Dozens of Palestinians have been killed or injured by an Israeli strike on a multistorey residential building in Beit Lahiya, northern Gaza, local medics and officials in the territory have said.

The government media office in Gaza, which is run by Hamas, put the number of those killed at 72. It said the strike on Sunday morning hit a residential building that housed six families.

There was no independent confirmation of the reports or the reported death toll, which followed intensive Israeli bombardment of targets across Gaza in recent days. The Palestinian Civil Emergency said around 70 people were living in the property.

An Israeli military spokesperson said strikes were conducted on “terrorist targets”.

“We emphasize that there have been continued efforts to evacuate the civilian population from the active war zone in the area, in parallel with efforts to expand the Humanitarian Area in Al-Mawasi … The IDF is precisely operating and is doing everything possible to avoid causing harm to civilians,” the spokesperson said.

In Lebanon, Israel’s air offensive has continued with strikes in central Beirut – the first in over a month – and elsewhere reported on Sunday morning.

Mohammed Afif, the head of Hezbollah’s media office, who has been the public face of the group throughout the war, was killed in a strike on a Ba’ath party centre in Ras al-Nabaa, central Beirut, that collapsed the building’s top floor.

Three attacks were reported on separate locations in the Lebanese capital’s southern suburbs, a Hezbollah stronghold, sending thick clouds of white smoke over the targets.

There were also reports of strikes in several other areas of the country, including the port city of Tyre.

In a statement, the Israeli military said the attacks were “intelligence-based” and targeted Hezbollah command centres and infrastructure. Advance warnings had been given to civilians, the statement added.

The latest strikes in Lebanon came as Israel’s media reported that Israeli troops had advanced as far as three miles (5km) from the contested border.

Israeli media said the Israel Defense Forces were deliberately “blurring” the extent of its operations in Lebanon, even though most aims set out by the Israeli government had been achieved.

“The IDF won’t admit this, but the Northern Command completed the mission it was given by the political leadership two weeks ago, on schedule. That mission was to remove the threat of an … invasion of the Galilee,” wrote Yoav Zitun in the Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth.

The airstrikes in Gaza on Sunday came amid Israeli offensives in Beit Lahiya and the nearby towns of Beit Hanoun and Jabaliya.

The tight siege of the three towns and a series of evacuation orders has raised widespread concerns that Israel intends to force civilian populations to leave the northernmost parts of Gaza and will not permit their return.

“Over the last weeks, conversations in Gaza have been intense about the so-called ‘Generals’ Plan’ … within the Israeli forces … which consists of wiping Palestinians off the northern part of Gaza by either killing them, forcing them out, or starving to death those who stay,” Médecins Sans Frontières said on Friday.

“The way the ongoing offensive in the north is being waged … reinforces the idea that we are witnessing the execution of this plan,” the NGO added.

Israel denies any such intention and says the offensives, launched last month, are an effort to prevent Hamas from regrouping in areas that have been cleared in previous multiple rounds of combat.

Earlier on Sunday, an Israeli airstrike killed at least 10 people in the Bureij refugee camp in central Gaza, when a missile hit a house, medics said. Four other people were reported to have been killed in the nearby Nuseirat camp.

On Saturday evening, an Israeli airstrike on a UN-run school sheltering displaced people killed 10 and wounded 20 others, the Palestinian news agency Wafa reported.

Israel’s military, which has accused Hamas repeatedly of using civilians as human shields, said it struck a command centre of the militant Islamist organisation in the compound.

The war in Gaza began after Palestinian militants from Hamas and other armed groups launched a surprise attack into southern Israel in October last year, killing about 1,200 people – mostly civilians – and abducting 250 others.

About 100 hostages are thought to be still inside Gaza, about a third of whom are believed to be dead. Israelis rallied again in Tel Aviv on Saturday night to demand a ceasefire deal to return the hostages.

The Gaza health ministry said 43,799 people have been confirmed dead in Gaza since the war began. More than half of identified casualties have been women or children.

Israel launched its offensive against Hezbollah in Lebanon to allow an estimated 60,000 Israelis to return to homes near the border evacuated in the first days of the war for fear of attack and bombardment by the militant Islamist group.

Although Hezbollah’s capabilities have been significantly reduced, it has continued to fire rockets and missiles into Israel since the beginning of the conflict in Gaza.

Israel’s military said on Saturday that Hezbollah had fired more than 80 projectiles across the border that day. Most were intercepted or did not cause injuries but a synagogue was struck and two civilians were wounded in a “heavy rocket barrage” by Hezbollah on Haifa, northern Israel’s largest city. Police said the civilians’ injuries were light. Hezbollah said it fired missiles at five Israeli military facilities in Haifa and its suburbs.

More than 3,400 people have been killed in Lebanon by Israeli fire, 80% of them in the past eight weeks, according to the Lebanese health ministry. Israel’s military said a soldier died in combat in southern Lebanon on Friday.

By the beginning of November, more than 60 people have been killed in northern Israel and the occupied Golan Heights by Hezbollah attacks in almost 13 months of the conflict. Many more injured have been injured.

Hezbollah, which is backed by Iran, has previously linked any ceasefire in the north to an end to the Israeli offensive in Gaza, though some analysts now believe the group may consider a separate deal.

A copy of a draft proposal presented by the US earlier this week was handed over to the speaker of Lebanon’s parliament, Nabih Berri, who has been negotiating on behalf of Hezbollah, according to a Lebanese official. The proposal is based on UN security council resolution 1701, which ended the last Israel-Hezbollah war in 2006.

Reuters and AP contributed reporting

Dozens of Palestinians have been killed or injured by an Israeli strike on a multistorey residential building in Beit Lahiya, northern Gaza, local medics and officials in the territory have said.

The government media office in Gaza, which is run by Hamas, put the number of those killed at 72. It said the strike on Sunday morning hit a residential building that housed six families.

There was no independent confirmation of the reports or the reported death toll, which followed intensive Israeli bombardment of targets across Gaza in recent days. The Palestinian Civil Emergency said around 70 people were living in the property.

An Israeli military spokesperson said strikes were conducted on “terrorist targets”.

“We emphasize that there have been continued efforts to evacuate the civilian population from the active war zone in the area, in parallel with efforts to expand the Humanitarian Area in Al-Mawasi … The IDF is precisely operating and is doing everything possible to avoid causing harm to civilians,” the spokesperson said.

In Lebanon, Israel’s air offensive has continued with strikes in central Beirut – the first in over a month – and elsewhere reported on Sunday morning.

Mohammed Afif, the head of Hezbollah’s media office, who has been the public face of the group throughout the war, was killed in a strike on a Ba’ath party centre in Ras al-Nabaa, central Beirut, that collapsed the building’s top floor.

Three attacks were reported on separate locations in the Lebanese capital’s southern suburbs, a Hezbollah stronghold, sending thick clouds of white smoke over the targets.

There were also reports of strikes in several other areas of the country, including the port city of Tyre.

In a statement, the Israeli military said the attacks were “intelligence-based” and targeted Hezbollah command centres and infrastructure. Advance warnings had been given to civilians, the statement added.

The latest strikes in Lebanon came as Israel’s media reported that Israeli troops had advanced as far as three miles (5km) from the contested border.

Israeli media said the Israel Defense Forces were deliberately “blurring” the extent of its operations in Lebanon, even though most aims set out by the Israeli government had been achieved.

“The IDF won’t admit this, but the Northern Command completed the mission it was given by the political leadership two weeks ago, on schedule. That mission was to remove the threat of an … invasion of the Galilee,” wrote Yoav Zitun in the Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth.

The airstrikes in Gaza on Sunday came amid Israeli offensives in Beit Lahiya and the nearby towns of Beit Hanoun and Jabaliya.

The tight siege of the three towns and a series of evacuation orders has raised widespread concerns that Israel intends to force civilian populations to leave the northernmost parts of Gaza and will not permit their return.

“Over the last weeks, conversations in Gaza have been intense about the so-called ‘Generals’ Plan’ … within the Israeli forces … which consists of wiping Palestinians off the northern part of Gaza by either killing them, forcing them out, or starving to death those who stay,” Médecins Sans Frontières said on Friday.

“The way the ongoing offensive in the north is being waged … reinforces the idea that we are witnessing the execution of this plan,” the NGO added.

Israel denies any such intention and says the offensives, launched last month, are an effort to prevent Hamas from regrouping in areas that have been cleared in previous multiple rounds of combat.

Earlier on Sunday, an Israeli airstrike killed at least 10 people in the Bureij refugee camp in central Gaza, when a missile hit a house, medics said. Four other people were reported to have been killed in the nearby Nuseirat camp.

On Saturday evening, an Israeli airstrike on a UN-run school sheltering displaced people killed 10 and wounded 20 others, the Palestinian news agency Wafa reported.

Israel’s military, which has accused Hamas repeatedly of using civilians as human shields, said it struck a command centre of the militant Islamist organisation in the compound.

The war in Gaza began after Palestinian militants from Hamas and other armed groups launched a surprise attack into southern Israel in October last year, killing about 1,200 people – mostly civilians – and abducting 250 others.

About 100 hostages are thought to be still inside Gaza, about a third of whom are believed to be dead. Israelis rallied again in Tel Aviv on Saturday night to demand a ceasefire deal to return the hostages.

The Gaza health ministry said 43,799 people have been confirmed dead in Gaza since the war began. More than half of identified casualties have been women or children.

Israel launched its offensive against Hezbollah in Lebanon to allow an estimated 60,000 Israelis to return to homes near the border evacuated in the first days of the war for fear of attack and bombardment by the militant Islamist group.

Although Hezbollah’s capabilities have been significantly reduced, it has continued to fire rockets and missiles into Israel since the beginning of the conflict in Gaza.

Israel’s military said on Saturday that Hezbollah had fired more than 80 projectiles across the border that day. Most were intercepted or did not cause injuries but a synagogue was struck and two civilians were wounded in a “heavy rocket barrage” by Hezbollah on Haifa, northern Israel’s largest city. Police said the civilians’ injuries were light. Hezbollah said it fired missiles at five Israeli military facilities in Haifa and its suburbs.

More than 3,400 people have been killed in Lebanon by Israeli fire, 80% of them in the past eight weeks, according to the Lebanese health ministry. Israel’s military said a soldier died in combat in southern Lebanon on Friday.

By the beginning of November, more than 60 people have been killed in northern Israel and the occupied Golan Heights by Hezbollah attacks in almost 13 months of the conflict. Many more injured have been injured.

Hezbollah, which is backed by Iran, has previously linked any ceasefire in the north to an end to the Israeli offensive in Gaza, though some analysts now believe the group may consider a separate deal.

A copy of a draft proposal presented by the US earlier this week was handed over to the speaker of Lebanon’s parliament, Nabih Berri, who has been negotiating on behalf of Hezbollah, according to a Lebanese official. The proposal is based on UN security council resolution 1701, which ended the last Israel-Hezbollah war in 2006.

Reuters and AP contributed reporting

Governments meeting to forge a global settlement on climate finance must get over their differences this week and come to a deal – because if talks carry on until next year they stand little chance with Donald Trump in the White House, the German development minister has said.

Jochen Flasbarth, one of the most influential ministers at the UN Cop29 summit, said that if the final days of the summit did not produce a breakthrough countries would face a much tougher prospect.

“Postponing the decision here to Belém [the city in northern Brazil where next year’s UN climate summit will be held] is not something advisable,” he told the Guardian. “We have an increasing crisis in the world, war in the world, and countries disappearing from global solidarity like the US, and the departure of the Argentinian delegation. These are clear signals that we will get in difficult times.”

Two weeks of talks on climate finance are scheduled to end on Friday, with many developing countries frustrated at what they believed was a lack of progress in the first week of the Cop29 summit in Azerbaijain. Poorer countries want at least $1tn a year to help them cut greenhouse gas emissions and cope with the impacts of extreme weather.

Rich countries have not yet put a figure on how much they will be prepared to contribute. A study last week by leading economists suggested that about $500bn should come from the private sector, and about $250bn from multilateral development banks such as the World Bank.

The direct provision of grants and loans from developed to developing countries needs to roughly double, from about $40bn today, they found. However, higher income countries have not yet agreed to that.

The talks have also been beset by controversy over the influence of fossil fuel companies. Oil and gas make up 90% of Azerbaijan’s exports, and were described by the country’s president, Ilham Aliyev, in the opening ceremony as a “gift of God”. Fossil fuel lobbyists at Cop29 outnumber the delegations of the 10 most vulnerable countries, and have been given “red carpet” treatment. A group of senior voices on the climate, including a former UN secretary general, a former UN climate chief, and a former UN climate envoy, wrote to the UN last week calling for reforms to the process of Cops – which stands for “conference of the parties” under the 1992 UN framework convention on climate change.

Flasbarth is a respected figure on climate finance, having taken charge previously of the key issue of ensuring that developed countries met their previous target of providing $100bn a year for poorer countries, a target that was supposed to be met in 2020 but was finally met two years late.

Mohamed Adow, the director of the Power Shift Africa thinktank, said: “We need Flasbarth to be working with other developed country ministers to resolve the climate finance stalemate. The world expects a clear signal of the financing of climate action from Baku, and we can’t afford to fail in that task here in Baku because of the fear of a Trump presidency. It’s important we don’t just accept a bad deal here out of fear of the incoming Trump administration.”

Another sticking point for rich countries is ensuring that emerging economies with big carbon footprints, such as China – the world’s biggest emitter and second biggest economy – also contribute to providing help for the poorest.

China has made pledges to continue to provide “south-south” assistance to poorer countries, which Flasbarth said were “appreciated”. But he also called on the government in Beijing to account for such finances more clearly as it is impossible to evaluate them given how little information China publishes on its activities.

“We believe that this is the point in time to be more transparent about it,” he said. “We don’t have any doubts that they are doing something substantial, but it’s a black box, and there is a desire to better understand what they are doing.”

He said developed countries were already held to high standards on proving they were fulfilling their pledges. China would not need to meet the same standards, he indicated, but should provide more information, perhaps to an external body such as the UN. “There needs to be a neutral place where we are all reporting so that parties can understand what we are doing,” he said. “We are not making a black and white request, we can discuss it.”

“The G77 and China have always requested that the old developed countries should be very transparent about what we are paying, what parts are grants, what parts are loans, how do we count, to whom do we channel aid, what is on mitigation, what is on adaptation,” he said. “We are not requesting something unreasonable.”

Germany is in the midst of a political crisis as the chancellor, Olaf Scholz, faces the potential dissolution of his governing coalition. Flasbarth said he had “no doubt” that the next government, of whatever stripe, would continue to meet the country’s obligations on climate finance, and increase them in future. “I cannot imagine that the future administration would step away from that, or [from] increased commitments,” he said.

Flasbarth was upbeat on the talks, but others have spoken of “frustration” and a “vacuum”. He said: “I’m quite positive that we can reach an agreement here. We are building up something credible.”

He said a Cop focused on finance was always going to be difficult. “Some people are worried because this is economically an issue of distribution, and this is always not easy. But I see some positive signals.”

Russia fired more than 200 missile and drones across Ukraine overnight and in the early morning, killing seven people, as Moscow targeted the country’s energy grid in an effort to disrupt power supply as winter looms.

Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Ukraine’s president, said about 120 missiles and 90 drones were launched by Russia and that two people were killed and six wounded in a drone strike on the southern city of Mykolaiv.

It was the biggest missile and drone attack on Ukraine since August and the first major Russian assault since the US election, showing the Kremlin in little mood to compromise after the victory of Donald Trump.

There were reports of attacks on critical infrastructure in the regions of Lviv, Ivano-Frankivsk and Rivne in the west as well as in Kriyvi Rih and Vinnytsia in central Ukraine, Odesa in the south and the capital, Kyiv.

Poland and Nato allies scrambled jets to safeguard its airspace in border areas early on Sunday, the country’s operational military command said, returning to their bases about three hours later without apparent incident.

The Ukrainian president described the bombing as the work of “Russian terrorists” and said Russia had fired Kinzhal, Iskander and Zircon missiles as well as Shaheed drones. “Our air defence forces destroyed more than 140 air targets,” he added.

The Ukrainian air force said later the 144 incoming objects were brought down, including 102 of the 120 missiles and 42 of the 90 drones. A further 41 drones were lost, presumed brought down by jamming, and two flew towards Russia or occupied territories.

Andrii Sybiha, the country’s foreign minister, said: “Russia launched one of the largest air attacks: drones and missiles against peaceful cities, sleeping civilians, critical infrastructure.”

Other reports said two rail workers were killed after a depot was hit in Nikopol, while another person was reported dead and two injured in Lviv oblast, according to local officials. Two people were also killed in Odesa, the regional governor announced.

Power cuts were reported around the country though it was unclear how serious the damage was as some outages were deliberate to protect the wider network from surges. It is the eighth time Ukraine’s power grid has been targeted this year, the energy company Dtek said, but the first at the onset of winter.

Several explosions could be heard in Kyiv shortly after 7am, and in the capital’s Pechersk district one woman was reported hospitalised after a residential building was hit by a drone fragment, while a second person was treated on site.

The city’s mayor, Vitalli Klitschko, said rocket fragments and drone debris had also fallen in other parts of the city, but there were no reports of casualties or damage from the incidents.

F-16 fighters, donated from Europe, were scrambled as part of the country’s defence shooting down 10 “aerial targets”, Zelenskyy said, which also involved Soviet-made Sukhoi and MiG fighters as well as ground defence teams.

A former pre-school teacher, Nataliya Grabarchuck, shot down a Russian cruise missile with an Igla surface to air interceptor with her first shot, Ukraine’s military said. It was her first “combat launch”, the country’s armed forces said.

Sybiha described the strike as Moscow’s “true response” to leaders who had interacted with President Vladimir Putin, an apparent swipe at the German chancellor, Olaf Scholz, who placed a phone call to the Russian leader on Friday for the first time since December 2022.

On Friday evening, after the call, the Kremlin released its account of the discussion, in which Putin gave little sign of abandoning his maximalist war demands, including demanding that Ukraine walks away from the west and accepts the Russian occupation of about a sixth of its territory.

The Russian president “reiterated that the current crisis was a direct result of Nato’s long-standing aggressive policy aimed at creating a staging ground against Russia on Ukrainian soil, while showing disregard for Russia’s security concerns and trampling on the rights of Russian-speaking residents of Ukraine”.

Negotiations should address these security concerns, the Kremlin added, and “rest on the new territorial realities” – a reference to the Russian occupation of the east and south of Ukraine – and to “eliminate the original causes of the conflict”.

In an interview with Ukraine’s Suspilne radio released on Saturday, Zelenskyy said he hoped the war would end in 2025. Victory, he said, would amount to “a strong Ukraine” emerging either on the battlefield or through diplomacy, though he was not specific in how that might be achieved.

The president also insisted that the US under Trump could not force Ukraine into a humiliating or unattractive peace settlement. “We are an independent country,” Zelenskyy said, and that “the rhetoric of ‘sit down and listen’ does not work with us”.

In response, Elon Musk, the billionaire adviser to Trump, sought to undercut the Ukrainian president. “His sense of humour is amazing,” Musk posted on X. His Space X company provides Starlink satellite internet services of critical importance to Ukraine for battlefield communications.

Elon Musk has publicly weighed in on Donald Trump’s choice for US treasury secretary, one of the remaining key incoming cabinet nominations the president-elect will make in the coming days.

Musk urged followers on X to support a candidate that would not be “business as usual” and “will actually enact change” as he threw his support behind Trump’s transition co-chair Howard Lutnick to lead the treasury department.

Lutnick, former CEO of Cantor Fitzgerald, a firm that lost 658 employees in the 9/11 attacks, is believed to be up against Scott Bessent, the founder of capital management firm Key Square who has said he wants the US to remain the world’s reserve currency and use tariffs as a negotiating tactic.

“My view fwiw is that Bessent is a business-as-usual choice, whereas @howardlutnick will actually enact change,” Musk posted on Saturday. “Business-as-usual is driving America bankrupt, so we need change one way or another.”

Musk urged his followers to “weigh in on this for Donald Trump to consider feedback”.

Lutnick told the Wall Street Journal recently that whomever Trump hires will “be loyal to the policies of the president”, telling the outlet: “For my whole life I was a fiscal conservative, social liberal … The Democratic Party moved away from me.”

Both Lutnick and Bessent are supportive of Trump’s trade tariff polices, a tactic he used against China during his first term. “Tariffs are a means to finally stand up for Americans,” Bessent wrote in an op-ed on Fox News on Friday.

But both candidates argue that lowering taxes would offset the higher import costs and promote economic growth.

But some economists have warned that tariffs could weaken growth, boost inflation and lower employment. A recent paper by the Peterson Institute for International Economics predicted inflation would climb to at least 6% by 2026, and consumer prices would be 20% higher over the next four years.

Musk’s intervention in the battle between Lutnick and Bessent for the key post – one who advises the president on economic and fiscal matters, including spending and taxes – comes amid anxiety over the space and transport entrepreneur’s proximity to Trump.

Musk, the world’s wealthiest person, is set to co-chair an advisory department, the department of government efficiency, or Doge, in the new administration to cut departments and reduce as much as $2tn wasteful federal spending.

According to the Washington Post, some in Trump’s circle expressed surprise that Musk would weigh in on the choice of treasury secretary. “People are not happy,” one said, according to the outlet, adding that Musk was acting as a “co-president”.

Musk, who spent more than $100m in support of Trump’s campaign, has been a near constant presence around the president-elect, including sitting in with Trump on a call with Ukraine president Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

On Saturday, Musk appeared to mock Zelenskyy’s claim Ukraine is an independent country that could not be forced to the negotiating table with Russia, posting on X that the Ukrainian leader’s “sense of humor is amazing”.

Musk and Trump later on Saturday sat together ringside at New York’s Madison Square Garden, site of a widely-criticized pre-election rally, for a UFC title fight. Alongside them were house speaker Mike Johnson, Robert F Kennedy Jr, Joe Rogan, Tulsi Gabbard, and Vivek Ramaswamy, who is set to head Doge with Musk.

Elon Musk has publicly weighed in on Donald Trump’s choice for US treasury secretary, one of the remaining key incoming cabinet nominations the president-elect will make in the coming days.

Musk urged followers on X to support a candidate that would not be “business as usual” and “will actually enact change” as he threw his support behind Trump’s transition co-chair Howard Lutnick to lead the treasury department.

Lutnick, former CEO of Cantor Fitzgerald, a firm that lost 658 employees in the 9/11 attacks, is believed to be up against Scott Bessent, the founder of capital management firm Key Square who has said he wants the US to remain the world’s reserve currency and use tariffs as a negotiating tactic.

“My view fwiw is that Bessent is a business-as-usual choice, whereas @howardlutnick will actually enact change,” Musk posted on Saturday. “Business-as-usual is driving America bankrupt, so we need change one way or another.”

Musk urged his followers to “weigh in on this for Donald Trump to consider feedback”.

Lutnick told the Wall Street Journal recently that whomever Trump hires will “be loyal to the policies of the president”, telling the outlet: “For my whole life I was a fiscal conservative, social liberal … The Democratic Party moved away from me.”

Both Lutnick and Bessent are supportive of Trump’s trade tariff polices, a tactic he used against China during his first term. “Tariffs are a means to finally stand up for Americans,” Bessent wrote in an op-ed on Fox News on Friday.

But both candidates argue that lowering taxes would offset the higher import costs and promote economic growth.

But some economists have warned that tariffs could weaken growth, boost inflation and lower employment. A recent paper by the Peterson Institute for International Economics predicted inflation would climb to at least 6% by 2026, and consumer prices would be 20% higher over the next four years.

Musk’s intervention in the battle between Lutnick and Bessent for the key post – one who advises the president on economic and fiscal matters, including spending and taxes – comes amid anxiety over the space and transport entrepreneur’s proximity to Trump.

Musk, the world’s wealthiest person, is set to co-chair an advisory department, the department of government efficiency, or Doge, in the new administration to cut departments and reduce as much as $2tn wasteful federal spending.

According to the Washington Post, some in Trump’s circle expressed surprise that Musk would weigh in on the choice of treasury secretary. “People are not happy,” one said, according to the outlet, adding that Musk was acting as a “co-president”.

Musk, who spent more than $100m in support of Trump’s campaign, has been a near constant presence around the president-elect, including sitting in with Trump on a call with Ukraine president Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

On Saturday, Musk appeared to mock Zelenskyy’s claim Ukraine is an independent country that could not be forced to the negotiating table with Russia, posting on X that the Ukrainian leader’s “sense of humor is amazing”.

Musk and Trump later on Saturday sat together ringside at New York’s Madison Square Garden, site of a widely-criticized pre-election rally, for a UFC title fight. Alongside them were house speaker Mike Johnson, Robert F Kennedy Jr, Joe Rogan, Tulsi Gabbard, and Vivek Ramaswamy, who is set to head Doge with Musk.

lf Donald Trump follows through on his promise to pardon people who participated in the January 6 riot at the US Capitol, attorneys and lawmakers who oppose such moves would not be able to stop him, according to legal experts.

If Trump does issue the pardons, it could indicate to many of his supporters that there was nothing illegal about the riot to prevent the peaceful transfer of power, and would undermine the US constitution, the experts said.

“It gives the message that Trump decides what is and is not actionable under the criminal laws of the United States,” said Kimberly Wehle, a professor at the University of Baltimore School of Law who has studied constitutional law and the separation of powers.

Trump, who has not conceded that he lost the 2020 presidential election, described the insurrection as a “day of love” and calls the rioters “unbelievable patriots”. Those people, however, damaged the Capitol; injured about 140 police officers – four officers who responded have also since died by suicide – and the FBI declared it an act of “domestic terrorism”.

The federal government has filed criminal charges against more than 1,500 people. More than 1,000 people have pleaded guilty or been found guilty. The FBI is also still searching for people who allegedly participated in the attack.

During his campaign, Trump said that issuing “full pardons with an apology to many” would be a top priority.

Presidents issuing pardons is nothing new, and they are allowed to do so under the constitution. The long list includes President George Washington, who issued a presidential pardon in 1795 to people engaged in Pennsylvania’s Whiskey Rebellion; President Gerald Ford, who gave his predecessor, Richard Nixon, “a full, free, and absolute pardon” for crimes he committed as president; and President Bill Clinton, who pardoned Marc Rich, a fugitive financier who fled the United States after his indictment.

“There are many parties that could be criticized historically by those who think that someone was not deserving of that type of dispensation,” said Mary McCord, a former federal prosecutor who is executive director of the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection.

“The difference here is we are talking about over 1,500 people whose efforts, individually and collectively, were not just violent … [they] also were done with the intent to prevent Congress from certifying the electoral college ballots and thereby override the will of the voters.”

Since Trump’s election, people convicted of crimes because of their actions on January 6 have said they look forward to pardons. Attorneys for defendants who have not been sentenced have also asked judges to delay court proceedings because of Trump’s pledges to abandon criminal prosecutions.

Among those expressing excitement was Timothy Hale-Cusanelli, a security guard at a naval base who was one of the first people to enter the Capitol. He was convicted of obstructing an official proceeding and was sentenced to four years in prison.

Hale-Cusanelli also expressed support for Hitler and spoke at Trump’s golf club in New Jersey as part of a fundraiser for January 6 defendants, National Public Radio reported.

Trump delivered a video message to attenders in which he called them “amazing patriots”.

“I spent three years behind bars for protesting against Biden’s rigged election,” said Hale-Cusanelli, who had previously expressed remorse for his actions, the Washington Post reported. “I waited patiently for this day … All my dudes from the Gulag are coming home from prison … We were innocent on January 6 and we’re still innocent!”

Prosecutors, judges and lawmakers would not be able to prevent Trump from taking such actions because article 2 of the constitution gives presidents the right to pardon all “offenses against the United States”, except cases of impeachment.

The supreme court gave the president additional authority in July when it ruled in a case concerning Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election that presidents enjoy substantial immunity for actions that fall within the scope of the office’s “core constitutional powers”.

That would probably give the president immunity even if he provided a pardon in exchange for a bribe, Wehle said. The court ruled that “any crime that the president commits using official power is above the law and said very specifically that the pardon power is core, so you can’t look into a reason for the pardon”.

Still, there is also the chance that public opinion could influence Trump. While Trump resoundingly defeated Kamala Harris, only a third of Americans support such pardons, according to a recent YouGov and Economist survey. About a quarter of Republicans oppose the pardons.

During the campaign, a spokesperson said Trump would consider pardoning January 6 defendants on a “case-by-case basis when he is back in the White House”.

McCord argued that most people who voted for Trump did so for economic reasons rather than the January 6 issues.

“There is nothing in the polling I have seen to suggest that the majority of those who voted for Trump did so because of his campaign promises of political prosecutions and pardons for the January 6 attackers,” McCord said.

If Trump follows through on his promise to pardon the rioters, he could later face consequences, including impeachment by Congress, said Jeffrey Crouch, an American University assistant professor and expert on federal executive clemency.

“There may be political consequences for the president or their political party at the ballot box,” Crouch said. “Plus, the president always needs to keep the judgment of history in mind.”

Wehle said she was more concerned about some of Trump’s other recent moves, like demanding the Senate allow recess appointments, which would mean he could install officials without the lawmakers’ confirmation, and Elon Musk joining Trump’s call with the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky.

Wehle said: “With Republican sycophants willing to sell out the entire constitution and democracy, which seems to be Donald Trump’s unabashed, unmitigated, publicly stated plan, we’re in very deep water right now on the question of whether our system of government will survive the next four years.”

Germany’s pro-business Free Democrats, who collapsed Olaf Scholz’s governing coalition earlier this month in a dispute over the budget, reportedly plotted their exit weeks before the final split, referring to their plans internally as “D-day”.

Newspapers Die Zeit and Süddeutsche Zeitung reported that the FDP had intended from at least September to force a situation that would provoke the German chancellor into pulling the plug on his tripartite coalition.

The timing of the collapse, on the same day Donald Trump was declared as the victor of the US presidential elections, sent shock waves across Europe, especially when Germany was being looked to for stability, leadership and continuity.

It came earlier this month when Scholz sacked his finance minister Christian Lindner, the FDP leader, following his presentation of an 18-page ultimatum that would have upended many of the three-year-old administration’s policies.

All but one of the other FDP ministers in the government resigned subsequently, leading to the governmental collapse.

According to the newspapers’ research, the FDP first hatched the “D-day” plans at a meeting in a prominent Potsdam villa at the end of September, honing them at several subsequent meetings. Lindner’s list of demands was referred to as the “torpedo”.

Lindner has dismissed the accusations as “election campaign hullabaloo”.

The government collapse has sparked a political crisis in Europe’s largest economy, at a time when it is dealing with considerable economic difficulties and growing internal strife over how to tackle significant issues such as Russia’s war with Ukraine and the climate emergency. Early elections are due to take place on 23 February, more than seven months ahead of schedule, after a vote of confidence in Scholz in December, which he is expected to lose.

Rolf Mützenich, the parliamentary head of Scholz’s SPD, was among those to criticise Lindner. He said the party’s use of the term D-day, which refers to Europe’s liberation from the Nazis, “for its own political enactment … shows how far Mr Lindner has fallen. It shows how right and important it was for Olaf Scholz to have turfed out this disreputable man.”

Lindner and the FDP have rejected the claims. “It’s electioneering,” he said. “Where’s the news? Olaf Scholz has himself admitted that he had already been considering my dismissal back in the summer. And of course without any economic reform the FDP would have been forced to leave the coalition.”

Donald Trump said on Saturday that Chris Wright, an oil and gas industry executive and a staunch defender of fossil fuel use, would be his pick to lead the US Department of Energy.

Wright is the founder and CEO of Liberty Energy, an oilfield services firm based in Denver, Colorado. He is expected to support Trump’s plan to maximize production of oil and gas and to seek ways to boost generation of electricity, demand for which is rising for the first time in decades.

He is also likely to share Trump’s opposition to global cooperation on fighting climate change. Wright has called climate change activists alarmist and has likened efforts by Democrats to combat global warming to Soviet-style communism.

“There is no climate crisis, and we’re not in the midst of an energy transition, either,” Wright said in a video posted to his LinkedIn profile last year.

Wright, who does not have any political experience, has written extensively on the need for more fossil fuel production to lift people out of poverty.

He has stood out among oil and gas executives for his freewheeling style, and describes himself as a tech nerd.

Wright made a media splash in 2019 when he drank fracking fluid on camera to demonstrate it was not dangerous.

US oil output hit the highest level any country has ever produced under Biden, and it is uncertain how much Wright and the incoming administration could boost that.

Most drilling decisions are driven by private companies working on land not owned by the federal government.

The Department of Energy handles US energy diplomacy, administers the Strategic Petroleum Reserve – which Trump has said he wants to replenish – and runs grant and loan programs to advance energy technologies, such as the Loan Programs Office.

The secretary also oversees the aging US nuclear weapons complex, nuclear energy waste disposal and 17 national labs.

If confirmed by the Senate, Wright will replace Jennifer Granholm, a supporter of electric vehicles and emerging energy sources like geothermal power, and a backer of carbon-free wind, solar and nuclear energy.

Wright will also likely be involved in the permitting of electricity transmission and the expansion of nuclear power, an energy source that is popular with both Republicans and Democrats but which is expensive and complicated to permit.

Power demand in the United States is surging for the first time in two decades amid growth in artificial intelligence, electric vehicles and cryptocurrencies.

Trump also announced on Saturday that he had picked one of his personal attorneys, Will Scharf, to serve as his White House staff secretary. Scharf is a former federal prosecutor who was a member of Trump’s legal team in his successful attempt to get broad immunity from prosecution from the supreme court.

Writing on Twitter the day after Trump’s election, Scharf greeted the news that Jack Smith, the special counsel who indicted the former president for his attempt to subvert the 2020 election, was winding down the Trump case and planned to resign with the words, “Bye Jack.”

Significant “social ruptures” between people who think artificial intelligence systems are conscious and those who insist the technology feels nothing are looming, a leading philosopher has said.

The comments, from Jonathan Birch, a professor of philosophy at the London School of Economics, come as governments prepare to gather this week in San Francisco to accelerate the creation of guardrails to tackle the most severe risks of AI.

Last week, a transatlantic group of academics predicted that the dawn of consciousness in AI systems is likely by 2035 and one has now said this could result in “subcultures that view each other as making huge mistakes” about whether computer programmes are owed similar welfare rights as humans or animals.

Birch said he was “worried about major societal splits”, as people differ over whether AI systems are actually capable of feelings such as pain and joy.

The debate about the consequence of sentience in AI has echoes of science fiction films, such as Steven Spielberg’s AI (2001) and Spike Jonze’s Her (2013), in which humans grapple with the feeling of AIs. AI safety bodies from the US, UK and other nations will meet tech companies this week to develop stronger safety frameworks as the technology rapidly advances.

There are already significant differences between how different countries and religions view animal sentience, such as between India, where hundreds of millions of people are vegetarian, and America which is one of the largest consumers of meat in the world. Views on the sentience of AI could break along similar lines, while the view of theocracies, like Saudi Arabia, which is positioning itself as an AI hub, could also differ from secular states. The issue could also cause tensions within families with people who develop close relationships with chatbots, or even AI avatars of deceased loved ones, clashing with relatives who believe that only flesh and blood creatures have consciousness.

Birch, an expert in animal sentience who has pioneered work leading to a growing number of bans on octopus farming, was a co-author of a study involving academics and AI experts from New York University, Oxford University, Stanford University and the Eleos and Anthropic AI companies that says the prospect of AI systems with their own interests and moral significance “is no longer an issue only for sci-fi or the distant future”.

They want the big tech firms developing AI to start taking it seriously by determining the sentience of their systems to assess if their models are capable of happiness and suffering, and whether they can be benefited or harmed.

“I’m quite worried about major societal splits over this,” Birch said. “We’re going to have subcultures that view each other as making huge mistakes … [there could be] huge social ruptures where one side sees the other as very cruelly exploiting AI while the other side sees the first as deluding itself into thinking there’s sentience there.”

But he said AI firms “want a really tight focus on the reliability and profitability … and they don’t want to get sidetracked by this debate about whether they might be creating more than a product but actually creating a new form of conscious being. That question, of supreme interest to philosophers, they have commercial reasons to downplay.”

One method of determining how conscious an AI is could be to follow the system of markers used to guide policy about animals. For example, an octopus is considered to have greater sentience than a snail or an oyster.

Any assessment would effectively ask if a chatbot on your phone could actually be happy or sad or if the robots programmed to do your domestic chores suffer if you do not treat them well. Consideration would even need to be given to whether an automated warehouse system had the capacity to feel thwarted.

Another author, Patrick Butlin, research fellow at Oxford University’s Global Priorities Institute, said: “We might identify a risk that an AI system would try to resist us in a way that would be dangerous for humans” and there might be an argument to “slow down AI development” until more work is done on consciousness.

“These kinds of assessments of potential consciousness aren’t happening at the moment,” he said.

Microsoft and Perplexity, two leading US companies involved in building AI systems, declined to comment on the academics’ call to assess their models for sentience. Meta, Open AI and Google also did not respond.

Not all experts agree on the looming consciousness of AI systems. Anil Seth, a leading neuroscientist and consciousness researcher, has said it “remains far away and might not be possible at all. But even if unlikely, it is unwise to dismiss the possibility altogether”.

He distinguishes between intelligence and consciousness. The former is the ability to do the right thing at the right time, the latter is a state in which we are not just processing information but “our minds are filled with light, colour, shade and shapes. Emotions, thoughts, beliefs, intentions – all feel a particular way to us.”

But AI large-language models, trained on billions of words of human writing, have already started to show they can be motivated at least by concepts of pleasure and pain. When AIs including Chat GPT-4o were tasked with maximising points in a game, researchers found that if there was a trade-off included between getting more points and “feeling” more pain, the AIs would make it, another study published last week showed.

Significant “social ruptures” between people who think artificial intelligence systems are conscious and those who insist the technology feels nothing are looming, a leading philosopher has said.

The comments, from Jonathan Birch, a professor of philosophy at the London School of Economics, come as governments prepare to gather this week in San Francisco to accelerate the creation of guardrails to tackle the most severe risks of AI.

Last week, a transatlantic group of academics predicted that the dawn of consciousness in AI systems is likely by 2035 and one has now said this could result in “subcultures that view each other as making huge mistakes” about whether computer programmes are owed similar welfare rights as humans or animals.

Birch said he was “worried about major societal splits”, as people differ over whether AI systems are actually capable of feelings such as pain and joy.

The debate about the consequence of sentience in AI has echoes of science fiction films, such as Steven Spielberg’s AI (2001) and Spike Jonze’s Her (2013), in which humans grapple with the feeling of AIs. AI safety bodies from the US, UK and other nations will meet tech companies this week to develop stronger safety frameworks as the technology rapidly advances.

There are already significant differences between how different countries and religions view animal sentience, such as between India, where hundreds of millions of people are vegetarian, and America which is one of the largest consumers of meat in the world. Views on the sentience of AI could break along similar lines, while the view of theocracies, like Saudi Arabia, which is positioning itself as an AI hub, could also differ from secular states. The issue could also cause tensions within families with people who develop close relationships with chatbots, or even AI avatars of deceased loved ones, clashing with relatives who believe that only flesh and blood creatures have consciousness.

Birch, an expert in animal sentience who has pioneered work leading to a growing number of bans on octopus farming, was a co-author of a study involving academics and AI experts from New York University, Oxford University, Stanford University and the Eleos and Anthropic AI companies that says the prospect of AI systems with their own interests and moral significance “is no longer an issue only for sci-fi or the distant future”.

They want the big tech firms developing AI to start taking it seriously by determining the sentience of their systems to assess if their models are capable of happiness and suffering, and whether they can be benefited or harmed.

“I’m quite worried about major societal splits over this,” Birch said. “We’re going to have subcultures that view each other as making huge mistakes … [there could be] huge social ruptures where one side sees the other as very cruelly exploiting AI while the other side sees the first as deluding itself into thinking there’s sentience there.”

But he said AI firms “want a really tight focus on the reliability and profitability … and they don’t want to get sidetracked by this debate about whether they might be creating more than a product but actually creating a new form of conscious being. That question, of supreme interest to philosophers, they have commercial reasons to downplay.”

One method of determining how conscious an AI is could be to follow the system of markers used to guide policy about animals. For example, an octopus is considered to have greater sentience than a snail or an oyster.

Any assessment would effectively ask if a chatbot on your phone could actually be happy or sad or if the robots programmed to do your domestic chores suffer if you do not treat them well. Consideration would even need to be given to whether an automated warehouse system had the capacity to feel thwarted.

Another author, Patrick Butlin, research fellow at Oxford University’s Global Priorities Institute, said: “We might identify a risk that an AI system would try to resist us in a way that would be dangerous for humans” and there might be an argument to “slow down AI development” until more work is done on consciousness.

“These kinds of assessments of potential consciousness aren’t happening at the moment,” he said.

Microsoft and Perplexity, two leading US companies involved in building AI systems, declined to comment on the academics’ call to assess their models for sentience. Meta, Open AI and Google also did not respond.

Not all experts agree on the looming consciousness of AI systems. Anil Seth, a leading neuroscientist and consciousness researcher, has said it “remains far away and might not be possible at all. But even if unlikely, it is unwise to dismiss the possibility altogether”.

He distinguishes between intelligence and consciousness. The former is the ability to do the right thing at the right time, the latter is a state in which we are not just processing information but “our minds are filled with light, colour, shade and shapes. Emotions, thoughts, beliefs, intentions – all feel a particular way to us.”

But AI large-language models, trained on billions of words of human writing, have already started to show they can be motivated at least by concepts of pleasure and pain. When AIs including Chat GPT-4o were tasked with maximising points in a game, researchers found that if there was a trade-off included between getting more points and “feeling” more pain, the AIs would make it, another study published last week showed.

Kemi Badenoch’s personal approval ratings at the start of her Tory leadership are worse than those recorded by Rishi Sunak and Boris Johnson at the start of their reigns, according to the latest Opinium poll for the Observer.

The new Tory leader’s net approval rating – the difference between those who approve or disapprove of the job she is doing – sits at -5%. The only former party leader of the past five years that she beats in terms of her starting popularity is Liz Truss, whose first approval rating was -9% after she won the leadership.

Badenoch’s net approvals show that she has divided voters, with 20% approving of her and 25% disapproving. About 46% of voters who backed the Tories at the last election say they approve of her, though a third (36%) say they feel neutral. Her approval rating is still far better than the -22% score endured by Sunak at the end of his leadership.

Meanwhile, Keir Starmer’s approval rating is low at -24 points, but unchanged from the last poll a fortnight ago. However, he leads Badenoch by 12 percentage points when voters are asked who they regard as the best prime minister. Two weeks ago, when Sunak was still Conservative leader, the gap was seven points.

Voters do seem to be aware of Badenoch’s reputation as someone with strong convictions – a quality that recommended her to many Tory MPs, but worried others. Early in her time as leader, voters perceive her as sticking to her principles, being brave and being decisive. The largest gap between Badenoch and Starmer is on bravery, with her net score of +8 contrasting with Starmer’s net score of -19%.

It is also the first Opinium poll since president-elect Donald Trump’s US election victory. His return appears to have polarised the UK electorate. Almost a third (30%) feel that Trump’s election is positive for the US, compared with 44% who see it as a bad development. Almost three-quarters (72%) still believe the UK and US have a lot in common, but only 56% consider the country an ally.

More than two in five (43%) think the UK should stand up for what we think is right, even if that means breaking with the US on key issues. Just over a third think the level of UK spending on defence and the armed forces is too low. Almost half of UK adults believe Trump’s re-election is a bad thing for Ukraine.

James Crouch, head of policy and public affairs research at Opinium, said: “Day-to-day British politics has been overshadowed by the re-election of Donald Trump, which Brits see as good news for rivals like Russia and bad news for Ukraine. However, there’s no sign yet that the public will be pressuring the Labour government to increase defence spending, with two in five opposed to any further tax rises to fund it.”

Opinium polled 2,050 voters online from 11-13 November.

It’s Mary Tudor – by a nose. Not in a horse race, but from a comparison of portraits of Mary, Henry VIII’s elder daughter who became the first crowned queen of England, and Katherine Parr, his sixth wife.

For decades, experts, including the noted historian and museum director Sir Roy Strong, have thought that a near 500-year-old miniature was of Parr. Now several leading Tudor authorities are convinced it is Mary, often dubbed “Bloody Mary” because as an ardent Catholic queen she ordered the killing of many Protestants.

Just look at the noses of the two women, argues the art historian Emma Rutherford. “Mary’s, frankly, was rather bulbous and upturned, while Parr’s was more aquiline.”

Rutherford’s conclusion, backed by vital new evidence about dress and jewelry items, is timely since Mary has a significant role in the BBC1 adaptation of Hilary Mantel’s Wolf Hall: The Mirror and the Light, where she is played by Lilit Lesser. This is Mary in her twenties, six or seven years younger than in the 1540s miniature, but a woman whose father Henry regards her as a “bastard” following the annulment of his marriage to Catherine of Aragon.

Rutherford became doubtful that this portrait was of Parr while curating a new exhibition, The Reflected Self: Portrait Miniatures, at Compton Verney House, Warwickshire. She initially made comparisons with other portraits of the two royal women. The most noted of Parr is Master John’s full length picture, owned by the National Portrait Gallery (NPG), while there is a miniature at Sudeley Castle where she died and is buried. The best known of Mary, though as queen in the 1550s, are by Antonis Mor in the Prado museum, Madrid, and by Hans Eworth, also in the NPG.

“Both Mary and Katherine had reddish hair and blueish eyes, and were a similar age of around 30 when this miniature was done,” says Rutherford. “Hence some confusion. They wore similar clothes too, though Parr’s were usually more dressy. But the noses are clearly different.” Historian Dr Owen Emmerson, who is also an advisor on the BBC series, agrees with Rutherford. “Mary’s is retrousse while Katherine’s is straight.”

There are other vital, just discovered, clues. Nicola Tallis, a 16th century jewelry expert, noticed that the cross, which the sitter is wearing in the Compton Verney portrait, is similar to one she has on in a small portrait in the NPG, attributed to the Horenbout family. It has four diamonds and three pearl pendants.

Then Emmerson, searching Mary’s royal expense records, found that on 20 July 1546 she was gifted from her father a black cross with five diamonds and three pearl pendants. This jewelled cross with pearls matches the one Mary is wearing in the miniature. Records also show that Mary had gifted some black silk to the artist Susanna Horenbout, part of her circle.

“We can now say with some certainty that Susanna painted Mary since her father Gerard Horenbout and brother Lucas were dead by the mid-1540s,” says Rutherford. “It’s exciting too – a woman painting a woman.” She dates the portrait to about 1546 when Mary was 30.

There is one final twist. Parr, who as queen consort petitioned Henry so that both his daughters, Mary and Elizabeth, could eventually accede to the throne, was also a great lover of the arts.

“So it is quite possible, and the timeline is right, that this miniature was actually commissioned by Katherine herself,” says Emmerson. It is ironic then that the portrait, so long thought to be Parr, is in fact Mary.

Sean “Diddy” Combs has tried to reach out to prospective witnesses and influence public opinion from jail in a bid to affect potential jurors for his upcoming sex-trafficking trial, prosecutors claimed in a court filing urging a judge to reject his latest bail request.

The government accusations were made late Friday in a Manhattan federal court filing that opposes the music mogul’s latest $50m bail proposal. A bail hearing is scheduled for next week.

Prosecutors wrote that a review of recorded jail calls made by Combs shows he has asked family members to reach out to potential victims and witnesses and has urged them to create “narratives” to influence the jury pool. They say he also has encouraged marketing strategies to sway public opinion.

“The defendant has shown repeatedly – even while in custody – that he will flagrantly and repeatedly flout rules in order to improperly impact the outcome of his case. The defendant has shown, in other words, that he cannot be trusted to abide by rules or conditions,” prosecutors wrote in a submission that contained redactions.

Prosecutors wrote that it could be inferred from his behavior that Combs wants to blackmail victims and witnesses into silence or into providing testimony helpful to his defense.

Lawyers for Combs did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Prosecutors said Combs, 55, began breaking rules almost as soon as he was detained at the Metropolitan detention center in Brooklyn after his September arrest.

He has pleaded not guilty to charges that he coerced and abused women for years with the aid of a network of associates and employees, while silencing victims through blackmail and violence, including kidnapping, arson and physical beatings.

Two judges have concluded he is a danger to the community and a risk to flee.

His lawyers recently made a third request for bail after the rejection of two previous attempts, including a $50m bail proposal.

In the request, they cited changed circumstances, including new evidence, which they said made it sensible to release Combs so he can better prepare for his 5 May trial.

But prosecutors said defense lawyers created their latest bail proposal using evidence prosecutors had turned over to them and that the material had already been known to defense lawyers when they made previous bail applications.

In their submission, prosecutors said Combs’ behavior in jail shows he must remain locked up.

For instance, they said, Combs has enlisted family members to plan and carry out a social media campaign around his birthday “with the intention of influencing the potential jury in this criminal proceeding”.

Combs encouraged his children to post a video to their social media accounts showing them gathered to celebrate his birthday, they said.

Afterward, he monitored the analytics, including audience engagement, from the jail and “explicitly discussed with his family how to ensure that the video had his desired effect on potential jury members in this case”, they said.

The government also alleged Combs during other calls made clear his intention to anonymously publish information that he thought would help his defense against the charges.

“The defendant’s efforts to obstruct the integrity of this proceeding also includes relentless efforts to contact potential witnesses, including victims of his abuse who could provide powerful testimony against him,” prosecutors wrote.

Swedes love sweets. So when an American TikToker sparked a craze for Swedish candy this year, there was pride that an important part of national culture was being recognised around the world. The Danes may have Ozempic but the Swedes have lördagsgodis – Saturday sweets – where families chew through more than 1kg of sticky treats in an evening.

That pride has given way to some irritation. Supplies of some Swedish sweets ran dry in the autumn due to the high demand in the US, South Korea and in Scandinavia. And there was another factor, an equally important Swedish tradition: the six-week summer holiday.

“The trend started to really increase during the spring but unfortunately we didn’t have enough safety stock before the summer,” said Niclas Arnelin, a director at Orkla, maker of the Bubs sweets which are now in short supply.

“During summer, we need to let people in the factory have their vacations by law, and we also close the factory for maintenance. We sold everything we produced over the summer. And after that we ran out.”

Bubs was forced to reduce to a “much slimmer assortment”, he said, reducing the number of types of sweets it makes in order to ramp up supply. Machines need to be reset to make different sweets, eating up production time, so focusing on just three lines allowed them to meet demand. Just about.

The craze began when Marygrace Graves, a New York marketer, filmed herself visiting BonBon, a confusingly-named Swedish sweet shop in Brooklyn, and indulging in some pick’n’mix – a pastime that is unfamiliar to most Americans, according to Arnelin.

Millions of views later, BonBon now has queues outside and Americans have adopted the term “candy salad”. A new firm, Skandy, is offering weekly deliveries of sweets in Britain. In Sweden, Bubs are being rationed out to shops in a Sweden-first policy and Swedes are asking visitors to see if they can find any at home.

“We have Bubs,” said Jonas Aurell, who runs ScandiKitchen in central London. “Like everyone we were struggling to get hold of it, but we work with the supplier.”

Aurell and his wife, Bronte, opened ScandiKitchen 17 years ago, partly because they were missing lördagsgodis.

“I couldn’t get my kilo a week,” he said. “Our main market is Scandinavian expats – when you’re homesick, the idea of getting some sweets is obviously a big thing for us.”

Lördagsgodis is an extension of another Scandinavian concept, lagom – not too little, not too much, says Bronte Aurell. “We’ve been brought up that you eat sweets once a week,” she said. “It’s alright to pig out, but you only do it once a week.”

As a Dane, Bronte prefers to do things slightly differently. “We do it on Fridays,” she said. “But it’s basically the same all over Scandinavia.”

The tradition began in the 1950s when the Swedish medical authorities were trying to combat rising tooth decay and said sugar should be eaten just once a week. The idea is now a cherished part of the culture.

“Lagom means you have a balance, you have personal responsibility,” she said. “If I’m going to have a cardamom bun for lunch, maybe I should have a salad for dinner.”

Downstairs at ScandiKitchen, the pick’n’mix display is tended by assistant manager Freja Haulrik, another Dane, who makes sure that the Salta Katten (salty liquorice cats), the Vattenmelon (watermelon jellies) and Amerikanska Pastiller (chocolate buttons) are properly arranged.

“It’s looking pretty good,” she says. “Over the summer we had no delivery for six weeks. You’ve caught us on a good day. Although,” she frowns and points at the box of liquorice chalks, “there are two liquorices next to each other.” She shakes her head. “You have to space it out.”