the explanation, according to economists, is that Trump’s tariffs increased the international relative value of the US dollar (by automatically reducing demand for foreign currencies in international trade) and that this made the products of US exporters less competitive globally.

Another factor behind this failure to close the trade deficit is the fact that tariffs, in a globalised economy with multinational companies, can sometimes be bypassed.

For example, the Trump administration imposed 30% tariffs on Chinese imported solar panels in 2018.

The US Commerce Department presented evidence in 2023 that Chinese solar panel manufacturers had shifted their assembly operations to countries such as Malaysia, Thailand, Cambodia and Vietnam and then sent the finished products to the US from those countries, effectively evading the tariffs.

There are some economists who support Trump’s tariff plans as a way to boost US industry, such as Jeff Ferry of the Coalition for A Prosperous America, a domestic lobby group, but they are a small minority of the profession.

Oren Cass, the director of the conservative think tank American Compass, has argued tariffs can incentivise firms to keep more of their manufacturing operations in America, which he argues has national defence and supply chain security benefits.

And the Biden/Harris administration, while sharply criticising Trump’s proposed extension of tariffs, has kept in place many of the ones he implemented after 2018.

It has also imposed new tariffs on imports of things like electric vehicles from China, justifying them on the grounds of national security, US industrial policy and unfair domestic subsidies from Beijing.

Donald Trump’s talk of applying new tariffs to goods from America’s biggest trade partners has sparked months of uncertainty for business owners.

On Saturday, the president made good on his threats, ordering a new 25% tax on shipments from Mexico and Canada and raising existing tariffs on goods from China by 10%.

But that has not stopped the questions.

“Is it for a day, is it a political flex or is it something that will last for four years?” asked Nicolas Palazzi, the founder of Brooklyn-based PM Spirits. He runs a 21-person business that imports and sells wine and spirits, about 20% of which come from Mexico.

Trump’s orders set in motion threats that the president has discussed for months, striking at shipments from America’s top three trade partners, which together account for more than 40% of the roughly $3tn goods the US imports each year.

Canadian oil and other “energy resources” will face a lower 10% rate. But otherwise, there will be no exceptions, the White House said.

Trump said the tariffs were intended to hold Canada and Mexico accountable for promises to address illegal immigration and drug trafficking.

The measures go into effect on 4 February and are to remain in place “until the crisis is alleviated,” according to the orders.

If the plans were not a surprise, they still presented a potentially stunning blow to many businesses, especially for those in North America. The three countries have become tightly linked economically after decades of free trade under a treaty signed in the 1990s, known then as Nafta and updated and renamed under the Trump administration to USMCA.

The growth of mezcal in the US, brought in by businesses like Palazzi’s, has been part of this shift.

Since 2003, consumption of tequila and mezcal has roughly tripled, increasing at a rate of more than 7% each year, according to Distilled Spirits Council, a trade group.

Overall since the 1990s, trade in spirits between the US and Mexico has surged by more than 4,000% percent, said the organisation, which issued a statement after the president’s announcement warning that the tariffs would “significantly harm all three countries”.

For months, Palazzi has been fielding nervous questions from his suppliers in Mexico, who are typically small, family owned businesses and may not survive if the tariffs are prolonged.

If it sticks, he said the 25% tax on the bottles of mezcal, tequila and rum he brings in will push up prices – and sales will drop.

“Definitely this is going to impact the business negatively. But can you really plan? No,” he said. “Our strategy is roll-with-the-punches, wait and see and adapt to whatever craziness is going to unfold.”

Economists say the hit from the tariffs could push the economies of Mexico and Canada into recession.

Ahead of the announcement, Dan Kelly, president of the Canadian Federation of Independent Businesses, described the looming tariffs from the US, and expected retaliation, as “existential” for many of his members.

“Look, we get that the government has got to respond in some fashion …. But at the same time we urge the government to use caution,” he said, comparing tariffs on imports to chemotherapy: “It poisons your own people in order to try and fight the disease.”

“It’s going to have an effect everywhere,” said Sophie Avernin, director of De Grandes Viñedos de Francia in Mexico, noting that many Americans own Mexican alcohol brands and Modelo beer is actually owned by a Belgian company.

Trump, who has embraced tariffs as a tool to address issues far removed from trade, has dismissed concerns about any collateral damage to the economy in the US.

But analysts have warned the measures will weigh on growth, raise prices and cost the economy jobs – roughly 286,000, according to estimates by the Tax Foundation, not including retaliation.

Those in the alcohol business said the industry had already been struggling to emerge from the shadow of the pandemic and its after-shocks, including inflation, which has prompted many Americans to cut back on dining out and drinking.

Smaller firms, who typically have less financial cushion and ability to swallow a sudden 25% jump in cost, will bear the brunt of the disruption.

“I’m pretty frustrated,” said California-based importer Ben Scott, whose nine-person business Pueblo de Sabor brings in brands from Mexico such as Mal Bien and Lalocura.

“There’s just a huge cost that’s going to affect so many people in ways other than they’re paying a couple bucks more for a cocktail, which doesn’t sound like a tragedy.”

Fred Sanchez has spent years pushing to expand his business, Bad Hombre Importing, a small California-based importer and distributor of Mexican agave-based spirits like Agua del Sol, and was recently working on deals in New York and Illinois.

But his potential partners started hesitating as Trump’s tariff talk ramped up last year.

Now, instead of expanding, he is contemplating selling off his stock of liquor and possibly shutting down. He said he had little capacity to absorb the jump in costs and saw little scope for raising prices in the current economy.

“25% is just not something that we can realistically pass onto the consumer,” he said.

Sanchez said he believed that Trump might be using tariffs as a negotiating tactic, and the tax could be short-lived. Still, for his business, damage is already done.