Category: Trending Now

On a quick drive around the small Ohio town of Delta, you can spot nearly as many Trump flags as American stars-and-stripes banners.

And at the petrol station near the Ohio Turnpike, the pumps bear relics of the last administration, with slogans slamming Trump’s predecessor: “Whoever voted for Biden owes me gas money!”

This is Trump country – the Republican ticket easily won here in November’s presidential election by a margin of almost two-to-one. And while the markets are in turmoil following Trump’s unveiling of expansive global tariffs this week, plenty of people in Delta and hundreds of Midwestern towns like it still back the president’s plans.

Those plans, to impose tariffs of between 10% and 50% on almost every country, have upended global trade and led to warnings that prices could soon rise for American consumers. Trump, meanwhile, has said the move will address unfair trade imbalances, boost US industry and raise revenue.

For some in Delta, the president’s argument about fairness resonates.

“I don’t want people in other countries to suffer, I really don’t,” said Mary Miller, manager of the Delta Candy Emporium, which sits in the middle of the village’s Main Street. “But we need to have an even playing field.”

Miller, a three-time Trump voter, believes other countries haven’t played fair on trade. And like many here, she prefers to buy American-made goods.

As she watches over her stock of multi-coloured confectionaries, many of them made in the US, and weighs up how they might be impacted by fresh import taxes, she recalls how decades ago she heard that one of her favourite brands was moving its factories abroad. She hasn’t bought another pair of Levi’s jeans since.

Miller is unfazed by the possibility of price increases, which many economists say these new tariffs will bring.

“Sometimes you have to walk through fire to get to the other side,” she said.

“If tariffs bring companies and business back to hard-working American people like the ones who live here, then it’s worth it.”

These sentiments are common in Delta, a village of around 3,300 people less than 100 miles (160km) south of Detroit, even as other Midwestern towns brace for sharp shocks.

The automotive industry, with its complicated global supply chains, seems particularly vulnerable to the impact of major new tariffs, with companies in Michigan to the north and Indiana to the west already announcing factory shutdowns and job cuts.

But on the outskirts of Delta, there is a cluster of steel businesses that have been here since the 1990s and which may be better placed in a new era of American protectionism.

One of these businesses, North Star BlueScope, has urged Trump to expand tariffs on steel and aluminium.

At the same time, however, it has asked for an exemption for the raw materials it needs, such as scrap metal.

North Star BlueScope did not respond to interview requests, but in a back room at the nearby Barn Restaurant, a few local steelworkers who had just finished the night shift were drinking beers together early on Friday morning.

The workers, who asked not to be named, mostly laughed and shrugged when asked about the sweeping new tariffs that were announced by Trump at the White House on Wednesday.

It was a pretty clear indication that this economic news is unlikely to ruin their weekend.

Outside the restaurant, some Delta locals considered the possible upsides of these import taxes.

“Nobody’s frantic. We’re not going to lose any sleep over it,” said Gene Burkholder, who has a decades-long career in the agriculture industry.

Although he owns some stocks, Mr Burkholder said they were long-term investments and he was not obsessing over the sharp drops in the two days following the president’s announcement.

“If you have some spare cash, maybe it’s a good time to buy some shares while they’re cheap,” he said.

A couple of booths over, as she finished eating breakfast with her son Rob, Louise Gilson said – quietly – that she did not really trust the president.

But Gilson, along with many people here, said she wanted to see action. She wholeheartedly agreed when another diner commented: “Trump may be wrong, but at least he’s trying.”

“The other people wouldn’t have done squat,” she said, referring to the Democratic Party.

The Gilsons agreed that the big local industrial employers have generally been good neighbours, contributing to the local economy, charities and the wider community, even as they have seen some less desirable effects of industrial development and worry about unequal sharing of the economic pie.

And as they recounted Delta’s history, they described a gradual erosion in quality of life that they believe has made many people willing to roll the dice even when economists say Trump’s tariff plan comes with stark risks.

“It was a good little town to grow up in,” Rob Gilson recalled. But he said it now seemed less safe and friendly than when he was growing up in the 60s and 70s.

“It seems like the heart of America is gone,” he said.

Delta, Louise Gilson added, “is the kind of place where 25% or 30% of the people are struggling with their demons”.

And while these issues have little to do with tariffs, the challenges faced by people in towns like Delta may go some way to explaining why many are willing to give President Trump the benefit of the doubt, even as markets plunge on faraway Wall Street.

Prince Andrew’s involvement with an alleged Chinese spy came at a time his chief aide and other royals believed his reputation was “irrecoverable”.

Previously secret documents detail how ex-advisor Dominic Hampshire saw Yang Tengbo as Andrew’s “only light at the end of the tunnel” after his Newsnight interview in 2019.

The documents also reveal details of Andrew’s “communication channel” with China’s President Xi Jinping – including sending an annual birthday letter – and how MI5 intervened to warn against Andrew having contact with the alleged spy.

The documents were disclosed after the BBC and other media outlets pushed for them to be released by the courts.

Mr Yang has denied all wrongdoing.

Newly released papers include Mr Hampshire’s full witness statement, which he wrote in support of Mr Yang and sought to keep private.

It sheds new light on links between the royal and alleged spy, who became a close advisor on Andrew’s business ventures. The document also reveals:

• Mr Hampshire believed there were “leaks everywhere at all sorts of levels” in the Royal Household that made it difficult to keep Andrew’s plans private
• Andrew’s activities were discussed at two meetings between King Charles, the duke and Mr Hampshire – for which Andrew was smuggled into Windsor Castle to avoid press attention
• There was tension among aides advising Andrew, which led to his private secretary being excluded from some meetings regarding the duke’s business plans

Mr Hampshire’s statement details how Andrew believed that, with the help of Mr Yang, he could salvage a prominent public position by pursuing business opportunities in China – even though, as his aide acknowledged, ties to Beijing are “not a good look anywhere or for anyone”.

Andrew had a “communication channel” with the Chinese president, the document reveals, which Mr Hampshire said was largely used to promote his Pitch@Palace start-up business initiative in China.

He said that because of “cultural differences”, Mr Yang helped him draft letters to Xi, including in relation to plans for the Eurasia Fund, an investment vehicle which Andrew was seeking to raise money for.

In a separate document released on Friday, Mr Yang confirmed he personally pitched the fund to Xi and the wider Chinese government.

Mr Hampshire said in his witness statement that there was “nothing to hide” in the exchanges between Andrew and Xi – and they were full of “top-level nothingness”, such as birthday wishes.

Mr Hampshire said the late Queen Elizabeth II knew about the contacts with China and they were “perhaps even encouraged”.

He described Andrew as a “valuable communication point with China” – though the document reveals that Mr Hampshire thought “China would prefer a different royal”.

After the papers were released on Friday, Buckingham Palace emphasised the King had no connection with Mr Yang.

The alleged spy was not “mentioned at any time or in any way” in meetings with Andrew, the Palace said, and there was no approval given for any business relationships with him.

These latest revelations show how much Andrew had become an isolated figure after his disastrous 2019 BBC Newsnight interview – as well as the palace intrigue surrounding his attempts to recover his position.

The fallout from the interview led the prince to withdraw from public duties and led to the end of Pitch@Palace events in the UK and China, a scheme widely seen as one of Andrew’s more successful ventures.

Mr Yang had lived in the UK since 2002 and became a trusted confidant to Andrew in the wake of the interview.

Commenting on the mood in the Palace after the interview, which saw him questioned over his friendship with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, Mr Hampshire said it was “clear” the duke’s “reputation was irrecoverable”.

The documents show how as Andrew’s public status fell, Mr Yang’s role as a potential bridge to business opportunities in China grew in its importance.

Separately, Mr Hampshire also reflected on his worries about people trying to ingratiate themselves with Andrew “in order to make excessive money out the Duke or their association with him”.

In December, the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (Siac) said Mr Yang had formed an “unusual degree of trust” with Andrew.

It found Mr Yang had not disclosed his links to an arm of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) which is involved in clandestine “political interference”.

That term is used for suspected Chinese state agents who use their position to secretly influence key decision-makers in the British state, including politicians, academics and business leaders.

These agents aim to subtly and slowly make key figures amenable to the aims of the CCP in a long-term operation often referred to as “elite capture”.

It was previously revealed Mr Hampshire credited Mr Yang with salvaging Andrew’s reputation in China.

Prince Andrew’s involvement with an alleged Chinese spy came at a time his chief aide and other royals believed his reputation was “irrecoverable”.

Previously secret documents detail how ex-advisor Dominic Hampshire saw Yang Tengbo as Andrew’s “only light at the end of the tunnel” after his Newsnight interview in 2019.

The documents also reveal details of Andrew’s “communication channel” with China’s President Xi Jinping – including sending an annual birthday letter – and how MI5 intervened to warn against Andrew having contact with the alleged spy.

The documents were disclosed after the BBC and other media outlets pushed for them to be released by the courts.

Mr Yang has denied all wrongdoing.

Newly released papers include Mr Hampshire’s full witness statement, which he wrote in support of Mr Yang and sought to keep private.

It sheds new light on links between the royal and alleged spy, who became a close advisor on Andrew’s business ventures. The document also reveals:

• Mr Hampshire believed there were “leaks everywhere at all sorts of levels” in the Royal Household that made it difficult to keep Andrew’s plans private
• Andrew’s activities were discussed at two meetings between King Charles, the duke and Mr Hampshire – for which Andrew was smuggled into Windsor Castle to avoid press attention
• There was tension among aides advising Andrew, which led to his private secretary being excluded from some meetings regarding the duke’s business plans

Mr Hampshire’s statement details how Andrew believed that, with the help of Mr Yang, he could salvage a prominent public position by pursuing business opportunities in China – even though, as his aide acknowledged, ties to Beijing are “not a good look anywhere or for anyone”.

Andrew had a “communication channel” with the Chinese president, the document reveals, which Mr Hampshire said was largely used to promote his Pitch@Palace start-up business initiative in China.

He said that because of “cultural differences”, Mr Yang helped him draft letters to Xi, including in relation to plans for the Eurasia Fund, an investment vehicle which Andrew was seeking to raise money for.

In a separate document released on Friday, Mr Yang confirmed he personally pitched the fund to Xi and the wider Chinese government.

Mr Hampshire said in his witness statement that there was “nothing to hide” in the exchanges between Andrew and Xi – and they were full of “top-level nothingness”, such as birthday wishes.

Mr Hampshire said the late Queen Elizabeth II knew about the contacts with China and they were “perhaps even encouraged”.

He described Andrew as a “valuable communication point with China” – though the document reveals that Mr Hampshire thought “China would prefer a different royal”.

After the papers were released on Friday, Buckingham Palace emphasised the King had no connection with Mr Yang.

The alleged spy was not “mentioned at any time or in any way” in meetings with Andrew, the Palace said, and there was no approval given for any business relationships with him.

These latest revelations show how much Andrew had become an isolated figure after his disastrous 2019 BBC Newsnight interview – as well as the palace intrigue surrounding his attempts to recover his position.

The fallout from the interview led the prince to withdraw from public duties and led to the end of Pitch@Palace events in the UK and China, a scheme widely seen as one of Andrew’s more successful ventures.

Mr Yang had lived in the UK since 2002 and became a trusted confidant to Andrew in the wake of the interview.

Commenting on the mood in the Palace after the interview, which saw him questioned over his friendship with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, Mr Hampshire said it was “clear” the duke’s “reputation was irrecoverable”.

The documents show how as Andrew’s public status fell, Mr Yang’s role as a potential bridge to business opportunities in China grew in its importance.

Separately, Mr Hampshire also reflected on his worries about people trying to ingratiate themselves with Andrew “in order to make excessive money out the Duke or their association with him”.

In December, the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (Siac) said Mr Yang had formed an “unusual degree of trust” with Andrew.

It found Mr Yang had not disclosed his links to an arm of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) which is involved in clandestine “political interference”.

That term is used for suspected Chinese state agents who use their position to secretly influence key decision-makers in the British state, including politicians, academics and business leaders.

These agents aim to subtly and slowly make key figures amenable to the aims of the CCP in a long-term operation often referred to as “elite capture”.

It was previously revealed Mr Hampshire credited Mr Yang with salvaging Andrew’s reputation in China.

The Falkland Islands was surprised to be hit by one of the most punishing tariff rates on US President Donald Trump’s “worst offenders” list, a member of the Falklands parliament has told the BBC.

The British overseas territory is facing a 42% tax on the goods it exports to the US under Trump’s shake-up of international trade.

Teslyn Barkman, who oversees trade in the parliament, said the taxes would impact the economy, which is heavily dependent on the sale of fish to the EU and the US.

But Barkman said the Falklands government would not respond with retaliatory tariffs and wanted a “warm” relationship with the US.

Only eight other countries or territories dubbed the “worst offenders” for trade imbalances were given higher rates on Trump’s list of tariffs, which are due to come into effect on Wednesday.

“It was a surprise,” Barkman told the BBC. “The fact a global superpower such as the US was paying attention to us at all caught us off guard.”

With a population of about 3,600 people, the Falkland Islands is an archipelago located in the South Atlantic Ocean.

The territory has a government and sets its own trade policy, while the UK takes responsibility for its defence and foreign affairs.

In 2023, the Falklands government reported a national income of £280m, with fishing accounting for 60% of gross domestic product (GDP).

“We’re a village running a country,” said Barkman, who holds responsibility for trade and economic development in the Legislative Assembly.

“So the sum of our trade exports is massive in terms of GDP.”

In 2023, the Falklands exported $27.4m (£21.2m) of goods to the US, mostly non-fillet frozen fish, according to the Observatory of Economic Complexity (OEC).

In contrast, the OEC said the US exported $329,000 (£255,000) of goods to the Falklands.

Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey has urged Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer to urgently meet Falklands Governor Alison Blake to discuss the impact of the tariffs.

Sir Ed said the UK must include the interests of the Falkland Islands in its trade negotiations with the US.

“Trump’s trade war could be the biggest threat facing Falklanders since Argentina’s invasion,” Sir Ed said.

“The UK government has a responsibility to step up and defend British citizens everywhere – including in the Falklands.

“President Trump has arbitrarily decided to hit Falklanders with some of his highest tariffs in an outrageous act of aggression that cannot be allowed to stand.”

Barkman said the Falklands was still trying to figure out why Trump decided to levy a 42% tariff on its goods. The US imposed a 10% tariff on UK products.

As analysis by BBC Verify showed, the tariffs are based on a calculation that factors in the difference in goods traded between the US and other countries.

“We’re certainly not looking at any anything retaliatory at all,” Barkman said.

“We need to understand how that figure was arrived at because certainly the Falkland Islands approach has been that we’re here to support the UK and her Western allies.

She added: “We want a warm relationship with the US as well.”

She said tourism was also a big contributor to the territory’s economy, with large numbers of Amercians coming to see the renowned penguins living on the Falklands.

“Maybe that’s an opportunity for us to build a closer relationship,” Barkman said.

She said the Falklands was working with the UK government to understand how the US tariff could be reduced or removed.

EU tariffs on fish from the Falklands are a similarly pressing issue, given that is where the vast majority of those exports go.

“We’re very aware that the EU and the UK are approaching reset talks and there might be an opportunity there to support our economy as well and the removal of EU tariffs against Falkland Islands products,” Barkman said.

The BBC understands Foreign Office Minister Stephen Doughty spoke with a member of the Falkland Islands Legislative Assembly on Thursday and will be engaging with affected overseas territories over the coming weeks.

“When I heard about it and I saw her name, I thought ‘that’s not that woman – that’s not the same woman that we’ve lived by all these years’.”

That was how a resident of a cul-de-sac in Liverpool described the moment she learned her neighbour for more than 30 years – Joanne Sharkey – had been charged with the 1998 killing of her baby boy.

Another neighbour said when police first arrived at the family’s “immaculate” semi-detached house in July 2023, she had thought one of the lodgers they sometimes hosted must have been in trouble.

It simply did not make sense that someone like “kind, funny and normal” council worker Joanne Sharkey could have committed a crime.

But the truth was detectives had, finally, cracked a cold case that had lingered unsolved on the books of Cheshire Police for 25 years.

On Friday Sharkey was handed a two year prison term, suspended for two years, after a judge concluded her post-natal depression had impaired her judgement so severely the case “called for compassion” rather than punishment.

For Sharkey the past quarter of a century had, in her own words, been spent “waiting for that knock on the door”.

In March 1998, a man walking his dog in the Callands area of Warrington, Cheshire, spotted something wrapped in two knotted bin-bags.

Inside was the body of a newborn baby boy, weighing 7lbs 5oz.

With no immediate clue where he had come from, local people gave him the name Callum, after the Callands area where he was found.

Around 20 miles away in Croxteth, Liverpool, his mother had not told a soul – including her husband Neil Sharkey.

Not only had Sharkey hidden the birth and death of Baby Callum, but no-one had ever known she had been pregnant.

Mr Sharkey would spend the next 25 years oblivious to the fact he had fathered a second child.

Years later, it was older son Matthew, born in 1996, who inadvertently unlocked the mystery of Callum’s identity.

In the days after Baby Callum’s discovery, tests found wads of tissue paper had been inserted into his mouth and throat, confirming it was not likely to have been an accident.

Forensic investigators found blood from the baby’s mother on the binbags and were able to extract a full DNA profile.

A list was drawn up of teenage girls who had been absent from three local schools around the time of Baby Callum’s death so their DNA could be tested.

A number of young women were even arrested after their families suggested to detectives they might be involved.

But the original investigation stalled, and the years rolled on.

In 2016, the first review of the national DNA database was ordered, resulting in a list of hundreds of names of potentially linked people.

Some attempts had been made to narrow it down by the time Det Insp Hannah Friend took on the case in 2021.

Early in the case, detectives were “thrilled” when a name caught their attention. It was someone who lived near where Callum was found and had been spoken to by the original investigation team.

But they had not given a statement or had their details recorded properly.

“We thought maybe this is somebody who slipped through the net and as it turned out it wasn’t at all,” Det Insp Friend said.

“We were all so disappointed because we thought we’d solved it.”

After two years of ruling out potential suspects from the original list, Det Insp Friend made the decision in 2023 to run a new trawl of the national DNA database.

She was confronted with a fresh list of roughly 500 names, and, in her words, a new search for “a needle in a haystack”.

But this time was different – amongst the names was Matthew Sharkey.

Initially his name was one among several interesting DNA profiles which were sent to a forensic scientist for more detailed comparison with Baby Callum.

A few months before Joanne Sharkey was arrested, Det Insp Friend got an email from that scientist with the subject heading: “Are you sitting down?”.

The email confirmed Matthew Sharkey was a direct relative of Baby Callum, with a one in 36 billion likelihood of him not being.

Det Insp Friend said: “We were able to identify a woman who we thought was the mother of Callum – and that was Joanne Sharkey.”

The investigation team were at pains to be as sure as they could be that they had the right person before moving in – as the next step was a devastating one.

“I didn’t want to be walking through that door and destroying people’s lives”, Det Insp Friend said.

Joanne Sharkey was sitting on a couch in pink pyjamas bearing the word “mum” when police went in on 28 July 2023.

Bodyworn camera footage showed her listening to the arresting officer, wide-eyed but quiet and compliant.

Gesturing towards her stunned husband, she told the arresting officer: “He doesn’t know anything about this.”

With no evidence at that stage about how Callum had died or at whose hands, both parents were arrested.

A court later heard that, unbeknown to them, they were recorded as they sat in the back of a police car on the way to the custody suite.

Sharkey said to her husband: “I’m not… going to deny nothing. It is what it is, isn’t it? I… did it.”

In hours of police interviews, Sharkey explained how in the summer of 1998 she had become pregnant for a second time.

In the grip of severe but undiagnosed post-natal depression following the birth of Matthew, she said her reaction had been “I can’t do this again”.

She told police she had been “terrified” to see news coverage about Baby Callum and think “that was me”.

“It’s haunting, something you think about every day,” she said. “You try and push it out but it creeps back in.”

Early on, she had been unsure if she was pregnant, but there were no doubts from around five months in.

She told police her husband’s long hours and shifts meant they had been “strangers in the night” and it had not been difficult to hide her growing bump by wearing baggy clothing.

In a remarkable statement later read in court by Joanne Sharkey’s barrister, Neil Sharkey himself described how he was “not the greatest husband and father” and how he “blamed himself” for what had happened.

Sharkey told police her memory was scattered with blanks about Callum’s birth – but she recalled how Neil and Matthew must have been out of the house.

She also could not recall precisely what she did to end his life, only that she felt she “just had to make him quiet”.

Medical evidence suggested Callum had likely been subjected to some form of mechanical asphyxiation.

Sharkey described driving aimlessly until she came to the spot near Gulliver’s World theme park where she dumped Callum’s body.

It later emerged she was spotted on that day by a retired man out for a walk who remembered a woman emerging from the woodland looking visibly upset.

From this point, the questions left were complex legal and medical ones.

Was Joanne Sharkey capable of forming a rational judgement when she killed Callum, and was she guilty of murder or manslaughter?

The evidence from psychiatrists commissioned by both the defence and the prosecution all pointed the same way – Sharkey’s mental illness meant she had a partial defence to murder.

Det Insp Friend said: “My responsibility as an investigator is to follow the evidence and to develop that evidence so we can seek the truth.

“My personal feelings about [Sharkey]? You wonder on one hand how anybody could do this to a beautiful child, a precious child who deserved to live.

“On the other hand I think, how awful to be in this situation where you think that is the best and only option that you have.”

Sharkey’s fate was decided at Liverpool Crown Court on Friday morning by judge Mrs Justice Eady, who decided the sentencing exercise “called for compassion”.

She was given a two-year prison sentence suspended for two years, with a requirement for mental health treatment.

For Det Insp Friend and her team, that promise made by Callum’s graveside in 2021 had been fulfilled.

She added: “We will, once sentencing has concluded, go back to his grave to lay some flowers and just pay him our respects and I hope that he can rest in peace.”

If I was writing a Russian language course for 2025, Lesson One would definitely contain the phrase for rollercoaster: Amerikanskiye gorki.

It means, literally, American Hills.

How appropriate.

After all, with President Donald Trump now operating the ride, and Vladimir Putin pressing some of the buttons, US-Russian relations have become one of late, with highs and lows and twists and turns.

You never know quite where you are now.

Analysing geopolitical trends is hard enough at the best of times. It’s even harder careering along on the American Hills of the 47th US president.

When Trump returned to the White House in January, his direction of travel was clear: he set out to repair relations with Russia.

There were Trump/Putin phone calls, high-level US-Russia negotiations. At one point Washington voted with Moscow against a UN resolution that identified Russia as the “aggressor” in Russia’s war against Ukraine.

Whenever the Trump administration exerted pressure, it was always on Kyiv, never on the Kremlin.

But a week or so ago the rollercoaster ride began.

After Vladimir Putin had proposed replacing President Volodymyr Zelensky’s administration with “external governance” in Ukraine under the auspices of the UN, President Trump made it known that he was “angry” with Putin.

“I was disappointed in a certain way, some of the things that were said over the last day or two having to do with Zelensky,” Trump commented on 30 March. “Because when [Putin] considers Zelensky not credible, he’s supposed to be making a deal with him. Whether you like him or you don’t like him.”

After a day playing golf with Trump, the president of Finland, Alexander Stubb, told the Guardian newspaper: “I think America, and my sense is also the president of the United States, is running out of patience with Russia.”

Trump threatened to impose secondary tariffs of up to 50% on Russian oil exports if Russia was found to be dragging its heels on a Ukraine peace deal.

A bi-partisan group of US senators has gone even further.

They’ve drawn up a bill that would impose 500% secondary tariffs on countries that purchase Russian oil, gas and other resources.

Up to this point the Russian press had been welcoming the thaw in relations between Moscow and Washington. The Nezavisimaya Gazeta newspaper last month ran a headline stating that US and Russian officials had “started speaking the same language”.

This week things changed.

On Wednesday, Moskovsky Komsomolets newspaper accused the Trump administration of “administrative insanity… inexperience… immaturity”.

It criticised the administration’s “bragging and arrogance” and “its desire to declare ‘huge breakthroughs’ when the first steps have barely been taken”.

The same day, Komsomolskaya Pravda declared: “On Ukraine talks, Donald’s mood changes as often as the wind.”

Signs, perhaps, of a cold wind blowing between Moscow and Washington?

And yet when Trump announced his sweeping tariffs this week, Russia wasn’t on the list.

Instead, US authorities had organised a sanctions waiver for a key Kremlin official: Putin’s foreign investment envoy Kirill Dmitriev.

Dmitriev flew into Washington for talks with the Trump administration.

A sign, perhaps, of Russia and America getting on with the business of… getting along?

But on Friday, another warning from Washington to Moscow. This time at a meeting of Nato foreign ministers in Brussels.

“President Trump’s not going to fall into the trap of endless negotiations about negotiations,” said US Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

“We will know soon enough, in a matter of weeks, not months, whether Russia is serious about peace or not.”

“If they’re not,” he continued, “then we’ll have to re-evaluate where we stand and what we do moving forward about it.”

This followed criticism of Russia by America’s Nato allies. UK Foreign Secretary David Lammy said Putin “continues to obfuscate, continues to drag his feet”.

“He could accept a ceasefire now, he continues to bombard Ukraine… We see you, Vladimir Putin, we know what you are doing.”

Earlier on Friday there were rumours that Trump and Putin were about to speak again on the phone. These were followed by more rumours: the White House had changed its mind.

The Kremlin said that there were no plans for a conversation.

But there are reports that American companies are planning to take part in this year’s St Petersburg Economic Forum.

Okay. Stop the ride. I need to get off.

My conclusions from all of this.

Trying to follow each twist and turn on the US-Russia rollercoaster can leave you giddy and confused.

Sometimes it’s better observing from a distance. It often helps in order to identify the bigger picture.

Which is this: for months Donald Trump’s team avoided criticising Putin and Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

Key White House officials, like special envoy Steve Witkoff, have repeatedly embraced and repeated Kremlin talking points. True, Washington says it’s growing impatient with Russia and has threatened tougher sanctions on Moscow. But it hasn’t imposed any. Not yet.

Will it?

Is the Trump administration prepared to pressure Moscow into ending the war? And would the Kremlin allow itself to be pressured into doing so?

It’s a key question as Russia’s war on Ukraine continues.

American companies looking to sell into the huge Chinese market have just taken a big hit. A 34% price increase on all US goods entering the country will knock some out of here altogether.

This is especially bad for US agricultural producers. They already had 10 or 15% tariffs on their produce entering China, in response to the last round of Trump tariffs. Now, if you add 34% on top of that, it is probably pricing most of them out.

Beijing doesn’t seem too worried about looking elsewhere for more chicken, pork and sorghum and – at the same time – it knows it is whacking the US president right in his heartland.

Globally, all of this has analysts worried.

The problem is that supply chains have become so international, components in any given product could be sourced from all corners of the planet.

So, when the ripples of economic distress start spreading from country to country, it could have potentially catastrophic consequences for all trade.

Most concerning is that the world’s two greatest economies are now at each other’s throats with no indication that either is preparing to backdown.

Just take the timing of Beijing’s announcement.

The Chinese government revealed its promised “resolute countermeasures” to Trump’s latest tariffs in a written statement from the finance ministry at 18:00 local time (10:00 GMT), on a Friday night, which is also a public holiday.

The timing could mean several things.

1. It wanted to somewhat bury the news at home, so as to not spook people too much.

2. It simply made the announcement as soon as its own calibrations had been finalised.

3. Beijing had given up on the hope of using the small window it had before Trump’s 54% tariffs on Chinese goods took effect next week to do a deal. So, the government just decided to let it rip.

If it is the last of these reasons, that is pretty bleak news for the global economy because it could mean that a settlement between the world’s superpowers could be harder to reach than many had expected.

Another indicator of President Xi’s attitude towards President Trump’s tariffs can be seen by what he was doing when they were announced.

Elsewhere, governments may have been glued to the television, hoping to avoid the worst from Washington.

Not here.

Xi and the six other members of the Politburo Standing Committee were out planting trees to draw attention to the need to counter deforestation.

It presented a kind of calmness in the face of Trump, giving off a vibe along the lines of: do your best Washington, this is China and we’re not interested in your nonsense.

There is still room for the US and China to cut some sort of deal, but the rhetoric does not seem to be heading that way.

Another possible path is for China to increase its trade with other countries – including western nations once seen as close allies of the US – and for these new routes to essentially cut America out of the loop.

Again, this would hurt not only US companies but also US consumers who will already be paying higher prices thanks to Trump’s tariffs.

Russell Brand has been charged with rape, indecent assault and sexual assault between 1999 and 2005.

The charges relate to four separate women.

Brand has been interviewed multiple times by police since an investigation by the Sunday Times, the Times and Channel 4’s Dispatches in September 2023 revealed multiple serious allegations against him.

In a new video posted on X this afternoon, Brand said: “What I never was, was a rapist. I’ve never engaged in non-consensual activity.”

He added: “I’m now going to have the opportunity to defend these charges in court and I’m incredibly grateful for that.”

In a short statement, the Metropolitan Police said it had written to Brand to inform him that he was being charged with one allegation of rape, one allegation of indecent assault, one of oral rape and two further counts of sexual assault.

The force said it is alleged that:

• In 1999 a woman was raped in the Bournemouth area.
• In 2001 a woman was indecently assaulted in the Westminster area of London.
• In 2004 a woman was orally raped and sexually assaulted in the Westminster area of London.
• Between 2004 and 2005, a woman was sexually assaulted in the Westminster area of London.

Brand has been told to appear at Westminster Magistrates’ Court on 2 May, but he is believed to be in the United States.

In these situations, where a suspect may be overseas, prosecutors seek to agree the defendant’s return. If there is no co-operation from a suspect, authorities then consider seeking extradition.

In February a civil case for “personal injury” and “sexual abuse” was lodged against Brand at the High Court in London by an anonymous woman, referred to in court documents as AGX.

Jaswant Narwal of the Crown Prosecution Service said: “We have today authorised the Metropolitan Police to charge Russell Brand with a number of sexual offences.

“We carefully reviewed the evidence after a police investigation into allegations made following the broadcast of a Channel 4 documentary in September 2023.

“We have concluded that Russell Brand should be charged with offences including rape, sexual assault and indecent assault. These relate to reported non-recent offences between 1999 and 2005, involving four women.

“The Crown Prosecution Service reminds everyone that criminal proceedings are active, and the defendant has the right to a fair trial. It is extremely important that there be no reporting, commentary or sharing of information online which could in any way prejudice these proceedings.”

The Metropolitan Police’s detective superintendent Andy Furphy, who is leading the investigation, said: “The women who have made reports continue to receive support from specially trained officers.

“The Met’s investigation remains open and detectives ask anyone who has been affected by this case, or anyone who has any information, to come forward and speak with police. A dedicated team of investigators is available via email at CIT@met.police.uk.

“Support is also available by contacting the independent charity, Rape Crisis at 24/7 Rape and Sexual Abuse Support Line.”

Brand, who was born in Essex, rose to fame as a stand-up comedian, performing at the Hackney Empire in 2000 and later the Edinburgh Fringe.

He later moved into broadcasting, hosting national television and radio programmes.

The turning point in his career came in the mid-2000s, when he hosted Big Brother’s Big Mouth, a companion show to the hugely popular reality series Big Brother.

It provided the springboard he was looking for and led to him becoming one of the most sought-after presenters in the UK.

Brand went on to host the NME, MTV and Brit awards ceremonies, had his own debate series by E4, and fronted the UK leg of charity concert Live Earth.

But he was never far away from controversy, particularly at awards ceremonies – which provided the kind of live, anything-can-happen chaos where he was most at home.

His career included hosting radio shows on the BBC, in particular for 6 Music and Radio 2, between 2006 and 2008.

But inappropriate phone calls he made to the Fawlty Towers actor Andrew Sachs during a show in 2008 prompted a huge scandal – and ultimately led to his dismissal.

He rebounded with a Hollywood career, starring in films like Forgetting Sarah Marshall and Get Him To The Greek.

Recent years have seen him take a new direction – particularly since the start of the Covid pandemic in 2020.

Brand grew his following on YouTube as he discussed scepticism surrounding the disease.

He has developed a cult following for his views on politics and society, through videos which challenge the mainstream reporting of a range of subjects and often amplify conspiracy theories. He has also established himself as a wellness guru.

The boss of US pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly has told the BBC there is no looking back from Donald Trump’s decision to impose sweeping tariffs on imports from the rest of the world.

In an exclusive interview, David Ricks described it as a watershed moment in US economic history, “I think it’s a pivot in US policy and it feels like it’ll be hard to come back from here.”

While Mr Ricks said he thought it may encourage some companies to relocate some manufacturing, he was doubtful it would also create hundreds of billions in additional revenue for the US promised by President Trump.

He also added that the UK’s status as a pharmaceutical and life sciences power was in decline.

Eli Lilly is a pharmaceutical giant based in Indianapolis worth $750bn (£573bn; €676bn) with 50,000 employees across the US, Europe and Asia.

Due to their complex supply chains and the often life-saving products they make, pharmaceutical companies along with microchip makers were temporarily exempted from the tariffs imposed on all products imported into the US.

But Mr Ricks seemed in little doubt that tariffs will eventually hit and that this will have damaging consequences for investment in new medicines.

He explained drug prices were essentially capped in Europe and the US, which meant the impact of tariffs would be felt elsewhere.

“We can’t breach those agreements so we have to eat the cost of the tariffs and make trade offs within our own companies,” he said.

“Typically that will be in reduction of staff or research and development (R&D) and I predict R&D will come first. That’s a disappointing outcome.”

Mr Ricks said he did not support the imposition of tariffs but understood its intention and respected President Trump’s political mandate.

“We don’t support tariffs, to be clear. In pharma, about 70% of global R&D takes place in the United States. So we’re creating the next generation of breakthroughs and cures.

“But the production is heavily weighted outside the US. And that’s not unique to our industry. It happened with electronics and software and other things”.

“So I think what this administration is saying is we want both. We want the means of production and we want the research and development intellectual property generation.”

Eli Lilly are in the process of building a new additional $800m facility in Ireland, where they employ more than 3,000 people. Mr Ricks said that development would proceed.

“There’s plenty of demand outside the US so we’d have to look at the flow of goods because we wouldn’t want to have to pay tariffs if we didn’t need to, but I think for the moment that’s fine.”

But Mr Ricks said that its investment in the UK had been in decline and warned that slow regulation and poor uptake of new medicines threatened the UK’s reputation as an important life sciences hub and that patients were missing out on new advances in medicine.

Mr Ricks said he delivered some “candid” comments to senior ministers including the prime minister, health secretary and business secretary.

“The UK’s advantage is slipping. If you look at the numbers there is disinvestment in research and development. It’s been on a steady decline,” he said.

So is the UK complacent when it thinks of itself as a life sciences super power?

“That’s one way to put it.”

Mr Ricks said countries like Germany spend nearly double of their health budget on medicines.

“The UK is not a large market. But what it could be is an exceptional market.

“You need three things to make our industry work. A strong intellectual property system, and the UK is quite good.

“You need a regulator that’s timely, efficient and predictable – pretty good there as well.

“But most importantly you need a commercial market that rewards innovation – and here there’s been significant backsliding”.

South Korea’s Constitutional Court has ruled Yoon Suk Yeol abused his power by declaring martial law last December, and permanently removed him from office.

Before that, South Korea was not somewhere you might expect a military takeover – a peaceful and proud democracy, admired across the globe for its K-dramas and technological innovation.

So, when President Yoon Suk Yeol declared martial law, ordering his army to seize control, he stunned the country and the world. Everyone, from regular Koreans to world leaders, was left with the same burning question:

What was he thinking?

Yoon underestimated the resistance from the public, his military and members of parliament. He cancelled the order after just six hours.

The BBC has spoken to some of those closest to the president – his friends, confidantes, and political aides – to understand what drove this once successful and principled prosecutor, famed for his belief in right and wrong, to trigger an authoritarian takeover: a decision that would upend his country, tarnish its international reputation and destroy his career.

From a young age, Yoon was “obsessed with winning”, his oldest friend, Chulwoo Lee, told me in the weeks after martial law.

“Once he decides something, he drives it forward in a very extreme way.”

Mr Lee was in the same primary school class as Yoon. The pair later went on to study law together, before Yoon became a prosecutor.

At school, he was the biggest boy in the class, Mr Lee said, which meant he always sat at the back so as not block the other pupils’ view.

He was popular and clever, Mr Lee added, keen to counter a myth that Yoon struggled academically because it took him nine attempts to pass the bar exam.

Yoon attended college in the early 1980s, when South Korea’s military dictator Chun Doo-hwan ruled the country using martial law.

When the military massacred protesters in the city of Gwangju, the nation was horrified. Angry students took to the streets, but according to Lee, Yoon “didn’t participate much”.

“He wasn’t particularly interested in the student movement or politics,” Lee said, but he did have “a strong belief in justice”.

Mr Lee remembers walking through campus one day, when they saw a girl being interrogated by two plain clothes policemen. Yoon immediately started shouting at them.

“Because he was so big and angry, the officers were frightened. They practically ran away,” he said. “His temper was uncontrollable.”

Decades later, Mr Lee would find himself on the receiving end of his friend’s temper.

As a state prosecutor, Yoon cemented his reputation as an explosive character who was almost obsessively guided by an innate sense of right and wrong.

But over the years, Lee worried his investigations were becoming unnecessarily aggressive. When he called Yoon to tell him so, “he threw the telephone across the room” in anger.

By then, Yoon was already famous, having investigated the intelligence service in 2013 for corruption, against the orders of his boss. He was suspended from his job, but according to Mr Lee, who defended him, the public viewed him as brave for defying political pressure.

When testifying, Yoon famously declared: “I do not owe my loyalty to anyone.”

This was evident again when he went on to prosecute and jail South Korea’s impeached conservative president Park Geun-hye in 2018, making him a darling of the left.

It won him the job of chief prosecutor for the left-leaning government at the time. But rather than curry favour, he launched an investigation into one of its ministers. It was then that Mr Lee phoned to warn his friend “he was crossing a bridge of no return”, which incensed Yoon. The pair did not talk for over a year.

But this dogged, non-partisan approach won him support. “I was rooting for him because he always did the right thing rather than what his boss told him to do. I felt there should be more people like him,” said one friend, Shin*, who asked to stay anonymous.

Shin, who refers to Yoon as his older brother – a term of affection in South Korea – claims he was different to many prosecutors at the time, who sold their influence by marrying into rich and powerful families.

But by investigating the government, Yoon had picked a fight he couldn’t win, and he was pushed out of his job as chief prosecutor. Such side-switching set him up as a hero and villain to both sides of the politician divide, giving him a unique appeal.

Still, the decision to run for president was not an easy one, Shin said.

The pair met regularly to brainstorm a game plan. They worried about Yoon’s lack of political connections.

“If you’ve been a politician your whole life you have people backing you. Without these allies, Yoon knew he was going to be a very lonely president,” Shin said.

“I greatly regret choosing him as our candidate”, Yoon’s campaign strategist Kim Keun-sik admitted to me in the aftermath of martial law.

Kim was initially enamoured by Yoon’s principled approach to the law, but said he quickly grew concerned. “He didn’t listen to any of our advice. He only did as he pleased – he was stubborn to the core.”

He would make decisions spontaneously, in private, preferring to take advice from the friends he went drinking with, Kim said. “We kept having to clear up his mess.”

Yet despite these warning signs, he was selected as the presidential candidate for South Korea’s conservative People Power Party.

“We knew he was a risk, but we thought he gave us the best chance of beating our opponent,” Kim said.

After being endorsed by the party, Yoon’s politics lurched rapidly to the right.

According to his friends, he was bombarded by very right-wing politicians and journalists who “planted ideas in his mind.” He developed an extreme hostility towards the opposition party, believing it had links to North Korea.

“I felt very sad, because he was changing,” said Shin. “He wanted to win, and the wrong advice went to his head. He started to think he was engaged in a war.”

By now, Yoon’s schoolfriend Lee was alarmed.

“He came into politics with such a wide spectrum of support. I hoped he would unite the country. But he moved so quickly to the right and was losing support almost every day.”  

The problem, Lee said, was that those on the far right were fanatically supportive. The more backing Yoon lost, the more he believed he had to rely on these loyalists, and the further right he slid.

It was a self-defeating cycle. Yoon won the election by the narrowest margin in South Korea’s history – 0.7%.

After his victory, Mr Lee messaged his school friend to cut ties, concerned about the direction he would take the country. “I congratulated him and said I would see him after he had served his term.”

By the time he entered office, Yoon had not only alienated his oldest friend, but many moderate voters, and he had set himself up for a clash with the powerful opposition, that controlled the parliament.

He brought his prosecutorial instincts into politics. Yet the very traits that made him a formidable prosecutor would hamper him as president.

“Usually politicians with no experience listen to their aides a lot, but Yoon wanted to take the wheel,” said one of his political advisers, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

The aide, who worked in the president’s office, said Yoon would argue his points “loudly and forcefully”, making it “uncomfortable” to voice an alternative opinion.

In the early days of his presidency, most of his team pressed him to sit down with the opposition leader, to resolve their differences and find a way to govern effectively, but Yoon refused, the aide said.

“He viewed the opposition leader, Lee Jae-myung, as a criminal.”

Instead, Yoon sided with a small faction within the presidential office who wanted him to “fight the party head on”.

Fairly quickly, those pushing for dialogue either left or were pushed out, leaving Yoon surrounded by people who agreed with him, and lower-level bureaucrats, too scared to speak out.

This bullish leadership led him to make a strategic miscalculation – he overlooked the need to be liked by voters. He pushed ahead with unpopular policies, and refused to apologise for his wife, who had antagonised the public by accepting luxury gifts.

“He didn’t care enough what people thought of him; whether they thought he was doing a good job or not,” said his friend Shin, who remembers struggling to convince Yoon to dress smartly in the early days of the campaign.

Yoon feared that pandering to the public might prevent him achieving his goals, and hoped people would eventually recognise he was doing a good job, Shin explained.

The opposite turned out to be true.

Two years into his term, his party suffered a bruising defeat in parliamentary elections, handing the opposition party an even bigger majority. Yoon was left hamstrung, unable to enact his agenda.

“It’s arrogant to say you don’t want to be popular, that you don’t want approval ratings,” said Shin, labelling this Yoon’s “biggest mistake”.

“He’s a funny, likeable person. He could have been a popular president.”

Perversely, Yoon seemed untroubled by his party’s election defeat.

“He said he could still give executive orders and accomplish a lot. He told me not to worry”, said Linton, a conservative politician and one of the president’s close confidantes at the time.

According to various testimonies, this was about the time Yoon’s martial law plot began to take shape.

By now, he appeared to be fully immersed in unsubstantiated conspiracy theories, peddled by influential far-right YouTubers whose content he was consuming. He believed the opposition was taking orders from North Korea, or at least those who idolised the regime, though he never presented any proof.

Linton said Yoon talked repeatedly of how the opposition party was being run by Marxists, once comparing them to the Chinese Communist Party. He thought that, if in power, they would turn South Korea into an authoritarian communist state and bankrupt the country.

“I got this speech at least 15 to 20 times.”

The stronger the opposition got, the more headstrong Yoon became, using his presidential veto to block parliament’s decisions. In return the assembly slashed his budgets, impeached an unprecedented number of his political appointees, and tried to investigate his wife for corruption.

According to Linton, Yoon was “livid”. “They are trying to bring me down, the government down, and end our democracy – and we can’t put up with it,” he told him.

On 3 December, he finally snapped.

“He saw martial law as a method for punishing the opposition. He felt that somebody had to stand up to them,” Linton said.

“Once he makes a decision he doesn’t hesitate,” he added, suggesting it was unlikely Yoon had fully thought his plan through. “It was a poor decision, and he is paying the consequences now, but I think he sincerely thought he had the country’s best interests at heart.”

In a roundabout way, his schoolfriend Chulwoo Lee agrees: “He had this delusion he could save the nation from communist threats, but I have no sympathy for him; he has jeopardised our democracy.”

As misguided as he was, Yoon did what he thought was right with little care for the consequences, echoed Shin.

“This was exactly how he lived his 30 years as a prosecutor. In this sense, martial law was something only Yoon could have done.”

Last year, on 17 September, at around 15:30, a pager which a nurse called Adam was given at the start of his shift at a hospital in Lebanon received a message. The devices had been distributed by Hezbollah, the Shia Muslim group, to thousands of its members, including Adam, and he said it was how he and his colleagues expected to be alerted of emergencies or a disaster.

“The pager started beeping non-stop and, on the screen, it said ‘alert’,” Adam, who did not want to use his real name for safety reasons, said. The text appeared to have been sent by the group’s leadership. To read it, he had to press two buttons, simultaneously, with both hands. Adam did it many times, but the beeps continued. “Then suddenly, as I was sitting at my desk,” he said, “the pager exploded”.

On his phone, Adam showed me a video of the room, filmed by a colleague minutes after he was rescued. There was a trail of blood on the floor. “I tried to crawl to the door because I had locked it while I changed my clothes,” he said. The blast had opened a hole in the wood desk. I noticed a beige-like object. “That’s my finger,” he said.

Hezbollah is known for being a powerful militia and is proscribed as a terrorist organisation by countries including the UK and the US. But in Lebanon, it is also a significant political movement with representation in parliament and a social organisation. Here, being a Hezbollah member does not necessarily mean you are a fighter. In fact, many are not. Adam told me he had never been one. People can work in the group’s large array of institutions that include hospitals and emergency services, for example.

Hezbollah had decided to equip members with low-tech pagers for communicating rather than smartphones which it feared could be used by Israel, its arch-enemy, to gather sensitive information about the group. It turned out, though, that the devices which Hezbollah had distributed were part of a years-long elaborate Israeli plan: an explosive compound had been concealed within the pagers, waiting to be activated – and that is what happened on that day.

In the attack, Adam, who is 38, lost his thumb and two fingers on his left hand, and part of a finger on the other. He was blinded in his right eye, which has been replaced with a glass eye, and has only partial sight in the other. He showed me a picture of him in a hospital bed, taken an hour after the explosion, with his face burned, entirely blooded, covered with bandages. Despite his wounds, Adam remained committed to Hezbollah. I asked him how he felt when he looked at himself like that. “Very good,” he said in English. Then, in Arabic, he told me: “Because we believe that the wounds are a kind of medal from God. Honouring what we go through fighting a righteous cause.”

But the group is no longer the force it was since being dealt a devastating blow in Israel’s bombing campaign and invasion of Lebanon, which followed the pager attacks, and faces serious challenges. At home, there is discontent among some supporters over the lack of funds for reconstruction, while the new government has vowed to disarm the group. In neighbouring Syria, the ouster of Bashar al-Assad’s regime has disrupted the route used by Iran, its main supporter, for the supply of weapons and money.

I visited communities in southern Lebanon that were destroyed by Israel’s attacks, and saw that support for Hezbollah appeared undimmed. But, in views rarely expressed to media, others who backed it said the war had been a mistake, and even questioned the group’s future as a military force.

You can listen to more from Hugo in his radio documentary – Crossing Continents: Hezbollah in trouble – here

Hezbollah, or Party of God, was created in the 1980s in response to Israel’s occupation of Lebanon during the Lebanese civil war. To this day, the destruction of Israel remains one of its official goals. Their last war had been in 2006, which was followed by years of relative calm. Violence flared up again in 2023 after Hamas attacked Israel on 7 October, killing about 1,200 people and taking more than 250 hostages. When Israel started bombarding Gaza, Hezbollah began firing rockets into northern Israel, saying it was acting in support of Palestinians. Israel responded with air strikes on southern Lebanon, and tens of thousands of people were forced to flee on both sides of the border.

The pager attacks were a turning point in what had been, until then, an intensifying but relatively contained conflict. The devices exploded as people were working, shopping or at home. About a dozen people, including two children, were killed, and thousands wounded, many of them maimed. The attack caused anger in Lebanon, because of what was seen as its indiscriminate nature. A day later, walkie-talkies used by the group suddenly exploded too. I was at a funeral of some of the victims of the pagers when there was a loud blast. Hezbollah members, desperate, asked us to turn off our cameras or phones, as no-one knew what else could explode.

In the following weeks, Israel carried out a relentless bombing campaign and a ground invasion of southern Lebanon. Across the country, around 4,000 people were killed and almost 18,000 others wounded. For Hezbollah, the conflict proved to be catastrophic. The group’s top leaders were assassinated, many of its fighters killed and much of its arsenal destroyed. Among the dead was Hassan Nasrallah, who had been the head of Hezbollah for more than 30 years, assassinated in a massive air strike on the group’s secret headquarters under apartment blocks in the Dahieh, where Hezbollah is based in Beirut.

At the end of November, battered, the group agreed on a ceasefire that was essentially a surrender.

Southern Lebanon is the heartland of Lebanon’s Shia Muslim community, which is the bulk of Hezbollah’s support base, and one of the regions of the country where the group has traditionally had a significant presence. I travelled to the border town of Kfar Kila, which had a pre-war population of 15,000 and was one of the first to fall when Israel invaded. Israel’s stated war goal was to allow the return of residents to its northern communities, which had been emptied because of Hezbollah’s attacks. In Kfar Kila, there was almost nothing left standing, and yellow Hezbollah flags dotted the huge piles of broken concrete and twisted metal.

A 37-year-old woman called Alia had come with her husband and three daughters, aged 18, 14 and 10. The youngest was wearing a badge with a smiley picture of Nasrallah. “I only knew that this was my house because of the remains of this plant over there, the roses, and this tree,” Alia told me. From the street, she pointed at what she could identify in the rubble. “This is the couch. There, the curtains. That was the living room. And that was the bedroom. That’s my daughter’s bicycle,” she said. “There’s nothing to recover”.

According to the World Bank, costs related to reconstruction and recovery are estimated at $11bn (£8.5bn) across the country. One of Hezbollah’s immediate challenges is to give financial help to people affected by the war, which is crucial to keep supporters on board. Those who lost their houses have received $12,000 to cover for a year’s rent. But the group has not promised money to rebuild what was destroyed or to give compensation for destroyed businesses. The limited support is already fuelling discontent. Aila’s shop had stock worth $20,000, and she was concerned no-one would cover her losses.

Iran, Hezbollah’s backer, is one of the group’s main sources of funds, weapons and training. But Lebanon’s international allies want to cut off any financial support from Iran, to put even more pressure on Hezbollah, and say there will be no help if the Lebanese government does not act against Hezbollah. With the group weakened militarily, critics see this as a unique opportunity to disarm it.

Alia told me: “We don’t want any aid that comes with conditions about our arms… We won’t allow them to take our dignity, our honour, take away our arms just for us to build a house. We’ll build it ourselves.”

It is not surprising that Hezbollah’s supporters remain defiant. For many, the group is a fundamental part of their lives, essential in their identities. But Hezbollah’s power is seen – and felt – beyond its base. Before the war, its military wing was considered to be stronger than the Lebanese national army. A solid parliamentary bloc means that virtually no major decision has been possible without Hezbollah’s consent. Because of Lebanon’s fractured political system, the group has representation in the government. In short, Hezbollah has had the ability to paralyse the state, and many times has done so.

But the war has diminished the group’s domestic position too. In January, the Lebanese parliament elected a new president, former army chief Joseph Aoun, after a two-year impasse that critics had blamed on Hezbollah. In the past, its MPs and allies would walk out of the chamber when a vote was scheduled. But Hezbollah, severely wounded and with its communities in need of help, felt it could no longer block the process, which was seen as vital to unlock some international support. In his inauguration speech, Aoun promised to make the Lebanese army the sole carrier of weapons in the country. He did not mention Hezbollah, but everyone understood the message.

Ultimately, Hezbollah’s future may lie with Iran. One of the reasons for Iran to have a strong Hezbollah in Lebanon was to deter any Israeli attack, especially on its nuclear facilities. This is now gone. Other groups backed by Iran in the region, part of what it calls the Axis of Resistance, have also been significantly weakened, including Hamas in Gaza and the Houthis in Yemen. And the fall of the Assad regime in Syria has interrupted Iran’s land corridor to Lebanon – and Hezbollah. Even if Iran decides to rearm Hezbollah, it will not be easy.

Nasrallah has been succeeded by Naim Qassem, his former deputy, who is not seen as charismatic or influential. From time to time, rumours emerge of internal disagreements. And whispers of dissent among the rank and file are spreading. In southern Lebanon, I met a businessman who did not want to have his name published, fearing that he could become a target on social media. On the wall of his office, he had pictures of Hezbollah’s leaders. Now, he was critical of the group.

“The mistakes have been huge,” he said. “Hezbollah decided to engage in a war to support Gaza without proper calculations, without consulting the people or the Lebanese state”. (To date, Israel’s war in Gaza has killed more than 50,000 Palestinians, according to the Hamas-run health ministry.) He told me a lot of supporters shared his view. “If Hezbollah don’t do a proper reassessment of the situation… they will destroy themselves and harm us along the way. We brought this destruction on ourselves, and we’re now suffering”.

As part of the ceasefire deal, Hezbollah agreed to remove its weapons and fighters from southern Lebanon, and a Western diplomatic official told me the group had largely done it. Israel was required to withdraw its troops, but has remained in five positions, saying this is needed for the safety of its border communities. The Israeli military has also carried out air strikes on targets and people it says are linked to Hezbollah. Lebanon says the Israeli permanence in Lebanese territory and its attacks are violations of the deal.

Discussions about Hezbollah’s disarmament are likely to be difficult and long. A source familiar with the group told me one of the options was for Hezbollah’s arsenal, believed to still include long-range missiles, to be put under the control of the state, while its fighters, estimated to be several thousand, could be integrated into the Lebanese army.

The businessman told me: “A lot of the families, especially those of wounded and martyred fighters, are totally dependent on Hezbollah. These people won’t disengage from Hezbollah immediately… Without a plan, it would be a recipe for internal conflict. It would drive Lebanese to fight against each other”.

For weeks, I tried to interview a representative from Hezbollah, but no-one was made available.

Adam, the pager casualty, has now returned to his work as a nurse. He no longer does nightshifts, however, as he cannot see well. The explosion also left shrapnel in his head and chest. As he gets tired easily, he needs to take constant breaks to rest. Physiotherapy sessions are helping him adapt to using what is left of his left thumb and middle finger.

Prominent in his living room, is a picture he framed, of himself, with his injured hands, holding a pager. He shared with me another picture, of his maimed hand, only now it also bore a tattooed message which expressed that his wounds were a cheap sacrifice in honour of Nasrallah, the late Hezbollah leader. He, like many, still believes in the group’s purpose, and the role it plays.

A Harris’s hawk that has been repeatedly attacking villagers has been captured by a resident with the same name.

Steve Harris, 40, told the BBC he had managed to humanely catch the hawk in his garden in Flamstead, Hertfordshire.

The bird, which is believed to have escaped from captivity, swooped on an estimated 50 people in recent weeks, drawing blood from several victims.

“It’s a relief for us and the whole village,” said Mr Harris, whose children had been unable to use the back garden after the hawk took up residence in one of their trees.

Residents in the village initially reported being attacked by the bird early last month with a video showing the moment it swooped down on a man.

Nearby Whipsnade Zoo confirmed the bird was not theirs, but said it would not be “actively hostile toward humans” unless it felt threatened.

Royal Mail also confirmed postal deliveries had been disrupted by the bird as it continued to attack people.

More recently an elderly man was treated in hospital when the hawk drew blood on his head.

“Every morning, we wake up and see it up in the tree, getting braver and braver,” Mr Harris continued.

“I’ve been working from home watching it, thinking we’ve got to get this bird gone.”

Mr Harris said he acted spontaneously to capture the bird on Thursday morning.

“It had been chasing me around the village when I went for a run, and when I got back it flew down to the top of my shed.

“The falconer had left me a cage. I was using it to protect myself and I got brave enough when the bird was about a foot away, and I threw it over the top of it, trapping it.

“I screamed out for the falconer to come and help, and he came and tamed it.”

Alan Greenhalgh, a falconer from the area, helped Mr Harris trap the bird and told BBC Radio 4’s Today Programme he saw it “terrorising two or three people”.

“Steve came running out of his garden, ‘Quick, quick, quick, I think I’ve got it’,” he explained.

“I ran into Steve’s garden and the bird was having a go at him again… we managed to get hold of it before it got loose and luckily otherwise we would have been back to square one.”

Mr Greenhalgh theorised the bird was a young male and “hormonal”, potentially being the reason behind the attacks.

He added the bird was “as fat as a barrel” after villagers had attempted to catch it with food over the weeks.

Fellow falconer Wayne is now caring for the hawk, which is a non-native South American species.

Wayne, who declined to give his last name, said the hawk had been raised in captivity and the dried-out leather tags on its feet suggested “he’s been loose for over a year”.

Jim Hewitt was the man taken to hospital covered in blood after he felt a “smack” on the back of his head while walking to the shop.

The 75-year-old said he was “delighted” the hawk had been caught, and had vowed: “I won’t get beaten by a poxy bird.”

Mr Harris said the situation had started to become dangerous.

“I got whacked over the head yesterday trying to get into my car… it was getting to the stage where it was attacking people with consistency.”

Flamstead Parish Council thanked Mr Harris for his “quick thinking”, which saw the bird “trapped quickly and safely”.

A spokesperson for Hertfordshire Police said that while police had not led the response to the attacks, a “low-level presence has been maintained in the area”.

“Rural specialist Special Chief Inspector Steve Meredith has been facilitating communication with expert agencies and local partners to try and bring the situation to a safe conclusion,” the force said.

Get our flagship newsletter with all the headlines you need to start the day. Sign up here.

A Harris’s hawk that has been repeatedly attacking villagers has been captured by a resident with the same name.

Steve Harris, 40, told the BBC he had managed to humanely catch the hawk in his garden in Flamstead, Hertfordshire.

The bird, which is believed to have escaped from captivity, swooped on an estimated 50 people in recent weeks, drawing blood from several victims.

“It’s a relief for us and the whole village,” said Mr Harris, whose children had been unable to use the back garden after the hawk took up residence in one of their trees.

Residents in the village initially reported being attacked by the bird early last month with a video showing the moment it swooped down on a man.

Nearby Whipsnade Zoo confirmed the bird was not theirs, but said it would not be “actively hostile toward humans” unless it felt threatened.

Royal Mail also confirmed postal deliveries had been disrupted by the bird as it continued to attack people.

More recently an elderly man was treated in hospital when the hawk drew blood on his head.

“Every morning, we wake up and see it up in the tree, getting braver and braver,” Mr Harris continued.

“I’ve been working from home watching it, thinking we’ve got to get this bird gone.”

Mr Harris said he acted spontaneously to capture the bird on Thursday morning.

“It had been chasing me around the village when I went for a run, and when I got back it flew down to the top of my shed.

“The falconer had left me a cage. I was using it to protect myself and I got brave enough when the bird was about a foot away, and I threw it over the top of it, trapping it.

“I screamed out for the falconer to come and help, and he came and tamed it.”

Alan Greenhalgh, a falconer from the area, helped Mr Harris trap the bird and told BBC Radio 4’s Today Programme he saw it “terrorising two or three people”.

“Steve came running out of his garden, ‘Quick, quick, quick, I think I’ve got it’,” he explained.

“I ran into Steve’s garden and the bird was having a go at him again… we managed to get hold of it before it got loose and luckily otherwise we would have been back to square one.”

Mr Greenhalgh theorised the bird was a young male and “hormonal”, potentially being the reason behind the attacks.

He added the bird was “as fat as a barrel” after villagers had attempted to catch it with food over the weeks.

Fellow falconer Wayne is now caring for the hawk, which is a non-native South American species.

Wayne, who declined to give his last name, said the hawk had been raised in captivity and the dried-out leather tags on its feet suggested “he’s been loose for over a year”.

Jim Hewitt was the man taken to hospital covered in blood after he felt a “smack” on the back of his head while walking to the shop.

The 75-year-old said he was “delighted” the hawk had been caught, and had vowed: “I won’t get beaten by a poxy bird.”

Mr Harris said the situation had started to become dangerous.

“I got whacked over the head yesterday trying to get into my car… it was getting to the stage where it was attacking people with consistency.”

Flamstead Parish Council thanked Mr Harris for his “quick thinking”, which saw the bird “trapped quickly and safely”.

A spokesperson for Hertfordshire Police said that while police had not led the response to the attacks, a “low-level presence has been maintained in the area”.

“Rural specialist Special Chief Inspector Steve Meredith has been facilitating communication with expert agencies and local partners to try and bring the situation to a safe conclusion,” the force said.

Get our flagship newsletter with all the headlines you need to start the day. Sign up here.

Two tiny, remote Antarctic outposts populated by penguins and seals are among the obscure places targeted by the Trump administration’s new tariffs.

Heard and McDonald Islands – a territory which sits 4,000km (2,485 miles) south-west of Australia – are only accessible via a seven-day boat trip from Perth, and haven’t been visited by humans in almost a decade.

Australian trade minister Don Farrell told the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) that the tariffs were “clearly a mistake”.

“Poor old penguins, I don’t know what they did to Trump, but, look, I think it’s an indication, to be honest with you, that this was a rushed process.”

President Trump on Wednesday unveiled a sweeping import tax scheme, in retaliation for what he said are unfair trade barriers on US products.

A handful of other Australian territories were also hit by the new tariffs, in addition to the Norwegian archipelago Svalbard, the Falkland Islands and The British Indian Ocean Territory.

“It just shows and exemplifies the fact that nowhere on Earth is safe from this,” Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said on Thursday.

Like the rest of Australia, the Heard and McDonald Islands, the Cocos (Keeling) Islands and Christmas Island are now subject to a tariff of 10%. A tariff of 29% was imposed on the Norfolk Island, which is also an Australian territory and has a population of about 2,200 people.

Heard Island, though, is barren, icy and completely uninhabited – home to Australia’s largest and only active volcano, Big Ben, and mostly covered by glaciers.

It is believed the last time people ventured on to Heard Island was in 2016, when a group of amateur radio enthusiasts broadcast from there with permission of the Australian government.

Mike Coffin, from the University of Tasmania, has made the journey to the surrounding waters seven times to conduct scientific research, and is sceptical about the existence of major exports from the island to the US.

“There’s nothing there,” he told the BBC.

As far as he knows, there are only two Australian companies which catch and export Patagonian toothfish and mackerel icefish.

What is in abundance, however, is unique and spectacular nature.

The islands are listed by Unesco World Heritage as a rare example of an ecosystem untouched by external plants, animals or human impact.

“It’s heavily colonised by penguins and elephant seals and all kinds of sea birds,” said Prof Coffin, who studies the undersea geography of the islands.

He recalls observing from afar what he thought was a beach, only the sands “turned out to be probably a few 100,000 penguins”.

“Every time a ship goes there and observes it, there’s lava flowing down the flanks [of Big Ben],” he said, describing it sweeping over ice and sending up steam.

It is hard to get a clear picture of the trade relationship between the Heard and McDonald Islands and the US.

According to export data from the World Bank, the islands have, over the past few years, usually exported a small amount of products to the US.

But in 2022 the US imported US$1.4m (A$2.23m; ) from the territory, nearly all of it unnamed “machinery and electrical” products.

The Guardian has also reported that an analysis of US import data and shipping records suggests that tariffs imposed on the Heard and McDonalds Islands, as well as Norfolk Island, are based on incorrect data.

It found shipments had been wrongly labelled as coming from the territories, rather than their actual places of origin.

The US Department of Commerce’s International Trade Administration and Australia’s Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has been contacted for comment.

As with many governments around the world, the tariffs have frustrated Australia’s leaders, with Albanese saying they are “totally unwarranted” and “not the act of a friend.”

April Hubbard sits on the theatre stage where she plans to die later this year.

She is not terminally ill, but the 39-year-old performance and burlesque artist has been approved for assisted dying under Canada’s increasingly liberal laws.

Warning: This article contains details and descriptions some readers may find disturbing

She is speaking to BBC News from the Bus Stop Theatre, an intimate auditorium with a little under 100 seats, in the eastern city of Halifax, Nova Scotia.

Illuminated by a single spotlight on a stage she has performed on many times before, she tells me she plans to die here “within months” of her imminent 40th birthday. She’ll be joined by a small group of her family and friends.

April plans to be in a “big comfy bed” for what she calls a “celebratory” moment when a medical professional will inject a lethal dose into her bloodstream.

“I want to be surrounded by the people I love and just have everybody hold me in a giant cuddle puddle and get to take my last breath, surrounded by love and support,” she says.

April was born with spina bifida and was later diagnosed with tumours at the base of her spine which she says have left her in constant, debilitating pain.

She’s been taking strong opioid painkillers for more than 20 years and applied for Medical Assistance in Dying (Maid) in March 2023. While she could yet live for decades with her condition, she qualified to end her life early seven months after applying. For those who are terminally ill it is possible to get approval within 24 hours.

“My suffering and pain are increasing and I don’t have the quality of life anymore that makes me happy and fulfilled,” April says. Every time she moves or breathes, she says it feels like the tissues from the base of her spine “are being pulled like a rubber band that stretches too far”, and that her lower limbs leave her in agony.

We meet April as, almost 3,000 miles away, MPs are scrutinising proposals to legalise assisted dying in England and Wales. They voted in principle in support of those plans in November 2024, but months of detailed scrutiny have followed – and further votes in the Commons and Lords are required before the bill could possibly become law.

This week, the BBC witnessed a man’s death in California, where assisted dying laws are far more similar to those being considered in Westminster.

Critics say Canada is an example of the “slippery slope”, meaning that once you pass an assisted dying law it will inevitably widen its scope and have fewer safeguards.

Canada now has one of the most liberal systems of assisted dying in the world, similar to that operating in the Netherlands and Belgium. It introduced Maid in 2016, initially for terminally ill adults with a serious and incurable physical illness, which causes intolerable suffering. In 2021, the need to be terminally ill was removed, and in two years’ time, the Canadian government plans to open Maid to adults solely with a mental illness and no physical ailment.

Opponents of Maid tell us that death is coming to be seen as a standard treatment option for those with disabilities and complex medical problems.

“It is easier in Canada to get medical assistance in dying than it is to get government support to live,” says Andrew Gurza, a disability awareness consultant and friend of April’s.

Andrew, who has cerebral palsy and uses a wheelchair, says he respects April’s decision, but tells us: “If my disability declines and my care needs got higher, I’d still want to be here. To know there’s a law that’s saying you could easily end your life – it’s just really scary.”

Before she was approved for Maid, April was assessed by two independent physicians who were required to inform her of ways to alleviate her suffering and offer alternative treatments.

“The safeguards are there,” she says, when we press her about disabled people who feel threatened by assisted dying, or whether Maid is being used as a shortcut to better quality care. “If it’s not right for you and you’re not leading the charge and choosing Maid, you’re not going to be able to access it unless it’s for the right reasons,” she adds.

There were 15,343 Maid deaths in 2023, representing around one in 20 of all deaths in Canada – a proportion that has increased dramatically since 2016 and is one of the highest in the world. The average age of recipients was 77.

In all but a handful of cases, the lethal dose was delivered by a doctor or nurse, which is also known as voluntary euthanasia. One doctor we spoke to, Eric Thomas, said he had helped 577 patients to die.

Dr Konia Trouton, president of the Canadian Association of Maid Assessors and Providers, has also helped hundreds of patients to die since the law was introduced.

The procedure is the same each time – she arrives at the home of the person who has been given approval for Maid and asks if they wish to go ahead with it that day. She says the patients always direct the process and then give her the “heads up and ready to go”.

“That gives me an honour and a duty and a privilege to be able to help them in those last moments with their family around them, with those who love them around them and to know that they’ve made that decision thoughtfully, carefully and thoroughly,” she adds. If the answer is yes, she opens her medical bag.

Demonstrating to the BBC what happens next, Dr Trouton briefly puts a tourniquet on my arm. She shows me where the needle would be inserted into a vein in the back of my hand to allow an intravenous infusion of lethal drugs.

In her medical bag she also has a stethoscope. “Strangely, these days I use it more to determine if someone has no heartbeat rather than if they do,” she tells me.

A list of organisations in the UK offering support and information with some of the issues in this story is available at BBC Action Line

Some 96% of Maid provisions are under “track one” where death is “reasonably foreseeable”. Dr Trouton says that means patients are on a “trajectory toward death”, which might range from someone who has rapidly spreading cancer and only weeks to live or another with Alzheimer’s “who might have five to seven years”.

The other 4% of Maid deaths come under “track two”. These are adults, like April, who are not dying but have suffering which is intolerable to them from a “grievous and irremediable medical condition”.

That is in stark contrast to Labour MP Kim Leadbeater’s bill to legalise assisted dying in England and Wales, which says patients must be expected to die within six months. The Westminster bill would not allow doctors to give a lethal dose – rather patients would have to self-administer the drugs, usually by swallowing them.

Death via intravenous infusion normally takes just a few minutes, as the lethal drugs go straight into the bloodstream, whereas swallowing the drugs means patients usually take around an hour or two to die, but can take considerably longer, although they are usually unconscious after a few minutes.

Dr Trouton told me she regarded the Canadian system as quicker and more effective, as do other Maid providers. “I’m concerned that if some people can’t swallow because of their disease process, and if they’re not able to take the entire quantity of medication because of breathing difficulties or swallowing difficulties, what will happen?”

But opponents argue it’s being used as a cheaper alternative to providing adequate social or medical support.

One of them is Dr Ramona Coelho, a GP in London, Ontario, whose practice serves many marginalised groups and those struggling to get medical and social support. She’s part of a Maid Death Review Committee, alongside Dr Trouton, which examines cases in the province.

Dr Coelho told me that Maid was “out of control”. “I wouldn’t even call it a slippery slope,” she says “Canada has fallen off a cliff.”

“When people have suicidal ideations, we used to meet them with counselling and care, and for people with terminal illness and other diseases we could mitigate that suffering and help them have a better life,” she says. “Yet now we are seeing that as an appropriate request to die and ending their lives very quickly.”

While at Dr Coelho’s surgery I was introduced to Vicki Whelan, a retired nurse whose mum Sharon Scribner died in April 2023 of lung cancer, aged 81. Vicki told me that in her mum’s final days in hospital she was repeatedly offered the option of Maid by medical staff, describing it as like a “sales pitch”.

The family, who are Catholic, discharged their mother so she could die at home, where Vicki says her mum had a “beautiful, peaceful death”. “It makes us think that we can’t endure, and we can’t suffer a little bit, and that somehow now they’ve decided that dying needs to be assisted, where we’ve been dying for years.

“All of a sudden now we’re telling people that this is a better option. This is an easy way out and I think it’s just robbing people of hope.”

So is Canada an example of the so-called slippery slope? It’s certainly true that the eligibility criteria has broadened dramatically since the law was introduced nine years ago, so for critics the answer would be an emphatic yes and serve as a warning to Britain.

Canada’s assisted dying laws were driven by court rulings. Its Supreme Court instructed Parliament that a prohibition on assisted dying breached the country’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The extension of eligibility for those who were not terminally ill was in part a response to another court decision.

In Britain, judges in the most senior courts have repeatedly said any potential change to the law around assisted dying is a matter for Parliament, after the likes of Tony Nicklinson, Diane Pretty and Noel Conway brought cases arguing the blanket ban on assisted suicide breached their human rights.

April knows some people may look at her, a young woman, and wonder why she would die.

“We’re the masters of masking and not letting people see that we’re suffering,” she says. “But in reality, there’s days that I just can’t hide it, and there’s many days where I can’t lift my head off the pillow and I can’t eat anymore.

“It’s not a way I want to live for another 10 or 20 or 30 years.”

Additional reporting by Joshua Falcon.

US President Donald Trump announced sweeping tariffs on goods from countries across the world, on what he called “Liberation Day”.

He says the move will make America wealthy again, but economists warn that prices could rise for Americans and fears of a global trade war have grown.

Tariffs are taxes on goods from other countries. Companies bringing the goods into the country pay the amount, typically a percentage of the goods’ value, to the government.

Trump announced a 10% “baseline” tariff on imports to the US. This is what the UK will face.

But 60 countries will be hit with higher rates of up to 50%, including Cambodia, Vietnam, Malaysia and Bangladesh. Countries in the European Union face a 20% tariff. The tariffs are set to take effect in days.

Trump also confirmed previously announced tariffs on specific goods, including 25% on steel, aluminium and foreign-made cars.

Read more:

Since the 1980s, Trump has strongly argued that the taxes can boost the US economy.

He believes they will encourage US consumers to buy more American goods, and increase the amount of tax raised. Trump also wants to reduce the gap between the value of US goods imported and exported.

The White House said other countries were taking advantage of the US by imposing their own high tariffs and other trade barriers. “For decades, our country has been looted, pillaged, raped and plundered by nations near and far, both friend and foe alike,” the US president said.

However, Trump is taking an enormous risk upon which he is staking his presidency, our North America correspondent Anthony Zurcher writes.

If successful, the move could reshape the global economic order. Trump promises that it will rebuild American manufacturing and make the country more self-reliant.

But it risks alienating allies and economists warn it could raise prices and threaten a global recession.

A messy global trade war looks inevitable, suggests the BBC’s economics editor Faisal Islam.

Trump’s decision to take tariff revenues to a level beyond those seen during the 1930s will mean huge changes to world trade patterns, he says.

Read more:

Economists say many companies are likely to pass the increased cost of imported goods onto their customers. They could also reduce imports, meaning fewer products are available – putting further pressure on prices.

To raise the revenue Trump is hoping for, US consumers are going to have to swallow rises and keep on buying items made in other countries in similar quantities, says the BBC’s deputy economics editor Dharshini David.

And as she points out, history shows the frontline casualties tend to be consumers, due to reduced choice and higher prices.

Cars, lumber used to build houses, beer, whisky and tequila, and avocados are among the goods that could become more expensive.

Read more:

Global stockmarkets fell and a series of world leaders condemned the measures.

European Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen said “the consequences will be dire for millions of people around the globe”.

EU countries are finalising a response to the 25% steel and aluminium tariffs and could announce further measures.

The commission has promised to protect European businesses, including Germany’s car industry, Italy’s luxury goods and France’s wine producers.

China has promised “resolute countermeasures”, which are likely to hurt US companies trying to sell into the huge Chinese market.

However, Trump’s tariffs may also benefit China by allowing President Xi Jinping to portray his country as a champion of free trade, the BBC’s China correspondent Stephen McDonell says.

UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer acknowledged the economy will be hurt by the latest tariffs but promised to react with “cool and calm heads”.

Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds told MPs the government would look at how retaliatory tariff measures against US products could affect British firms.

Canada’s Prime Minister Mark Carney said the country will retaliate against US tariffs, “with purpose and with force”, to protect workers and strength the economy.

On Thursday, he announced a 25% levy on all vehicles imported from the US that are not compliant with a current North American free trade deal.

Read more:

The UK faces a 10% tariff on goods heading to the US but there’s lots of uncertainty about what it could mean for the UK itself:

Prices could rise – or fall

Once tariffs are in place, the value of the dollar could strengthen. That might push up import costs for UK firms, which could mean higher prices for consumers.

But some economists say prices might actually drop at first. That’s because firms that usually sell to the US might start sending their goods to countries like the UK instead – possibly leading to a surge of cheaper goods here.

Your job could be affected

Higher prices might lead workers to ask for bigger pay rises. If UK companies see their profits squeezed, job cuts could follow.

Interest rates could stay high

Rates are currently at 4.5%, and economists had expected two cuts this year. But if inflation rises because of higher prices, rates might stay higher for longer.

Read more

The chance of the US economy heading into a recession rose to 50% after Trump’s announcement, according to former International Monetary Fund chief economist Ken Rogoff.

Trump has previously refused to rule out the possibility of a recession.

There are worries that tariffs could affect US consumer spending – a massive part of the global economy.

In Asia, tariffs will “break the business models of thousands of companies, factories, and possibly entire nations”, says our economics editor Faisal Islam.

Read more:

US President Donald Trump has imposed a 10% tariff on goods from most countries being imported into the US, with even higher rates for what he calls the “worst offenders”.

But how exactly were these tariffs – essentially taxes on imports – worked out? BBC Verify has been looking at the calculations behind the numbers.

But if you unpick the formula above it boils down to simple maths: take the trade deficit for the US in goods with a particular country, divide that by the total goods imports from that country and then divide that number by two.

A trade deficit occurs when a country buys (imports) more physical products from other countries than it sells (exports) to them.

For example, the US buys more goods from China than it sells to them – there is a goods deficit of $295bn. The total amount of goods it buys from China is $440bn.

Dividing 295 by 440 gets you to 67% and you divide that by two and round up. Therefore the tariff imposed on China is 34%.

Similarly, when it applied to the EU, the White House’s formula resulted in a 20% tariff.

Many commentators have pointed out that these tariffs are not reciprocal.

Reciprocal would mean they were based on what countries already charge the US in the form of existing tariffs, plus non-tariff barriers (things like regulations that drive up costs).

But the White House’s official methodology document makes clear that they have not calculated this for all the countries on which they have imposed tariffs.

Instead the tariff rate was calculated on the basis that it would eliminate the US’s goods trade deficit with each country.

Trump has broken away from the formula in imposing tariffs on countries that buy more goods from the US than they sell to it.

For example the US does not currently run goods trade deficit with the UK. Yet the UK has been hit with a 10% tariff.

In total, more than 100 countries are covered by the new tariff regime.

Trump believes the US is getting a bad deal in global trade. In his view, other countries flood US markets with cheap goods – which hurts US companies and costs jobs. At the same time, these countries are putting up barriers that make US products less competitive abroad.

So by using tariffs to eliminate trade deficits, Trump hopes to revive US manufacturing and protect jobs.

But will this new tariff regime achieve the desired outcome?

BBC Verify has spoken to a number of economists. The overwhelming view is that while the tariffs might reduce the goods deficit between the US and individual countries, they will not reduce the overall deficit between the US and rest of the world.

“Yes, it will reduce bilateral trade deficits between the US and these countries. But there will obviously be lots of broader impacts that are not captured in the calculation”, says Professor Jonathan Portes of King’s College, London.

That’s because the US’ existing overall deficit is not driven solely by trade barriers, but by how the US economy works.

For one, Americans spend and invest more than they earn and that gap means the US buys more from the world than it sells. So as long as that continues, the US may continue to keep running a deficit despite increasing tariffs with it global trading partners.

Some trade deficits can also exist for a number of legitimate reasons – not just down to tariffs. For example, buying food that is easier or cheaper to produce in other countries’ climates.

Thomas Sampson of the London School of Economics said: “The formula is reverse engineered to rationalise charging tariffs on countries with which the US has a trade deficit. There is no economic rationale for doing this and it will cost the global economy dearly.”