Blog

The Duke of Sussex met war victims in Ukraine on Thursday when he visited a clinic which rehabilitates wounded military personnel and civilians, a spokesperson has said.

Prince Harry visited the Superhumans Center, in the western city of Lviv, where he spoke to patients and staff.

He was accompanied by a group from the Invictus Games Foundation, including four veterans who had been through similar rehabilitation.

Lviv has frequently been targeted with Russian missiles and the visit was not announced until after the prince was out of the country.

Prince Harry, who served for 10 years in the British Army, founded the Invictus Games in 2014 for wounded veterans to compete in sports events.

The visit to Superhumans was to observe the support and rehabilitation services being provided in a country actively experiencing war, a spokesperson said.

Prince Harry was invited by Olga Rudneva, a chief executive of the centre, at the Invictus Games Vancouver Whistler 2025.

During the visit, the prince met patients and medical professionals, in addition to Ukraine’s Minister of Veterans Affairs, Natalia Kalmykova.

The clinic administers psychological help, reconstructive surgery and prosthetics to victims for free.

Rob Owen, chief executive of the Invictus Games Foundation, said Ukraine had been “a vital part” of the foundation since participating in the Invictus Games Toronto 2017.

“This visit to the Superhumans charity in Ukraine underscores the Invictus Games Foundation’s broader commitment to supporting recovery and rehabilitation for wounded injured and sick service personnel and veterans, even in the most challenging environments,” he said.

Held in Vancouver, the last edition of the games involved more than 500 competitors from 23 nations, while Birmingham will host the next games in 2027.

Prince Harry was in London this week for a Court of Appeal hearing over his security arrangements in the UK.

He is the second royal to visit Ukraine since Russia’s full scale invasion, after the Duchess of Edinburgh visited Kyiv last year.

His father the King welcomed Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky to his Sandringham estate in Norfolk in March, just days after Zelensky’s unprecedented exchange with US president Donald Trump and his vice president JD Vance in the White House’s Oval Office.

The Prince of Wales, Harry’s brother, met Ukrainian refugees during a two-day visit to Estonia last month.

A tattoo belonging to a man from Derbyshire has appeared in a US government document used to identify members of a notorious Venezuelan gang – despite the man having no connection to the group.

Pete Belton, 44, from Ilkeston says he was shocked to find his forearm featured in a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) document used to help identify alleged members of Tren de Aragua (TdA), a transnational criminal organisation.

“I’m just an average middle-aged man from Derbyshire,” he told BBC Verify.

Mr Belton said it was a “bit strange, bit funny at first” but is now worried the family trip he booked to Miami with his wife and daughter in August might end up “being a six month all-inclusive holiday to Guantanamo”.

The Trump administration has already deported hundreds of alleged gang members to a high-security jail in El Salvador. Lawyers for some of those deportees say they have been incorrectly identified as TdA members based on their tattoos.

Mr Belton’s tattoo – a clock face with the date and time of his daughter’s birth – was included in a set of nine images for “detecting and identifying” TdA members. Other tattoos featured stars, crowns and a Michael Jordan “jumpman” logo.

“Open source material has depicted TdA members with a combination of the below tattoos,” states the document which appeared in court filings.

But reverse image searches show that several of the pictures first appeared on tattoo websites with no obvious links to Venezuela or TdA.

One of them led BBC Verify to an Instagram post by a Nottingham-based tattoo artist who posted about Mr Belton’s tattoo nearly a decade ago.

The tattoo image in the DHS document is worse quality than the Instagram post, which was shared in 2016, but it is clearly the same arm and features the same clock face tattoo.

The same image of Mr Belton’s tattoo also appeared in a September 2024 report by the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) about TdA activity.

BBC Verify contacted both the US DHS and the Texas DPS about the source of the images, but did not receive a response.

But in an email the DHS said it was confident in its law enforcement’s intelligence and that its “assessments go well beyond just gang affiliate tattoos and social media.”

It’s unclear exactly how Mr Belton’s tattoo ended up in the US documents, but he’s worried about being linked to the gang.

“In my head I’m thinking if I’m working in border force and I saw me walking through I’d think ‘hey up we’ve got one, he’s the one in the document’.”

He provided multiple images of the tattoo to prove that it’s his – and he says that he has no association to the Venezuelan group.

The US government hasn’t deported anyone based on their tattoos alone, according to comments from an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) official in a court filing last month.

However, court documents show immigration officials are employing a points-based system known as the “Alien Enemy Validation Guide” to determine if someone is linked to the Venezuelan gang.

It includes a scorecard, and according to the document, eight points across a number of categories could be grounds for arrest or deportation.

Half of these points can be given if a “subject has tattoos denoting membership or loyalty to TdA”.

The document says if all eight points come from the symbolism category, which includes tattoos, then further consultation should be taken before designating someone as a member of TdA.

Venezuelan investigative journalist Ronna Risquez, who wrote a book on TdA’s origins, said tattoos alone are not evidence of membership.

“TdA does not have tattoos that identifies the gang,” she said.

“To confirm whether a person is a member of TdA, authorities must conduct a police investigation to determine whether they have a criminal record. A tattoo, their clothing, or their nationality are not proof.”

However, there have been cases where lawyers have argued that people have been wrongfully identified based on their tattoos and were subsequently deported.

US media have reported on a man whose lawyers say was deported because of a crown tattoo which was inspired by the Real Madrid football club logo.

Another case saw a makeup artist was sent to El Salvador after his a crown tattoo with the words “mum” and “dad” was used by US officials as evidence for gang membership, according to his attorneys.

Back in Derbyshire, Mr Belton says his family have considered cancelling their trip to the US due to the potential risks, but they are going to monitor how the story develops.

“Hopefully now they’d realise I’m not a Venezuelan gangster but I’ve seen crazier things happen in the news recently, so we’re just going to wait and see.”

Donald Trump announced a massive tariff plan last week that would have upended the global economic order as well as long-established trading relationships with America’s allies.

But that plan – or at least a significant part of is – is on ice after the president suspended higher tariffs on most countries for 90 days while leaning into a trade war with China.

So with this partial reversal, is Trump any closer to realising his goals on trade? Here’s a quick look at five of his key ambitions and where they now stand.

What Trump said: For decades, our country has been looted, pillaged, and plundered by nations near and far, both friend and foe alike

Trump’s original trade plan packed a big punch that landed around the world, with a flat 10% baseline tariff on everyone (including some uninhabited islands) and additional “reciprocal” tariffs on the 60 counties that he said were the worst offenders.

It sent allies and adversaries scrambling, as they stared down the prospect of a debilitating blow to their economies.

The White House has been quick to boast about all the world leaders who have reached out to the president to make deals and offer trade concessions – “more than 75”, according to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent.

Although the administration hasn’t released a list of all the countries that Trump said on Tuesday were “kissing my ass” and promising to do anything, the US has announced it is in negotiations with South Korea and Japan, among others.

The takeaway: America’s trading partners have 90 days to strike some sort of agreement with Trump, and the clock is ticking. But the fact that talks are happening indicates that the president has a good chance of getting something for his efforts.

What Trump said: Jobs and factories will come roaring back into our country…We will supercharge our domestic industrial base.

Trump has said for decades that tariffs are an effective way of rebuilding America’s manufacturing base by shielding it from unfair foreign competition. While some factories may be able to increase production in current facilities, more substantive efforts take time. And for business leaders to pull the trigger on “reshoring” their production lines and investing in new US factories, they will want to know that the rules of the game are relatively stable.

The president’s on-again, off-again tariff moves over the past week are inherently unstable, however. For the moment, it’s difficult to predict where the final tariff levels will land and which industries will receive the greatest protections. It could be auto manufacturers and steel producers today, and high-tech electronics companies tomorrow.

The takeaway: When tariffs are applied and removed seemingly at the president’s whim, it’s much more likely that companies – both in the US and abroad – will hunker down and wait for the dust to settle before making any big commitments.

What Trump said: I have great respect for President Xi of China, great respect for China, but they were taking tremendous advantage of us.

After Trump’s tariff about-face on Wednesday, several White House officials – including Treasury Secretary Bessent – were quick to say that Trump’s goal was to drop the hammer on the real villain, China.

“They are the biggest source of the US trade problems,” Bessent told reporters, “and indeed they are the problem for the rest of the world.

If Trump wanted a battle of wills with China, testing each side’s tolerance for economic and political pain, he got one – even if the president and his aides have hinted that they are looking for an exit ramp.

On Wednesday, Trump said that he blamed past US leaders, not China, for the current trade dispute. The prior day, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said the president would be “incredibly gracious” if China reaches out to make a deal.

The takeaway: Even if this showdown is one Trump wants, picking a fight with the second-largest economy in the world, with military power to match, comes at enormous risk. And along the way America may have alienated the allies it needs most in such a confrontation.

What Trump said: Now it’s our turn to prosper, and in so doing, use trillions and trillions of dollars to reduce our taxes and pay down our national debt, and it’ll all happen very quickly.

During last year’s presidential campaign, Trump regularly touted that his proposed tariffs would bring in vast sums in new revenue, which the US could then use to shrink its budget deficit, fund tax cuts and pay for new government programmes.

A study last year by the nonpartisan Tax Foundation estimated that a 10% universal tariff – which is what Trump has landed on for at least the next 90 days – would generate $2tn in new revenue over the next 10 years.

To put that in context, the tax cuts Congress recently included in its non-binding budget blueprint would cost approximately $5tn over the next 10 years, according to the Bipartisan Policy Center.

The takeaway: Trump wanted more tariff revenue, and if he sticks with his baseline tariffs, plus the additional levies on certain imports and larger ones on China, he’s going to get it – at least until Americans switch to more domestic production, when the tariff money gusher could turn to a trickle.

What Trump said: Ultimately, more production at home will mean stronger competition and lower prices for consumers. This will be indeed the golden age of America.

Analysts and experts have offered a grab bag other explanations about why Trump made such an aggressive move on trade last week. Was he trying to drive down interest rates, or devalue the US dollar or bring the world to the table for a new, global agreement on trade? The president himself hasn’t spoken much about those kinds of elaborate schemes.

One thing he has talked about relentlessly, however, is his desire to lower costs for American consumers – and he has promised that his trade policy will help address this. While energy prices dipped in the week since Trump announced his tariff plan, that may have been a result of fears that the trade wars could trigger a global recession.

The consensus among economists is that new tariffs will drive up consumer prices, as tariffs are tacked on to the price of imports and, eventually, when there is less competition for US-made products. Last year, the Tax Foundation estimated that a 10% universal tariff would increase costs for American households by an average of $1,253 in its first year. Economists also warn that lower-income Americans will be hardest hit.

The takeaway: An increase in prices is an arrow moving in the wrong direction – and it represents an enormous potential liability for both Trump’s political standing and his party’s future electoral prospects.

A woman in Australia has unknowingly given birth to a stranger’s baby, after her fertility clinic accidentally implanted another woman’s embryos into her.

The mix-up at Monash IVF in Brisbane, Queensland has been blamed on human error, Australian media reports.

“On behalf of Monash IVF, I want to say how truly sorry I am for what has happened,” CEO Michael Knaap said, adding that everyone at the fertility clinic was “devastated” at the mistake.

Last year, the same clinic paid a A$56m (£26.8m) settlement to hundreds of patients whose embryos were destroyed despite them being viable.

According to a spokesperson for Monash IVF, staff became aware of the problem in February when the birth parents asked to transfer their remaining frozen embryos to another clinic.

Monash has confirmed that an embryo from another patient had been mistakenly thawed and transferred to the wrong person, resulting in the birth of a child.

The clinic has launched an investigation and Mr Knaap said the clinic was confident it was an isolated incident.

Monash said when the incident was discovered it activated its crisis management team and within a week the Brisbane clinic started meeting affected patients to apologise and offer them support, the firm said.

The company has also reported the incident to relevant regulators, including the

Reproductive Technology Accreditation Committee, and also voluntarily reported the incident to the new Queensland assisted reproductive technology regulator.

Last year, Monash IVF reached a A$56m (£26.8m) settlement in a landmark class action with 700 former patients for destroying embryos after inaccurate genetic testing.

The case found that about 35% of the embryos, which were actually normal and could have resulted in a viable pregnancy, were found to be abnormal by the faulty screening.

IVF – or in vitro fertilisation – involves the removal of eggs from a woman’s ovaries, which are then fertilised with sperm in a laboratory. When the fertilised eggs become embryos, they are inserted into the woman’s uterus.

It is an expensive process and not successful every time.

In 2021 there were 20,690 babies born as a result of IVF in Australia and New Zealand, according to a report by the University of New South Wales.

Best-selling author Jillian Lauren has been shot by police and charged with attempted murder, after getting caught up in a search for hit-and-run suspects.

The shooting occurred amidst a chase through the streets of Los Angeles on Tuesday, as officers tried to find three suspects who were alleged to have fled the scene of a car accident.

Lauren became involved when one of the alleged suspects ended up on the street where she lives with her husband, Weezer bassist Scott Shriner.

The 51-year-old emerged from her house with a weapon and refused to drop it despite “numerous” demands, according to an LAPD press release. She “then pointed the handgun at the officers,” who shot her in the shoulder.

The shooting took place in the back yard of her home in the hip Eagle Rock neighbourhood in the northeast of Los Angeles.

According to local media reports, Lauren had opened fire at one of the alleged hit-and-run suspects after they tried to break into her property.

After being shot by police, the 51-year-old ran back into her house, where she stayed for approximately half an hour, before coming back outside with her babysitter and surrendering to police.

Both women were taken into custody, and Lauren was treated for non-life-threatening injuries at a local hospital.

A nine-millimetre handgun was recovered from her house, and she was later charged with attempted murder.

The California Highway Patrol arrested the suspected hit-and-run driver shortly afterwards, according to agency spokesperson Daniel Keene.

The suspect was found wearing nothing but his boxer shorts in the backyard of a home near Shriner’s residence.

News helicopters had previously filmed him removing his clothes and jumping into a swimming pool, as well as watering the property’s plants, in what appeared to be an attempt to blend into the neighbourhood.

His identity has not been released. The other two suspects are still at large.

Lauren, who also goes by the name Jillian Shriner, is the author of two bestselling memoirs, including 2010’s Some Girls: My Life in a Harem – which described her experiences in the harem of Prince Jefri Bolkiah of Brunei.

In 2023, she also published Behold the Monster: Facing America’s Most Prolific Serial Killer, based on interviews with the serial killer Samuel Little, who confessed to committing 93 murders between 1970 and 2005.

She married Scott Shriner in 2005, two years before he joined Weezer, the US band known for skewed alt-rock anthems such as Buddy Holly and Hash Pipe.

Earlier this week, the band were confirmed alongside Ed Sheeran as last-minute additions to the line-up of California’s Coachella music festival, which kicks off on Friday.

It is not known whether Lauren’s arrest will affect their plans to play the festival.

The world’s most popular gadgets – phones, laptops, tablets, smartwatches – could be about to get a lot more expensive in the US.

Many of them are made in China, which now faces a 145% tariff on its goods imported to the US, under President Donald Trump’s controversial trade policy.

The effect this may have on the iPhone and its maker Apple is under the spotlight – with some analysts saying if costs are passed onto consumers, iPhone prices in the US could rise by hundreds of dollars.

And if the tariffs impact the value of the dollar, it could become more expensive to import iPhones and other devices around the world – potentially leading to higher prices in UK shops.

Ben Wood of CCS Insight told the BBC that if tariffs remain in place, Apple may raise iPhone prices globally when the next iteration is launched.

“It is unlikely the company would want to have differentiated pricing globally,” he said – as the tech giant would want to avoid people buying the device cheaply in the UK and selling it on for profit in the US.

Though others say they believe it could result in cheaper prices if firms which normally send their goods to the US instead send them to countries which don’t have such steep tariffs, like the UK.

And there may be a significant change if the cost of tariffs is passed onto consumers globally – longer contracts to spread out the cost of the device.

While a phone contract may typically last two years, Mr Wood said some firms already offer four year deals, and he believed “we might see five-year contracts” in 2025.

“One could argue it is almost like having a mortgage for your smartphone,” he said.

The US is a major market for iPhones and Apple accounted for more than half of its smartphones sales last year, according to Counterpoint Research.

It says as much as 80% of Apple’s iPhones intended for US sale are made in China, with the remaining 20% made in India.

Along with fellow smartphone giants such as Samsung, Apple has been trying to diversify its supply chains to avoid over-reliance on China in recent years.

India and Vietnam emerged as frontrunners for additional manufacturing hubs.

As tariffs took effect, Apple reportedly looked to speed up and increase its production of India-produced devices in recent days.

Reuters reported on Thursday that Apple chartered cargo flights to ship more than 600 tons of iPhones from India to the US.

Amid Trump’s 90-day pause on tariffs, including those levied on India, the country may be set to benefit from an iPhone manufacturing boost.

The BBC has approached Apple for comment on the impact of tariffs on their operations and prices, but has not had any response yet.

Trump and his advisors have said the aim of its tariffs are to encourage more US manufacturing.

However, the tech industry relies on a global network of suppliers for product components and assembly.

This, and finding skilled workers to match the fast pace and low cost of production in Asia, means relocating supply chains is no simple feat.

Apple committed a $500bn (£385bn) investment in the US in February – which the Trump administration believes will result in more homegrown manufacturing.

But Wedbush Securities analyst Dan Ives said shifting parts of its supply chain from cheaper manufacturing hubs in Asia to the US will take a lot of time, and money.

“The reality is it would take 3 years and $30 billion dollars in our estimation to move even 10% of its supply chain from Asia to the US with major disruption in the process,” he wrote on X on 3 April.

Apple have not revealed yet whether they plan to pass on the costs of the tariffs onto consumers in the US and increase prices.

Some analysts believe Apple is in a more fortunate position than others, having reaped more money from its products than it has spent on making them.

“As a company with lucrative margins on its devices, Apple can absorb some of the tariff-induced cost increases without significant financial impact, at least in the short term,” says Forrester principal analyst Dipanjan Chatterjee.

But he notes the company’s strong branding and popularity may allow it to pass some costs to consumers without too much backlash.

“The brand commands better loyalty than its competitors, and it is unlikely that a manageable price increase will send these customers fleeing into the arms of Android-based competitors.”

Some estimates suggest iPhone prices in the US could as much as triple if costs were passed to consumers.

Following Trump’s tariff increase on China to 125%, the cost for a China-made iPhone 16 Pro Max with 256GB storage would have surged from $1,199 to $1,999, according to estimates by investment banking firm UBS.

They estimate a less significant increase on the iPhone 16 Pro 128GB storage – which is made in India – by five percent from $999 to $1046.

While some analysts such as Dan Ives have suggested that the cost of a “Made in USA” iPhone could soar to as much as $3500.

There’s still plenty of uncertainty about what happens next, and how companies like Apple will respond to tariffs remains to be seen.

This hasn’t stopped some US customers reportedly rushing to Apple stores to buy its smartphones.

The BBC spoke to shoppers outside an Apple Store in New York who had bought products in fear of a potential price hike.

Anthony Cacioppo, a 53-year-old DJ and security technician, purchased the new iPhone.

“I really didn’t need a phone… but I’m not ready to pay double the price,” he said.

Bruce Conroy, a hair stylist, told the BBC that even if prices had risen considerably he “would have stuck with Apple products” – though potentially delayed his purchase of a new iPad.

“I bought it because the tariffs are coming, I want to buy before the prices go up and I expect they will,” said Julia Baumann, a personal finance editor, of her new MacBook.

We will likely have to wait until the autumn to see how much the next iPhone will cost.

But if it looks like costs incurred by tariffs will result in higher price tags, some may look to rival handsets or second-hand devices.

CCS Insight estimates that 5.5m second-hand smartphones will be sold in the UK in 2025, representing 29.7% of the total market.

The iPhone remains one of the most expensive smartphones on the market – and brands such as Google and Samsung offer phones with similar features at a lower cost.

The other option, and perhaps the most cost-effective, could be for people to skip upgrades to newer iPhone models and look to slightly older, cheaper versions.

“The path of least resistance would be to keep the smartphone they already have for longer,” said Mr Wood.

Additional reporting by Paul Sargeant, Tom Finn and Pratiksha Ghildial.

There were some heroic efforts overnight from Donald Trump and those around him to suggest the past seven days were something other than absolute chaos.

By this reading, Trump’s 4D game of chess has left China in check. Certainly the Chinese economy faces a massive hit from punitive tariffs in its biggest market. But even accounting for the President’s roll back, the US has still erected a massive protectionist tariff wall, not seen since the 1930s.

The world is left with a universal 10% tariff, irrespective of whether that country (for example the UK or Australia) actually sells less to the US than the US sells to it. There is now no difference between the EU, which clearly does have a massive trade deficit in goods and was preparing to retaliate, and the UK.

There is also an anxious wait to find out what comes next. One of the questions is whether President Trump pushes ahead with tariffs on medicines, the UK’s second biggest goods export.

Plus there is potential logistical chaos on the cards from a little-noticed multi-million dollar port tax for every cargo vessel docking in the US that was “made in China”. That is more than half of the global merchant fleet – and it is due next Friday.

Even with Trump’s stated 90 day pause on implementing higher tariffs, there remains too much uncertainty for companies to go through the rigmarole of rerouting global trade.

The central issue today, however, is that the world’s two great economic superpowers are now facing off against each other like rutting stags.

Tariffs at these sky-high rates are massively hitting business between two nations which together account for around 3% of the entire world’s trade. The main motorway of the global economy is effectively shut.

The visible tangible consequences of all this will become very real very quickly: Chinese factories will close, workers will stroll from plant to plant looking for work.

Beijing will need to organise a stimulus package to account for the loss of whole percentage points of GDP, the kind of thing that happens when a natural disaster flattens a major city. Painful, but manageable at a cost, though not forever.

Meanwhile the US will see consumer prices surge. President Trump might try to order these US companies not to raise prices, but the effect will come through soon enough.

In theory this will be in sharp contrast to what is happening in other countries in the world. Across the border in Canada, or in Europe, not only will there not be such China-sourced price rises, there could be price cuts.

Trade wars on this scale do not stay confined to the flow of goods. They tend to become currency wars.

What we saw last night was the trade turmoil spread to credit markets, especially the US bond market, having already hit share prices.

Indeed there was an invaluable reveal for the game theory of this conflict. The Trump administration revealed a key pressure point with its concern about the “yippy” – as Trump called it – bond market.

As trading in US government debt continued overnight in Asia, the effective interest rate on these bonds rose to 5%.

This sort of borrowing should not move in such an erratic fashion.

The last time this happened was in the “Dash for Cash”, the key moment of financial fragility at the very beginning of the pandemic. The world was focussed on life or death in March 2020, but this potential further crisis was alleviated only by emergency action.

Effectively, the President’s row back was a form of emergency policy change.

Was the Chinese government behind this rash of US government bond sales in Asia? Probably not. However, what happened on Wednesday highlighted a vulnerability for Trump.

China is the second biggest holder of US government debt in the world and if it chose to, dumping all that debt would be catastrophic for America. But doing so would be a form of mutually assured economic destruction – the losses for China would be huge.

More importantly, what the bond markets were telling Trump is that they are deeply sceptical about his tariff policy.

The US does have the Federal Reserve, which does have some power to tranquillise bond markets. But right now it does not look like its chairman Jerome Powell will ride to the rescue.

The bond market scepticism echoes the sentiment of the ascendant Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent. He is now pushing for Trump to reach trade deals with their allies because the US needs them to take on China.

Given the US was previously calling these same close allies cheaters, looters and pillagers, there is no way this was the strategy all along.

This does matter. The US needs the EU, UK, the rest of the G7 on side in terms of China. China probably needs those countries just to stay neutral, and carry on soaking up its exports.

The rest of the world has seen Trump’s team struggle to explain tariffing penguin islands or poor African economies and the President himself recirculating the suggestion he was crashing stock markets on purpose. And they’ve witnessed the fact that the tariff rates were changed after they came into effect and also the absurd nature of the equation used to calculate them.

It’s in this context that Trump’s handling of the situation has handed leverage back to the rest of the world, because neither friend nor foe will know quite what they are negotiating with this America.

There is a calm, welcomed by all, but it could be rather brief.

BBC InDepth is the home on the website and app for the best analysis, with fresh perspectives that challenge assumptions and deep reporting on the biggest issues of the day. And we showcase thought-provoking content from across BBC Sounds and iPlayer too. You can send us your feedback on the InDepth section by clicking on the button below.

The Trump administration has revoked visas of hundreds of international students and detained roughly a dozen others on college campuses across the US, often without any warning or recourse for appeals.

Videos of some of the arrests, showing plain-clothes officers handcuff and arrest students near their homes, have gone viral and sent shockwaves through the international student community.

Over 80 universities have reported revoked visas, according to a tracker by Inside Higher Ed, hitting students and faculty from coast-to-coast.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio confirmed last month that at least 300 visas have been revoked, adding that the department was targeting those who were involved in activities that “run counter” to US national interests.

Many of those targeted have participated in some form of pro-Palestinian activity. In other cases, cancellations appear to be connected to those with some sort of criminal record, or legal infractions like driving over the speed limit, immigration lawyers have said.

Immigration experts say visa-holding students have the same First Amendment right to free speech as US citizens, and historically it has been rare for students to be deported because of acts of political expression. But they are vulnerable to deportation because of the temporary nature of their visa.

Lawyers for some of the students who have filed lawsuits against the federal government say their visas were revoked suddenly, without any warning and without recourse for appeal or corrections.

Rubio has said that student visas are for studying and warned they would be revoked if foreigners were seen as engaging in “destabilizing” acts.

In a transcript released by the US State Department, Rubio said “it might be more” than 300 visas that have been revoked.

“I don’t know actually if it’s primarily student visas. It’s a combination of visas,” he told reporters.

Those affected have predominantly been involved in pro-Palestinian protests, he said, but have also included some who have prior criminal charges.

A Turkish citizen and University of Minnesota student was detained in March after his visa was revoked for a prior drunk driving infraction, according to the BBC’s media partner CBS News.

Other reports show students have had their visas revoked after they were found to have prior speeding tickets.

Faculty members and rights advocates have expressed concern about students’ ability to share their opinions without risking their legal status.

“No president should be allowed to set an ideological litmus test and exclude or remove people from our country who they disagree with,” the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) said in a statement.

The White House has defended its actions using a provision of a 1952 law that grants the secretary of state broad authority to expel foreigners believed to pose “potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences” for the US.

Inside Higher Ed tracker identifies more than 80 colleges and universities where international students and recent graduates have had their legal status changed by the State Department.

It lists major public universities with tens-of-thousands of students like Texas A&M University, University of Oregon, University of Florida and University of Colorado.

It also includes smaller private institutions like Dartmouth College, Harvard University, Yale University, Columbia University and Stanford University.

Federal authorities revoked visas of at least eight students at Arizona State University and at least six people at the University of California Berkeley, according to the Washington Post.

At least 57 visas have been revoked from across the entire University of California system, according to the Wall Street Journal, and seven at Ohio State University.

There are roughly 1.1 million international student visa-holders in the US.

Multiple students and faculty have been detained, including those on student visas and at least one permanent legal US resident.

Once in custody, they have been sent to detention centres across the US where they await deportation.

Video footage of some of the arrests shows plain-clothes Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers approaching confused and frightened students, before they are placed in the back of unmarked cars.

Some of those detained have alleged they were arrested without explanation and say they have committed no crimes.

One of the most high profile cases involves Mahmoud Khalil, a recent Columbia University graduate and legal permanent resident who was arrested in his university-owned home in March.

The other case to capture national attention involves Tufts University student and Turkish national Rumeysa Ozturk.

Footage of Ms Ozturk’s detainment shows her shaking in fear as she is encircled by six plain-clothes ICE agents wearing masks who stopped her on the street as she was headed to a Ramadan celebration.

Rasha Alawieh, a Brown University professor and kidney transplant specialist, was deported after arriving at Boston airport.

US officials said they found “photos and videos” on her cell phone that were “sympathetic” to Hezbollah.

At least two students who had their visas revoked have fled to Canada, including Momodou Taal and Ranjani Srinivasan.

Several students have sued the government to challenge their visa revocations and detainment amid a bid to delay or block their deportation.

They allege that they have been arrested and detained without cause or explanation, a possible violation of their civil rights.

One example includes Xiaotian Liu, a 26-year-old doctoral student from China who studies at Dartmouth College.

Mr Liu is suing the government along with the American Civil Liberties Union of New Hampshire, alleging that his visa has been revoked “without any notice and sufficient explanation”.

Mr Liu has not committed any crimes or participated in any protests, according to the lawsuit.

A saliva test may help “turn the tide” on prostate cancer, UK scientists claim.

It analyses men’s DNA to work out who was born with the greatest risk of developing the disease.

Targeting them for prostate biopsies and MRI scans discovered some aggressive cancers that would otherwise have gone unnoticed.

However, the test has not yet been proven to save lives and experts say it will be “years” before such tests could be used routinely.

Around 12,000 men in the UK die from prostate cancer every year.

Calls for the routine testing of healthy men – known as screening – have grown louder since Olympic cyclist Sir Chris Hoy announced he had terminal prostate cancer.

Screening has been rejected in the past because using the current test – which looks for levels of prostate specific antigen (PSA) in the blood – risks causing more harm than good.

This saliva test does not look for signs of prostate cancer inside the body.

Instead it looks for 130 mutations in men’s DNA, each of which can increase the risk of prostate cancers developing.

In the study, scientists tested men aged 55-69 and calculated their risk. Men in the top 10% of scores were invited for further investigations. This included a biopsy and an MRI scan.

The study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, showed:

• Out of 745 men with a high score, 468 were prepared to have the extra tests
• 187 were found to have prostate cancer
• 103 were higher risk tumours that needed treatment, 74 of these would not have been discovered at this stage with current tests

“With this test, it could be possible to turn the tide on prostate cancer,” said Prof Ros Eeles, from the Institute of Cancer Research, London.

“We can identify men at risk of aggressive cancers who need further tests and spare the men who are at lower risk from unnecessary treatments,” she added

Dheeresh Turnbull, who is 71 and from Brighton, took part in the trial.

He discovered he was in the highest risk category despite having no family history of prostate cancer. Further examination showed he had cancer.

“I was completely shocked, I would never have been diagnosed at this stage if I hadn’t joined the trial.”

His younger brother was then invited to take part in the study and also discovered he had an aggressive tumour.

“It’s incredible to think that because of this study two lives have now been saved in my family,” Dheeresh said.

However, the test is not ready to be rolled out.

Prof Dusko Ilic, from King’s College London, said it was “promising” but improved cancer detection “only modestly” when used alongside current risk factors such as age, PSA levels and MRI scans.

And he said there was still “no direct evidence” of it improving survival or quality of life, which meant more studies were needed.

The research also focused people of European ancestry and work is still under way to adapt it for people from other backgrounds. Black men are thought to have double the risk of prostate cancer.

The research team also say there are questions around cost-effectiveness, potential harms and the best time to analyse the risk.

The saliva test will become part of the pivotal Transform trial which is trying to discover the best way of introducing prostate cancer screening in the UK.

Prof Michael Inouye, from the University of Cambridge, said he believes we will look back on this study “as a landmark” that made the case for using genetics to assess risk.

But he added: “This is a big step along the path to clinical implementation, but it is still a long road.”

He said it will “likely be years” before the NHS used such a test.

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

President Donald Trump has announced a 90-day pause for countries hit by higher US tariffs but a trade war with China has escalated.

In a dramatic change of policy, just hours after levies against roughly 60 of America’s trading partners kicked in, Trump said he was authorising a universal “lowered reciprocal tariff of 10%” as negotiations continued.

At the same time he increased tariffs on goods from China to 125%, accusing Beijing of a “lack of respect” after it retaliated by saying it would impose tariffs of 84% on US imports.

This comes a week after Trump announced import taxes on all goods entering the US, in the biggest upheaval of international trade in decades.

His plan set a baseline tariff of 10% on all imports – which remains in place – but also higher rates on partners the White House described as the “worst offenders” for what the president considers to be unfair trade practices.

This included the 27-member European Union, Vietnam, South Africa and many more – all of which were due to be on the receiving end of US tariffs ranging from 11% to more than 100%.

Major market turmoil followed Trump’s announcement last week, with sell-offs sparking trillions in losses across the world, many Americans fearing price rises and some analysts predicting increased odds of recession.

On Wednesday, before Trump said he would suspend the higher tariffs on goods from countries other than China, the US government saw interest rates on its debt spike to 4.5% – the highest level since February.

Hours later, when the change was announced, US shares rocketed with the S&P 500 soaring 7% in afternoon trading. It later closed the day’s trading up 9.5%, while the Dow Jones surged by 7.8%.

Announcing the latest iteration of his plan on Truth Social, Trump said he was authorising a 90-day pause on tariffs for the countries that had not retaliated against his levies.

The additional tariff on Beijing, he said, would be effective immediately. “At some point, hopefully in the near future, China will realise that the days of ripping off the U.S.A., and other Countries, is no longer sustainable or acceptable,” he wrote.

US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent insisted the change of policy had not been influenced by the global falls, but senior Democrat Chuck Schumer said the decision showed Trump was “reeling and retreating”.

Speaking outside the White House, Trump later said the amendments to his tariffs policy had “had to be done” because people were “getting yippy”.

“I did a 90-day pause for the people that didn’t retaliate because I told them ‘if you retaliate, we’re going to double it’ – and that’s what I did with China,” he said, adding that he thought, “It’s all going to work out amazing.”

He also said he thought Chinese President Xi Jinping was “going to want to get to a deal”.

In the UK, which was not affected by the changes as it was already on the list of countries receiving the baseline 10% tariff, a No 10 spokeswoman said a “trade war is in nobody’s interests”.

A source also said the developments in Washington showed “cool and calm can pay off”.

The ongoing stand-off between China and the US – the world’s two biggest economies – began when Trump announced new tariffs last week.

China was hit with an additional 34% tariff, on top of a 20% levy the president had put in place earlier this year. However, Beijing was quick to retaliate with a 34% tariff on US imports to China.

In response, Trump threatened an additional 50%, bringing the total to 104% on Tuesday, if Beijing did not back down. China did not change course and said it would “fight to the end” if the US “insists on provoking a tariff war or trade war”.

Just hours after the 104% tariffs from the US kicked in earlier, Beijing announced it would raise its own tariffs on American goods from 34% to 84% from Thursday.

China’s foreign ministry spokesman Lin Jian said on Wednesday the US “continues to impose tariffs on China in an abusive manner”.

He said China opposes such “bullying practices” and the US must show “an attitude of equality, mutual respect, and reciprocity” if it hopes to resolve issues through negotiation.

The deteriorating relationship between the two nations could see their goods trade fall as much as 80% – a $466bn (£363bn) drop, according to World Trade Organization forecasts.

“Our assessments, informed by the latest developments, highlight the substantial risks associated with further escalation,” Dr Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, head of the WTO, said.

Away from China, Trump’s latest plans have not affected other recently-announced tariffs already in play.

These include the 25% import taxes on cars and car parts coming into the US, which came into effect on 2 April, and a further 25% tariff on all steel and aluminium imports.

Earlier on Wednesday, the European Union approved a first set of retaliatory tariffs against the US, due to take effect on 15 April. The bloc, on Trump’s “worst offender” trading partner list, had been due to receive customised tariffs of 20%.

But because the EU’s retaliatory tariffs had not yet gone into effect, the White House included it on the list of countries to be capped at 10%.

Meanwhile, the so-called baseline rate never applied to Canada and Mexico – key trading partners of the US – and a White House official has said neither is in line to receive the 10% baseline tariff now.

Andrew Tate pointed a gun in a woman’s face and said “you’re going to do as I say or there’ll be hell to pay”, according to one of four UK women suing the influencer and self-proclaimed misogynist.

The allegation is described in court documents, seen by the BBC, which also contain detailed accounts of rape, assault and coercive control.

One woman claims Tate threatened to kill her, another says he made clear he would kill anyone who spoke to her, and a third claims Tate convinced her he had killed other people.

Tate has denied the claims in a written defence submitted to the High Court, calling them a “pack of lies” and “gross fabrications”.

Separately, Tate continues to face serious legal challenges in three countries – a mixture of civil and criminal claims in the UK, US and Romania.

This civil case concerns incidents the four women allege took place in Luton and Hitchin between 2013 and 2015.

Two of the women worked for Tate’s webcam business in 2015, while the other two were in relationships with him in 2013 and 2014.

The BBC has previously spoken to two of the claimants about their alleged experiences with Tate as part of a Panorama documentary broadcast in September 2024.

However, this is the first time the full extent of the women’s allegations has been revealed.

Warning: This article contains strong language and distressing details of alleged violence and sexual assault

Some of the allegations in the documents seen by the BBC include that Tate:

• Raped and strangled a woman who was working for his webcam business in 2015
• Assaulted another woman who was also working for his webcam business at the same time
• Strangled both of the above women so often that they developed red petechiae – spots from burst capillaries – in their eyes, a common side effect of asphyxia
• Told a third claimant “I’m just debating whether to rape you or not” before raping and strangling her
• Strangled a fourth claimant, whom we are calling Sienna, during sex until she lost consciousness, and then continued to have sex with her

Three of the women previously reported Tate to the police but in 2019, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) decided not to bring criminal charges. They are now seeking damages “arising from the assaults, batteries, and infliction of intentional harm”, their civil claim states.

Tate denies all the allegations, and argues that the women cannot now take legal action against him because too much time has passed, and emails, texts, and other potential evidence would have been lost. A preliminary hearing for the case is due to take place on 15 April.

“Sienna”, the fourth woman involved in the civil case, was not part of the group that reported Tate to the police.

She told the BBC that when she slept with Tate, the sex was initially consensual.

“But then, during sex, he started to strangle me. I passed out, and he carried on having sex with me,” she said.

Tate denies strangling Sienna, and that she lost consciousness due to strangulation, adding that he “may have put a hand on her neck but there was no restriction of her breathing”.

In her claim submitted to the court, Sienna also describes an alleged incident at Tate’s flat in late 2014, where she saw a gun on his sofa. She says she “did not know if it was real or a replica”.

In his written defence, Tate says “there may have been a toy gun in the flat but the 4th Claimant [Sienna] never said anything about it”.

“I didn’t really mention it to him or anything,” Sienna told the BBC. “But I distinctly remember it being there and kind of being a bit freaked out by it, because it’s not really something you see in the UK.”

She added that she thought it would be “a bit strange for a fully grown man to have a toy gun”.

In the court documents another claimant, referred to as AA, alleges Tate threatened her with a gun in her face while swearing, calling himself “a boss” and a “G” and adding: “You’re going to do as I say or there’ll be hell to pay.” Tate denies this happened, writing in his defence that he only started calling himself “Top G” in recent years.

AA says Tate “threatened [her] daily” while she was working for him in 2015, and describes two alleged incidents in which he “grabbed her by her throat and pinned her up against the wall, so she was unable to move”.

Tate also denies AA’s claims that he threatened her and grabbed her by the neck.

Another claimant, BB, alleges Tate “made it very clear that she was ‘his’, and if anyone else spoke to her, he would kill them”.

BB’s written claim describes her being “forced to barricade herself inside the bathroom while the Defendant [Tate] threatened to ‘beat the shit out of’ her”.

Tate denies this allegation, and describes his relationship with BB as “loving and affectionate until shortly before she ceased to work for the business”.

All four women say they have developed long-term mental health problems as a result of their alleged experiences with Tate.

Lawyer Matt Jury of McCue Jury & Partners, who is representing the women, told the BBC his clients had “been denied justice by the police and CPS, while watching Andrew Tate’s influence grow”.

“They have been left with no other choice but to bring their case in the High Court to finally bring Tate to account,” he said.

Details of help and support with sexual abuse and violence are available in the UK at BBC Action Line

The women’s claim against Tate is one of several serious legal challenges around the world that he is fighting, including some where he is co-accused with his brother Tristan Tate. They are currently facing a mix of criminal and civil legal action in three countries – the UK, the US and Romania.

In Romania, they are facing allegations including human trafficking, trafficking of minors and money laundering. Andrew Tate also faces allegations of rape.

They are also under criminal investigation in the US state of Florida. Andrew Tate has said that US authorities are “trying to find crimes on an innocent man”.

Andrew Tate’s ex-girlfriend Brianna Stern also filed a lawsuit in Los Angeles last month, accusing him of sexual assault, battery and gender violence.

Last year, the brothers were detained in Bucharest after Bedfordshire Police in the UK said it had obtained an arrest warrant in relation to allegations of rape and trafficking dating back to between 2012 and 2015.

The pair deny all accusations against them.

A travel ban imposed on the brothers in Romania was recently lifted, and they have since travelled to the US and Dubai – something Sienna said was “horrible to see”.

“Maybe men will look at him and think, ‘oh well if he can get away with that, then so can I’ – and it kind of makes it normalised,” she told the BBC.

Sienna added that she thought the UK should be “pushing a lot harder” for the extradition of the Tate brothers.

Neither of the brothers have been convicted of any crimes.

Additional reporting by Hamzah Abbas

Broadcaster and former England striker Eni Aluko – who was targeted on social media by ex-footballer Joey Barton – has said she hopes a judgement that his posts were defamatory will make people think twice about what they say online.

Aluko said she should not have to be anxious that her race and gender would be attacked every time she was on TV.

Speaking after winning the first stage of a High Court libel claim against Barton, she said she was “past the point of asking nicely for people to understand the importance of language and how to treat women”.

The 38-year-old told BBC News: “I can’t feel anxious every time I get on TV that my race and my gender are going to be attacked.”

Referring to comments made by Aluko in 2020, which appeared to criticise people placed on the government’s furlough scheme, for which she apologised, Barton posted comments suggesting Aluko’s late father had been financially corrupt, and that her private education made her a “hypocrite”.

He also accused her of “playing the race card”.

High Court judge Mr Justice Lavender ruled Barton’s comments were mainly statements of opinion, but were defamatory by meaning or innuendo.

Aluko said: “Things need to change.

“There’s a double standard held for me, sometimes a triple standard held for me as a black woman, if I say anything.

“This is bigger than me. This was just not something I could accept and actually it’s part of a wider culture towards women in broadcasting.

“Opinions and free speech are a human right and I support but it can’t be weaponised and used as a route to hate speech”

“The only way to change is to hold people accountable.”

The former Lioness scored 33 international goals in 102 appearances before retiring in 2020 and moving onto a career in broadcasting.

She said she had faced threats of violence and had suffered abuse on social media after Barton twice posted on X about her in January 2024.

The ITV and BT Sport regular said she hoped the judge’s finding would lead to more people speaking out about bad behaviour and online abuse.

She added: “I love what I do. I love broadcasting. I love talking about football. I love being an example for other young black girls and women of colour that you can do it and can break into spaces that ordinarily have not always been taken up.”

Barton is yet to respond to the ruling and could appeal against it. The 42-year-old could also defend the statements if the case goes to trial.

In a separate criminal case, Barton, 42, has pleaded not guilty to allegedly posting offensive comments on social media about Aluko, as well as broadcasters Lucy Ward and Jeremy Vine.

Suddenly, Donald Trump’s trade war is in much sharper focus.

Rather than a fight on all fronts against the world, this now looks far more like a fight on familiar Trumpian territory: America v China.

The 90-day pause on the higher “retaliatory” tariffs levied on dozens of countries still leaves a universal across-the-board tariff of 10% in place.

But China – which ships everything from iPhones to children’s toys and accounts for around 14% of all US imports – has been singled out for much harsher treatment with an eye-watering rate of 125%.

Trump said the increase was due to Beijing’s readiness to retaliate with its own 84% levy on US goods, a move the president described as showing a “lack of respect”.

But for a politician who first fought his way to the White House on the back of an anti-China message, there is much more to this than simple retaliation.

For Trump, this is about the unfinished business of that first term in office.

“We didn’t have the time to do the right thing, which we’re doing now,” he told reporters.

The aim is nothing less than the upending of an established system of global trade centred on China as the factory of the world, as well as the once widely held view that underpinned it – the idea that more of this trade was, in and of itself, a good thing.

To understand just how central this is to the US president’s thinking, you need to go back to the time before anyone ever thought of him as a possible candidate for office, let alone a likely winner.

In 2012, when I first reported from Shanghai – China’s business capital – increased trade with the country was seen by almost everyone – global business leaders, Chinese officials, visiting foreign governments and trade delegations, foreign correspondents and learned economists – as a no brainer.

It was boosting global growth, providing an endless supply of cheap goods, enriching China’s army of new factory workers increasingly embedded in global supply chains, and providing lucrative opportunities to multinational corporations selling their wares to its newly minted middle classes.

Within a few of years of my arrival, China had surpassed the US to become the world’s biggest market for Rolls Royce, General Motors and Volkswagen.

There was a deeper justification, too.

As China got richer, so the theory went, Chinese people would begin to demand political reform.

Their spending habits would also help China transition to a consumer society.

But the first of those aspirations never happened, with China’s ruling Communist Party only tightening its grip on power.

And the second one didn’t happen fast enough, with China not only still dependent on exports, but openly planning to become ever more dominant.

Its infamous policy blueprint – published in 2015 and entitled Made in China 2025 – set out a huge state-backed vision of becoming a global leader in a number of key manufacturing sectors, from aerospace to ship building to electric vehicles.

And so it was that just one year later, a complete political unknown began an outsider-run for US president, making the case repeatedly on the campaign trail that China’s rise had hollowed out the American economy, driven rustbelt decline and cost blue-collar workers their livelihoods and dignity.

Trump’s first-term trade war broke the mould and shattered the consensus. His successor, President Joe Biden, kept much of his tariffs on China in place.

And yet, even though they have undoubtedly caused China some pain, they have not done much to change the economic model.

China now produces 60% of the world’s electric cars – a large proportion of them made by its own homegrown brands – and 80% of the batteries that power them.

So, now Trump is back, with this tit-for-tat escalation on levies.

It would, arguably, be the biggest shock ever delivered to the established global trading system, were it not for all the other on-again off-again tariff measures the US president has rolled out in recent days.

What happens next depends on two key questions.

Firstly, whether China takes up that offer to negotiate.

And secondly, assuming it eventually does, whether China is willing to make the kind of major concessions that America is looking for, including a complete overhaul of its export driven economic model.

In answering them, the first thing to say is that we are in completely unchartered territory, so we should be wary of anyone who says they know how Beijing is likely to react.

But there are certainly reasons to be cautious.

China’s vision of its economic strength – one based on strong exports and a tightly protected domestic market – is now closely bound up with its idea of national rejuvenation and the supremacy of its one-party system.

Its tight control over the information sphere means it will be unlikely to drop its barriers to American technology companies, for example.

But there is a third question, and it is one for America to answer.

Does the US still believe in free trade? Donald Trump often suggests that tariffs are a good thing, not merely as a means to an end, but as an end in themselves.

He talks about the benefit of a protectionist barrier for America, in order to stimulate domestic investment, encourage American companies to bring those foreign supply chains back home, and raise tax revenues.

And if Beijing believes that is indeed the primary purpose of the tariffs, it may decide there is nothing to negotiate anyway.

Rather than championing the idea of economic co-operation, the world’s two biggest superpowers may find themselves locked in a fight for winner-takes-all economic supremacy.

If so, that really would mark a shattering of the old consensus, and a very different, possibly very dangerous, future.

“The best salesman in history.” This was what Donald Trump once called Volodymyr Zelensky because of the amount of aid the US has given Ukraine.

Whether or not a fair comparison, Zelensky’s role in keeping his country in the spotlight and convincing allies to invest has certainly been crucial for Ukraine’s fight.

His transformation from prime-time comedian to wartime president has long been cast – it dates back to 2022 when he decided to remain in Kyiv as Russian troops closed in. That decision meant Ukraine would go on to defend itself to this day.

In the years since, I’ve stood across from him in person dozens of times, and Zelensky now casts a more authoritative, perhaps battle-hardened figure, moulded partly by his increased isolation on the international stage.

But with the unpredictability of Trump’s second term – not least following the pair’s Oval Office bust-up in February – Zelensky may now have to transform again.

Politically it is no longer a story of oppressor versus oppressed. Rather, it is muddied by the dual challenge of voicing an appetite for peace whilst protecting his country’s interests.

But is a man used to having so much authority at home and being so influential abroad really going to stage a second big transformation, shifting his focus to Trump-era diplomacy? Or will he decide the best way of standing up for Ukraine is to yield little?

Later today the “coalition of the willing”, a group of nations who have pledged to stand with Ukraine, will meet at Nato headquarters – notably without America.

Before Trump’s chapter two began, Ukraine’s leader had effectively lobbied for western support. He appealed for air defences, tanks, rockets and fighter jets, with nations such as Germany hesitating over fears of the war escalating, before yielding to his requests.

His message was rigid and he was successful in procuring support.

“Zelensky was very clever and calculated in the early days of the war,” says Ed Arnold from defence and security think tank, Royal United Services Institute (Rusi).

His decision go to the Munich security conference two weeks before the invasion, despite being advised that this would be a security risk, was pivotal, argues Mr Arnold.

“It personalised support to Ukraine within the minds of people who personally attended.”

Serhiy Leshchenko, an advisor to Zelensky’s office, explains: “We have to be visible to the world. If public opinion is on Ukraine’s side, there is a better chance to get help from the international community.”

Leshchenko points to Zelensky’s daily video addresses, which he has created since start of the invasion. “It’s unusual to be so open.”

Ukraine’s victory in the battle of Kyiv cemented Zelensky as a symbol of the country’s survival, and boosted his case for continued military aid from western allies.

Later in 2022, Zelensky was able to demonstrate the difference their supplies were making when swathes of Ukrainian territory, including the city of Kherson, were liberated. He had initial success with European allies.

“They are invested in Zelensky personally and Ukraine,” says Mr Arnold. “He’s gone through four UK prime ministers since the start of the war … and they’ve all signed new declarations with Ukraine, again through Zelensky.

“He’s been able to weather the changes in national politics within Europe throughout his tenure.”

But when further successes failed to materialise, Zelensky’s message did not change – and as time went on, this would be to his detriment.

After Ukraine’s failed counter-offensive in the summer of 2023, for example, the merits of supporting Kyiv were increasingly questioned by an influential minority of US Republicans and pleas were starting to be passed over in some quarters.

Maria Zolkina, head of regional security and conflict studies at the Democratic Initiatives Foundation, a Kyiv-based think tank, believes Zelensky is partly responsible.

“He and his close circle relied on the logic that they must always be demanding when speaking with their partners – pushing the argument that Ukraine simply needs something. That worked really well during 2022, but with the US and others this kind of messaging stopped working in 2023,” she argues.

“But his diplomacy really didn’t adjust quickly enough.”

On 27 September 2024, in a lobby in New York, things truly changed for Ukraine. Only the driving force was not approaching Russian armour but the political reincarnation of Ukraine’s biggest ally: the US.

On that day, just over a month before the US Presidential election, Zelensky had a last minute meeting with Trump in Trump Tower.

Tensions between the pair had heightened before this meeting: Zelensky had claimed a few days earlier that Trump didn’t “really know how to end the war”, after he asserted he could do it in “one day”.

After the Trump Tower meeting, the two men emerged looking awkward.

Despite announcing a “common view” of wanting to end the war, their body language suggested a lack of chemistry.

The pair would not meet again until five months later in the Oval Office, where their now famous encounter would be a diplomatic disaster for Kyiv.

“Trump should have liked him,” says Vadym Prystaiko, who was present when the pair first met after Zelensky’s election win in 2019. “Zelensky saw Trump as more or less as himself, as a media guy who moved into politics, who was anti-establishment,” he says.

Mr Prystaiko was Ukraine’s ambassador to the UK, before he was sacked in 2023. Kyiv gave no official reason for the dismissal, but it came after Mr Prystaiko criticised Zelensky’s response to a row over gratitude for British military aid. He said there had been a “little bit of sarcasm” in his president’s response, which he believed was “unhealthy”.

“Zelensky has never been a diplomat,” Mr Prystaiko adds. “He has never been a usual political leader who kisses babies and shakes hands.”

“The relationship with Trump is like a rollercoaster,” says Volodymyr Fesenko, director at the Pento Center for Political Studies. “Sometimes there is constructive cooperation, and then, all of a sudden, some kind of crisis appears.”

Then there is their war of words. Trump has blamed Zelensky for starting the war, calling him a “dictator”, while Ukraine’s leader accused his US counterpart of “living in a Russian disinformation space”.

While Mr Fesenko believes Zelensky is continually changing tactics to find a working relationship with Washington, Ms Zolkina believes the issues go deeper.

“There is a triangle between the US administration, the Kremlin and Kyiv,” she claims. “Ukraine is considered to be a weaker part of this triangle. For Trump, Zelensky is not in the same league, and that’s the problem.”

When it came to the now infamous Oval Office meeting with Trump and his Vice President JD Vance, this was the first time I’d seen Zelensky seemingly run out of political rope as he was accused of “not showing enough gratitude” and “playing with World War Three”.

His defensive body language, the folding of his arms for example, also seemed new.

Zelensky has always appeared comfortable hosting or visiting other leaders. He is at ease on a stage and often injects timely humour — but this was different.

A mineral agreement, in which Zelensky had originally suggested trading a portion of Ukraine’s mineral resource wealth for continued military aid, was never signed, and has since evolved into a less favourable proposal for Kyiv.

The US would also briefly pause its military aid and intelligence sharing to ensure Ukraine danced to its tune.

But the official view from some is that the Oval Office meeting was not a calamity.

“Nobody took it as the end of something,” claims Ihor Brusylo, the deputy head of the Presidential Office, who travelled to the White House with Zelensky. “We discussed how to move forward. It was not a disaster.”

When the US National Security Advisor Mike Waltz told them the meeting was over, “we just shrugged our shoulders and decided to go back to the hotel,” he recalls.

“My presumption is that on a personal level, they [Trump and Zelensky] get on well,” he adds. “They understand each other better, and are frank and honest.”

Whatever the truth about their relationship behind closed doors, there have been signs of a willingness to bend from Zelensky since that meeting – European allies are said to have convinced him to subsequently take a more compliant tone, because of the inescapable truth that they, and Ukraine, still need the US to combat an aggressive Russia.

Yet others argue more bend still is needed.

“The war changes everyone, it has changed us all in some sense. But I don’t think fundamentally Zelensky has changed – for good or bad in some instances,” says Olga Onuch, professor of Comparative and Ukrainian Politics at the University of Manchester.

“It is very clear that certain actors have decided it’s difficult to negotiate with Zelensky. Why? Because he has red lines that he is sticking to.”

Mr Brusylo agrees. “It is very difficult to bend Zelensky,” he says. “It’s like watching a spring, the more you press, the bigger the pushback.”

And yet whenever Ukraine is attacked, politically or diplomatically, increased political unity follows. The Oval Office clash was no exception, as Zelensky’s popularity rating soared to around 70%.

“Zelensky is very powerful, and his authority is made up of himself and a certain circle of people,” argues Ms Zolkina.

Orysia Lutsevych, head of the Ukraine Forum at Chatham House says it’s interesting how Ukrainians rallied around Zelensky after the Oval Office, almost like they took it as a personal insult of Ukrainian statehood.

“People rally around him, what he represents and how he behaves”.

Mr Prystaiko argues if the Americans wanted him to be replaced “they’ve shot themselves in the foot as he might easily be re-elected”.

Some political experts, like Ms Zolkina, do not think this is a certainty. “I don’t think he understands that this boost is a direct reaction to what Trump is doing, not his personal position,” she says.

“He has pretty strong political ambitions for a second term, and is pretty politically egocentric, as all leaders are at his level.”

Prof Onuch does not think that pursuit of political power alone motivates Zelensky. “[He is] much more of a careful and considered and tactical political operator than people give him credit for”.

Still, imagining a Zelensky second term can be difficult, simply because of the sheer demands of the job. Even post-war challenges would be considerable.

For now, Mr Arnold suspects that an exhausted Zelensky would not want to stand again and suggests that he may want a way out from at least the frontline politics.

As for the near-term, Zelensky cannot afford another Oval Office. So, given that Trump is a keen player, will Ukraine’s leader ever join him for a round of golf?

“He is a quick learner,” says his Mr Brusylo. “When there is a need to play golf, I’m sure he will tackle this task.”

Top picture credit: Getty Images

Additional reporting by Hanna Chornous and Vicky Riddell

BBC InDepth is the home on the website and app for the best analysis, with fresh perspectives that challenge assumptions and deep reporting on the biggest issues of the day. And we showcase thought-provoking content from across BBC Sounds and iPlayer too. You can send us your feedback on the InDepth section by clicking on the button below.