Barack and Michelle Obama have endorsed Kamala Harris’s “historic” presidential bid in a video capturing a gushing private phone call.

The former US president and his wife on Friday became the latest Democrat heavyweights to support the vice-president’s campaign after previously holding off from formally endorsing her.

In the one-minute video released on social media, the Obamas are heard speaking to Ms Harris on loudspeaker as she walks backstage at a campaign event.

“We called to say Michelle and I couldn’t be prouder to endorse you and to do everything we can to get you through this election and into the Oval Office,” Mr Obama can be heard telling a smiling Ms Harris in the clip.

Mrs Obama said: “I can’t have this phone call without saying to my girl, Kamala, I am proud of you. This is going to be historic.” 

The vice-president, who has secured the support of enough Democratic delegates to lock in the nomination, responded: “This means so much to me. I’m looking forward to doing this with the two of you, Doug [her husband] and I both. And getting out there, being on the road.”

Ms Harris then thanked them for “the friendship you have given over all these years”.

She added: “We’re gonna have some fun with this too, aren’t we?”

Her campaign said the video showed the actual call between the trio and was not a re-enactment.

In an email sent out by the Harris campaign on Friday, Mr and Mrs Obama said they “couldn’t be more excited … or thrilled to endorse” her.

“There is no doubt in our mind that Kamala Harris has exactly what it takes to win this election and deliver for the American people. At a time when the stakes have never been higher, she gives us all reason to hope”, they added.

Ms Harris’s run against Donald Trump, her Republican rival, has continued to gain momentum from supporters, donors and politicians less than a week after Joe Biden bowed out of the race amid slumping poll numbers.

‘Marxist fraud’

The endorsement from Mr Obama, who remains one of the most popular figures in the Democratic Party, will help bolster Ms Harris’s campaign.

He is expected to attend fundraisers and act as a surrogate for Ms Harris after she is officially crowned the Democratic nominee and as her campaign heats up closer to the election.

While other key Democrats such as Bill and Hillary Clinton were quick to rally around Ms Harris’s bid, the Obamas notably held back their support in the days after Mr Biden stepped down.

After Mr Biden dropped out of the race and endorsed Ms Harris, Mr Obama put out a statement in which he said he had “extraordinary confidence that the leaders of our party will be able to create a process from which an outstanding nominee emerges”.

Such a move irritated some Democrats, as Mr Obama is understood to have been one of the key Democrats who had urged Mr Biden to rethink his campaign in light of his disastrous debate performance in June.

The former president reportedly did not want to become involved while his party worked through the process of determining its nominee.

Mr Obama’s silence was also seized upon by the Trump campaign.

“There is a strong sense by many in the Democrat Party – namely Barack Hussein Obama – that Kamala Harris is a Marxist fraud who cannot beat President Trump, and they are still holding out for someone ‘better’,” Steven Cheung, a campaign spokesman, said on Thursday.

According to a longer transcript of their phone call released by the Democrats, Mr Obama told Ms Harris that the Democrats were “going to be underdogs” but that he and Mrs Obama were “absolutely confident that you’re gonna be able to make it happen”.

Senior Democrats are hoping to officially lock in Ms Harris as the party’s candidate ahead of its convention in mid-August, with delegates expected to begin voting next week, according to The New York Times.

The Education Secretary is poised to scrap free speech laws designed to protect academics from being cancelled.

Bridget Phillipson said on Friday she would “stop further commencement” of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023, just days before the new free speech tsar’s powers were due to come into force.

Under the Act, universities, colleges and student unions in England would have a legal duty to promote free speech.

The Office for Students (OfS) was also set to be granted new powers to launch investigations and impose fines on universities if they were found to have violated academics’ right to free speech.

Individuals would also be able to seek compensation through the courts if they suffered loss from a breach of the free speech duties – such as being expelled, dismissed or demoted – under a new legal measure.

The protections were also set to cover visiting speakers whose invitations have been cancelled due to student protests.

Labour’s decision to pause and potentially repeal the scheme will be seen as a major watering down of free speech protections.

It would strip academics, who have been hounded out of their positions or seen their talks cancelled in the face of student protests, of access to a proposed special grievance scheme.

Sir Gavin Williamson, who introduced the law as education secretary, told The Telegraph: “Over the last 30 years we have seen the gradual but continuous erosion of free speech within higher education institutions and that is why I put legislation in place to protect it.

“The Labour Government’s decision to scrap free speech protections just says it does not care for free and wide-ranging debate. Rather, it is willing to turn a blind eye, while dissenting academic voices are hounded off campus.”

Tom Tugendhat, one of the frontrunners in the Tory leadership race, told The Telegraph: “Freedom of speech is sacrosanct. If we can’t challenge each other we can’t learn or progress as a society.

“This was a good Bill, passed by the last Parliament to tackle a real issue on our university campuses. It’s disgraceful that Labour have paused it with no democratic debate or accountability. They’ve caved in to universities who have shown themselves unwilling, or unable, to stand up for freedom of expression.”

The Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 was drawn up following multiple rows over the so-called “cancellation” of academics and students over their views.

They include Dr Heather Brunskell-Evans, who was no-platformed by university students at King’s College London after she discussed transgender issues on a radio show.

In another example, Kathleen Stock, a philosophy professor, resigned from Sussex University after what she described as a “witch-hunt” because of her views on transgender issues.

Helen Joyce, director of advocacy at human-rights charity Sex Matters, said: “This is a serious misstep by the new Education Secretary.

“Transactivists know that their ideas cannot be intellectually defended and have therefore enforced a hostile ‘no debate’ culture on campus.”

Prof Arif Ahmed, the Government’s first-ever “free speech tsar”, has spent the past year designing a new complaints scheme to implement the laws on campus, which were due to come into force next week.

Under his complaints scheme, the former Cambridge professor was set to take submissions from academics who have been “cancelled” or “no-platformed” on campus due to their personal beliefs.

However, the move by Labour to shelve the Act raises serious uncertainty over Prof Ahmed’s position, and his work so far could be wound down.

Culture wars

Ms Phillipson signalled it was part of a broader move to pour water on the culture wars.

In a statement announcing her decision to shelve the Act on Friday, the Education Secretary said that “for too long, universities have been a political battlefield”.

“We are absolutely committed to freedom of speech and academic freedom, but the Free Speech Act introduced last year is not fit for purpose and risked imposing serious burdens on our world class universities,” she said.

“This legislation could expose students to harm and appalling hate speech on campuses. That is why I have quickly ordered this legislation to be stopped so that we can take a view on next steps and protect everyone’s best interests.”

However, Damian Hinds, the shadow education secretary, said: “Free speech is a fundamental right, and this must extend to universities.

“The fact this Labour Government is willing to scrap the measures we put in place to protect these rights makes clear that they are willing to sacrifice the next generation on the altar of their own ideological dogma.”

Ms Phillipson said she was concerned the scheme would be “burdensome” on universities, and would “consider options, including its repeal”.

“I have written to colleagues separately about my decision to stop further commencement of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023, in order to consider options, including its repeal,” she said in a written ministerial statement on Friday.

“I am aware of concerns that the Act would be burdensome on providers and on the OfS [Office for Students], and I will confirm my long-term plans as soon as possible.”

The Russell Group of elite universities had warned against creating an “unnecessary and burdensome bureaucracy”.

On Friday it said that Ms Phillipson’s decision to halt the new free speech laws was a “sensible and proportionate step”.

“Matters relating to freedom of speech can be complex, particularly when cases interact with other legal duties such as equality law. It’s right that the Government has decided to take more time to consider its options,” the group said.

However, Prof Ahmed insisted universities needed strengthened protections since they faced “urgent threats to free speech and academic freedom”.

Protecting vulnerable groups

Labour claimed Ms Phillipson’s intervention was to protect “vulnerable groups and Jewish students”, and to save universities from “costly legal action”.

The Department for Education said groups representing Jewish students had “expressed concerns that sanctions could lead to providers overlooking the safety and well-being of minority groups”.

Phil Rosenberg, president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, said the group welcomed the Government’s decision to pull the plug on the Act.

Mr Rosenberg said that although “well-intentioned”, the act “risked enabling anti-Semitic extremists to access university campuses by severely impacting the ability of universities to block their presence”.

The Telegraph understands Labour also had concerns that it could leave universities open to being sued at a time when many face crippling cost pressures.

The Free Speech Union has vowed to launch legal action against the Government. 

It said in a statement: “The Government’s attack on the Freedom of Speech Act is shocking. If Labour refuses to commence legislation passed in the last parliament, the Free Speech Union will bring judicial review proceedings.

“There is a free speech crisis in our universities, as has been widely acknowledged, and this Act, which enjoyed cross-party support, was designed to remedy that.

“For all Sir Keir Starmer’s talk about human rights, he clearly doesn’t care about the most important human right of all, which is the right to free speech.”

A No 10 spokeswoman said the decision to pause the legislation had been taken “in response to concerns that have been raised in the university sector”.

Asked about criticism of the move as a threat to free speech on campuses, she replied: “I disagree with that characterisation. It’s right to listen to concerns and to take stock.”

Downing Street refused to say whether Prof Ahmed would keep his job.

The lawyer representing the brothers at the centre of the row over the use of police force at Manchester airport has said he believes he has been chosen by Allah to “challenge the Zionist regime”.

Akhmed Yakoob, who has been dubbed the “TikTok lawyer”, travelled to Rochdale after he was contacted by the family when footage of Mohammed Fahir Amaz being apparently kicked and stamped on by a police officer went viral on social media.

The criminal defence lawyer, who drives a Lamborghini, hit the headlines recently after coming third in the race to be the West Midlands mayor and winning nearly 70,000 votes on a pro-Gaza ticket.

He has 200,000 followers on Tik Tok, regularly posting videos of himself wearing Prada trainers and a diamond watch and using the platform to promote his business with clips featuring his signature catchphrase: “There is a defence for every offence.”

Mr Yakoob says the approach has doubled his clients at the Birmingham based Maurice Andrews Solicitors, where he says he bought out his boss for £150,000 aged just 28.

It appears to have brought him considerable financial success, with him telling interviewers he has a car collection worth £1 million, including two Lamborghinis, a Mercedes Benz G-Class and a Ferrari F8.

During the mayoral campaign the 36-year-old made a string of controversial comments about Zionism, describing it as “fascist ideology” and saying that they “control everything”.

In a speech in a Dewsbury mosque in April, he said: “I know now why Allah has put me in this position, it’s to challenge the Zionist regime, challenge the elites of this country and the world.”

At the time it was warned that his comments could “damage social cohesion”.

Mr Yakoob later stood in the general election against Labour’s Shabana Mahmood in Birmingham’s Ladywood constituency on a pro-Gaza, anti-Labour platform, where he was endorsed by George Galloway.

That campaign was dogged by further controversy when it emerged that he said that he “rated” the self-proclaimed “misogynist” social influencer Andrew Tate, who is facing charges of rape, human trafficking and sexually exploiting women for financial gain.

In a YouTube video posted in June 2023, Mr Yakoob said: “I believe that the media take whatever he says out of context, they take little snippets out of certain interviews and make him look like a bad, misogynist person.

“He’s not a misogynist, they only promote hard work, they say if you want to drive nice cars, you got out there and work hard, don’t sit there and cry like a little girl. You go and work hard. I don’t see anything wrong in what Andrew Tate has done.”

Mr Yakoob later told The Telegraph that he reacted “as a lawyer. As a lawyer we believe in innocence until proven guilty”.

He added that he holds “women in very high light” and that “it does not matter if you are a man or woman, what race, colour, religion, creed or whatever your background or lifestyle choices are… everybody is equal in the eyes of the law and society”.

Mr Yakoob previously gave an interview in which he told how he grew up on a crime-ridden council estate and was kicked out of school at 15.

His own family tried to discourage him from going to university to become a lawyer, but he graduated from Wolverhampton with a 2:2 in law.

Russia will be one of the prime suspects in Friday morning’s attacks on the French rail network, as suspicions swirl that Vladimir Putin has been yearning for a chance to humiliate Emmanuel Macron.

French intelligence sources have also hinted it may have been the work of Left-wing radicals, while Israel’s foreign minister has claimed the sabotage was carried out by Iran.

But as of Friday afternoon, with theories coming from multiple quarters and scant hard evidence, it remained unclear who the perpetrators were.

The French authorities have laid on a large, high-tech security regime to defend the Olympics, with Reaper drones in the skies and AI-powered cameras on the ground to watch for suspicious activity.

But Friday’s attack suggests they paid far less attention to key rail routes, which were sabotaged by old-fashioned arson methods rather than cyber-attacks.

The perpetrators had a good working knowledge of the railway and were most likely seeking to cause maximum disruption while avoiding any loss of human life.

There have been five incidents of damage to the SNCF rail network, all of them targeting electronic or signalling boxes. French media reports said bundles of cables in the network had been burned or severed.

The result was around 50 per cent of the trains in the north and east of France were not running as of Friday morning, while the high-speed TVG network was also paralysed. The disruption is expected to last throughout the weekend.

The attacks came in the early hours, when no trains were running on the high-speed network, and were carried out in such a way that control centres would have become immediately aware of the damage and shut down the system.

Had the perpetrators struck during the morning rush and employed acts of sabotage that could not have been so easily detected remotely – such as parking vehicles across the line – the outcome might have been very different.

France has not yet accused any group or state over the sabotage, but many will immediately point the finger at Moscow. Other possible suspects include terrorism groups, Left-wing radicals or environmental activists.

The head of SNCF has described the arsonists as a “band of lunatics” but gave no clues as to their identity. Gabriel Attal, the French prime minister, said the attacks were carried out in a “prepared and co-ordinated manner”, as he vowed to “find and punish” the saboteurs.

“We are obviously in a situation of conflict with Russia, and Russia is obviously not going to do anything, and that’s an understatement, to help these Olympic Games be a success,” suggested Jean de Gliniasty, the former French ambassador to Moscow, in an interview with French broadcaster LCI.

In April, Mr Macron, the French president, said he had “no doubt whatsoever, including in terms of information,” that Russian leaders were planning to disrupt or damage the Games.

Around the same time, an aide to Mr Macron warned: “There is a hardening from Russia, which we have been seeing for several months.”

A security source said on Friday that a “smoking gun” had not yet been discovered to establish whether the railway sabotage was the result of a Russian hybrid attack.

They added: “We do assess overall that Russian, and their supporters’, activity is rising.

“This will see an increase in both the severity and frequency of incidents in the ‘grey zone’, designed to disrupt and deter the supporters of Ukraine.”

However, a French intelligence source told AFP news agency that the sabotage was similar to previous incidents involving the far-Left. “The modus operandi – arson attacks on installations – resembles that used by the ultra-Left in the past,” the source said.

Israel, meanwhile, has blamed Iran, its arch nemesis in the Middle East, which continues to fund and support Hamas, as well as the Lebanese group Hezbollah.

“The sabotage of railway infrastructure across France ahead of the Paris 2024 Olympics was planned and executed under the influence of Iran’s axis of evil and radical Islam,” said Israel Katz, the Israeli foreign minister.

“Based on information held by Israel, Iranians are planning terrorist attacks against the Israeli delegation and all Olympic participants. Increased preventive measures must be taken to thwart their plot,” he added.

France’s diplomatic and military support for Ukraine has put it in the crosshairs of a new Russian campaign against Europe known as “hybrid warfare,” which involves sabotage, arson, cyber-attacks and other attempts to destabilise Western democracy.

And there is already a precedent for Russia launching arson attacks on businesses and infrastructure in Europe.

In May, when a mysterious fire broke out at the Diehl arms factory in Berlin, German investigators initially ruled it an accident – despite the Diehl group being part of the supply chain that supports Ukrainian forces with weapons.

They have since received intelligence from a Nato member state which strongly suggests it was actually a Russian sabotage attack.

In the previous month, pro-Russian arsonists targeted a business with commercial links to Ukraine in east London. The British Government expelled Russia’s defence attache in response to the attack.