South Korea’s president, Yoon Suk Yeol, is facing calls to quit immediately or face impeachment after a short-lived attempt to bring in martial law triggered protests and political condemnation.

The liberal opposition Democratic Party, which holds a majority in the 300-seat parliament, said on Wednesday that its lawmakers had decided to call on Yoon to stand down straightaway or they would take steps to impeach him.

“President Yoon Suk Yeol’s martial law declaration was a clear violation of the constitution. It didn’t abide by any requirements to declare it,” the Democratic party said in a statement. “His martial law declaration was originally invalid and a grave violation of the constitution. It was a grave act of rebellion and provides perfect grounds for his impeachment.”

Yoon’s shock bid to impose South Korea’s first martial law in over four decades plunged the country into the deepest turmoil in its modern democratic history and caught its close allies around the world off guard.

The United States, which stations nearly 30,000 troops in South Korea to protect it from the nuclear-armed North, initially voiced deep concern at the declaration, then relief that martial law was over.

The dramatic developments have left the future of Yoon – a conservative politician and former star public prosecutor who was elected president in 2022 – in serious jeopardy.

South Korea’s main opposition party – whose lawmakers jumped fences and tussled with security forces so they could vote to overturn the law – earlier called Yoon’s move an attempted “insurrection”.

The nation’s largest umbrella labour union also called an “indefinite general strike” until Yoon resigned. Meanwhile, the leader of Yoon’s own ruling People Power party, Han Dong-hoon, described the attempt as “tragic” while calling for those involved to be held accountable.

Opposition parties together control 192 seats in the 300-seat parliament, so would need lawmakers from Yoon’s own party to join them to attain the required two-thirds majority in the legislature for impeachment.

If the national assembly votes to impeach Yoon, the decision must then be upheld by at least six out of nine judges in the constitutional court. If he is removed from office, Yoon would become only the second South Korean president since the country became a democracy to have met that fate.

The other was Park Geun-hye, who was removed in 2017. Ironically, Yoon, the then prosecutor general, led the corruption case that precipitated Park’s downfall.

Yoon backed down on martial law early on Wednesday after lawmakers voted to oppose the declaration, which he made on Tuesday night citing the threat of North Korea and “anti-state forces”.

“Just a moment ago, there was a demand from the national assembly to lift the state of emergency, and we have withdrawn the military that was deployed for martial law operations,” Yoon said in a televised address about 4.30am

“We will accept the national assembly’s request and lift the martial law through the cabinet meeting.”

Yonhap news agency then reported that Yoon’s cabinet had approved the motion to lift the order.

The U-turn prompted jubilation among protesters outside parliament who had braved freezing temperatures to keep vigil through the night in defiance of Yoon’s martial law order. Demonstrators who had been waving South Korean flags and chanting “Arrest Yoon Suk Yeol” outside the national assembly erupted in cheers.

Lim Myeong-pan, 55, told Agence France-Presse that Yoon’s decision to rescind martial law did not absolve him of possible wrongdoing. “He has paved his own path to impeachment with this,” he said.

On the streets of Seoul on Tuesday morning there was a sense of bafflement, while newspapers across the political spectrum published scathing editorials about Yoon’s actions.

The conservative and influential Chosun Ilbo published a searing editorial, which said Yoon’s martial law declaration “severely crossed the line” of acceptable political bounds, and demanded accountability. The editorial said legal requirements weren’t met and called it a “national embarrassment” for a top 10 democracy.

Meanwhile, the left-leaning Hankyoreh’s editorial framed Yoon’s martial law declaration as a “betrayal of the people”, expressing disbelief that 21st-century Korea could see an elected president use the same justification (“anti-state forces plotting insurrection”) as the military junta did 45 years ago. It said that Yoon had “lost the minimum judgment and rationality required of a head of state”.

Yoon had given a range of reasons to justify martial law – South Korea’s first in more than 40 years.

“To safeguard a liberal South Korea from the threats posed by North Korea’s communist forces and to eliminate anti-state elements plundering people’s freedom and happiness, I hereby declare emergency martial law,” Yoon said in a televised address.

Yoon did not give details of the North’s threats, but the South remains technically at war with nuclear-armed Pyongyang.

“Our national assembly has become a haven for criminals, a den of legislative dictatorship that seeks to paralyse the judicial and administrative systems and overturn our liberal democratic order,” Yoon said.

The president labelled the main opposition Democratic party, which holds a majority in parliament, “anti-state forces intent on overthrowing the regime”.

Yoon and his People Power party are also bitterly at odds with the opposition over next year’s budget.

Opposition MPs last week approved a significantly downsized budget plan through a parliamentary committee.

The imposition of emergency martial law came after Yoon’s approval rating dropped to 19% in the latest Gallup poll last week, with many expressing dissatisfaction over his handling of the economy and controversies involving his wife, Kim Keon Hee.

Democratic South Korea is a major ally for the US in Asia, but Washington said it was not given advance notice of Yoon’s plan to impose martial law.

“We are relieved President Yoon has reversed course on his concerning declaration of martial law and respected the ROK national assembly’s vote to end it,” a US national security council spokesperson said in a statement, using the acronym for South Korea’s official name.

China, a key ally of North Korea, had urged its nationals in the South to stay calm and exercise caution, while Britain said it was “closely monitoring developments”.

The UK Foreign Office’s minister for the Indo-Pacific, Catherine West, issued a statement, calling for “a peaceful resolution to the situation, in accordance with the law and the constitution of the Republic of Korea”.

Vladimir Tikhonov, professor of Korea studies at the University of Oslo, said Yoon’s move to impose martial law was “an attempt to wind history back”. “I don’t think South Korea’s civil society can recognise Yoon as a legitimate president any longer,” he told AFP.

With Agence France-Presse

South Korea became a democracy only in the late 1980s, and military intervention in civilian affairs remains a touchy subject.

During the dictatorships that emerged as the country rebuilt from the destruction of the 1950-53 Korean war, leaders occasionally proclaimed martial law that allowed them to station combat soldiers, tanks and armoured vehicles on streets or in public places to prevent anti-government demonstrations.

Such scenes are unimaginable for many today.

The dictator Park Chung-hee, who ruled South Korea for nearly 20 years before he was assassinated by his spy chief in 1979, led several thousand troops into Seoul in the early hours of 16 May 1961, in the country’s first successful coup.

During his rule, he occasionally proclaimed martial law to crack down on protests and jail critics.

Less than two months after Park Chung-hee’s death, Maj Gen Chun Doo-hwan led tanks and troops into Seoul in December 1979 in the country’s second successful coup. The next year, he orchestrated a brutal military crackdown on a pro-democracy uprising in the southern city of Gwangju, killing at least 200 people.

In the summer of 1987, massive street protests forced Chun’s government to accept direct presidential elections. His army ally Roh Tae-woo, who had joined Chun’s 1979 coup, won the election held later in 1987 thanks largely to divided votes among liberal opposition candidates.

Only with Roh’s inauguration on 25 February 1988, after 40 years under various forms of military-authoritarian rule, and with the enacting of its fifth constitution in that time, did South Korea become the current, democratic Sixth Republic.

South Korea’s president, Yoon Suk Yeol, on Tuesday declared martial law, blasting the opposition as “anti-state forces” threatening the country’s democracy.

The unexpected move from Yoon, marking the first time martial law has been declared in South Korea in more than four decades, alarmed the US and other allies.

Six hours later he backed down, lifting the order in the face of united opposition.

What do we know about the imposition of martial law, and what might come next?

With AFP

One of the cornerstones of Amazon rainforest protection – the Soy Moratorium – is under unprecedented pressure from Brazilian agribusiness organisations, politicians, and global trading companies, the Guardian has learned.

Soy is one of the most widely grown crops in Brazil, and posed a huge deforestation threat to the Amazon rainforest until stakeholders voluntarily agreed to impose a moratorium and no longer source it from the region in 2006.

The voluntary agreement brought together farmers, environmentalists and international food companies such as Cargill and McDonald’s, and decided that any detection of soy planted on areas deforested after 2008 would result in the farm being blocked from supply chains, regardless of whether the land clearance was legal in Brazil.

In the 18 years since, the moratorium has been hailed as a conservation success story that improved the reputation of global brands, enabled soy production to expand significantly without Amazon destruction and prevented an estimated 17,000 square kilometres of deforestation.

But next week the main soybean body – the Brazilian Association of Vegetable Oil Industries (ABIOVE) – will ballot its members about a reform that conservation groups say would gut its effectiveness and embarrass the government of Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva ahead of next year’s COP30 climate conference in Belém.

The association is proposing a change in the way the moratorium is monitored. Instead of assessing an entire farm, it breaks down the analysis to the level of individual fields, which would allow growers to pick and choose which areas of their land are in compliance.

In a statement to the Guardian, the association said it remained in favour of the moratorium, but was planning unspecified changes: “Despite all pressures from different stakeholders, in all forums, ABIOVE and its members maintain defence of the Amazon Moratorium, striving to meet the demands of both farmers and consumers, including proposing some updates to the current model.”

But conservation groups warn this reform would create a huge loophole and they have threatened to withdraw from the moratorium if it goes ahead.

“The question this raises is why the leadership of ABIOVE is pressing ahead with this vote, when it appears to undermine the commitments of its member companies,” said David Cleary, global director for agriculture in the Nature Conservancy. ‘The proposed changes to shift to a sub-farm level monitoring system make it possible for farmers to sell to moratorium companies from one part of the farm and non-moratorium companies from another. The monitoring of the moratorium has worked well since 2008. If it isn’t broken, it doesn’t need fixing.”

WWF said any move to end or weaken the soy moratorium could open up 1.1m hectares of forest for soy production and push the Amazon closer to a calamitous tipping point and emitting 300m tonnes of CO2 from deforestation. “This is not just an environmental issue but a critical economic and reputational risk for the entire Brazilian soy industry,” WWF noted in an email statement. “In addition, this could lead to an increase in land speculation, land grabbing and potential conflict in the region.”

Others noted the threat to the moratorium would introduce greater complexity and uncertainty into the supply chain, weakening enforcement mechanisms and making it more difficult to hold traders and producers to account. Jane Lino, deputy director of the non-profit Proforest Latin America, said this was part of a wider political agenda. “This movement is not just about the Soy Moratorium,” she said. “It reflects broader resistance to external pressures perceived as infringing on national sovereignty and disrespecting Brazil’s environmental laws.”

The proposals come amid moves by rightwing legislators at state and federal level to enact new laws that would also undermine the moratorium. Earlier this year, the state of Mato Grosso approved a new regulation that revoked tax incentives for companies engaged in agreements like the Soy Moratorium. Similar proposals are being put forward in other states and discussed in the national Congress. The national association of soy producers, Aprosoja, is opposed to the moratorium and is using its influence inside the powerful agribusiness lobby, which dominates domestic politics, controls Congress, influences many local governments, and frequently undermines President Lula and his environment minister Marina Silva, to diminish its influence. Brazil’s Administrative Council for Economic Defense has also been prompted to investigate producer claims that the moratorium infringes antitrust regulations.

Carlos Klink, a former deputy minister for the environment, emphasised that the political dynamics of Brazil had changed dramatically since the moratorium was introduced. “Look, then and now,” he said of the rise of the agribusiness lobby. “These sectors and these people have come to power. Remember also that the Brazilian government is not that strong.”

Part of this is a pushback against the European Union’s deforestation-free trade law, which many Brazilian farmers feel is being used to punish them and help French competitors. Most farmers, who are in compliance with the moratorium, argue they deserve compensation for going beyond the requirements of the law, and conservation groups acknowledge that most farmers are not involved in deforestation and many – now badly affected by drought and fire – should be given more encouragement and technical and financial support to conserve vegetation.

“The complaint that if you’re asking farmers to go beyond legal compliance you need to offer incentives is actually reasonable. First world governments and funders need to pay much more attention to the incentives question,” Cleary said. “A lot of Brazilian farmers are fully on board with the climate change agenda, including ending deforestation. They’re the most affected by it. But that opinion isn’t reflected in the louder producer associations, who have a different political agenda.”

Moves to weaken the moratorium could be quashed if global traders, retailers and finance institutions publicly defended it. Some such as Bunge and Louis Dreyfus Company have been strong supporters. Others have sent mixed signals. Conservation groups are concerned that Cargill may not vote to maintain the Amazon Soy Moratorium in its current form, despite a commitment to eliminate deforestation in their Brazil supply chains by the end of 2025.

Until now, the moratorium has given Brazil a reputational advantage. Many want that to remain.

With the Abiove vote still days away and the Mato Grosso governor yet to decide how the state’s new regulations will be applied, Klink said the outcome was not yet certain and urged all involved to focus on the progress that has been made.

He noted that deforestation fell dramatically in the Amazon last year, and also declined in the Cerrado savanna this year. Other state soy associations, such as that of Goias, did not agree with the Mato Grosso move, he said, and any further steps would damage the national reputation. “Ending the moratorium without anything else to replace it would not bode well for the Brazilian COP and it would create tension for civil society, and even many farmers’ associations,” he said. “I think this has a long way to go, but we have never seen this pressure.”

Donald Trump’s lawyers have filed paperwork pushing for dismissal of his Manhattan criminal hush-money case – and have invoked Joe Biden’s decision to pardon his son, Hunter, in their argument.

“Yesterday, in issuing a 10-year pardon to Hunter Biden that covers any and all crimes whether charged or uncharged, President Biden asserted that his son was ‘selectively, and unfairly, prosecuted’ and ‘treated differently’,” Trump’s lawyers wrote in papers filed on Monday but which were not made public until Tuesday afternoon.

“President Biden argued that ‘raw politics has infected this process and it led to a miscarriage of justice’,” the Trump team added.

Since the Manhattan district attorney, Alvin Bragg, who helmed the state case against Trump, assumed office, they claimed, he has conducted “precisely the type of political theater that President Biden condemned” in the case against Trump. Biden’s pardon of his son, for convictions on federal gun and tax charges, came days before sentencing in those cases.

“As President Biden put it yesterday,” they wrote, “Enough is enough.”

The dismissal pitch came after Judge Juan Merchan’s decision on 22 November to indefinitely postpone the president-elect’s sentencing so lawyers on both sides can argue over its future, given Trump’s victory in the recent presidential election.

The request is to dismiss the criminal case stems from Trump’sconviction in May of 34 felony counts over hush-money paid to adult film actor and producer Stormy Daniels to prevent her from going public in the run-up to the 2016 election about a purported sexual liaison years before. The president-elect’s then lawyer, Michael Cohen, carried out a $130,000 payment to Daniels and, prosecutors said, Trump falsified business records by describing his repayments to Cohen as legal services.

Trump’s team is now arguing that the case should be thrown out given the presidential election.

Trump’s lawyers contend that if the case continues, the proceedings present “disruptions to the institution of the Presidency” that violate principles of “the Presidential immunity doctrine because they threaten the functioning of the federal government”.

They also contended that the US constitution bars state judges and prosecutors from interfering with a president’s official duties.

Many of Trump’s renewed arguments for dismissal echo his prior claims that the case was politically motivated, describing the proceedings as an “unconstitutional crusade”.

They had repeatedly pushed for dismissal to no avail, but his impending return to the presidency had presented an avenue to make this case once again.

Merchan said in his postponement decision that Trump’s lawyers had a 2 December deadline to file their argument for dismissal. Prosecutors had a week to submit their response.

Trump’s lawyers have been calling on Merchan to toss the case outright after he defeated Kamala Harris on 5 November. In previous papers seeking permission to file a formal dismissal request, Trump’s attorneys said that dismissal was required “in order to facilitate the orderly transition of executive power”.

Todd Blanche, Trump’s main attorney and selection for deputy US attorney general, as well as Emil Bove, his choice for principal associate deputy attorney general, said that Manhattan district attorney Alvin Bragg’s office “appears to not yet be ready to dismiss this politically motivated and fatally flawed case, which is what is mandated by the law and will happen as justice takes its course”.

They had noted that the US justice department was poised to abandon Trump’s federal cases and referred to a departmental memo that bars prosecution of sitting presidents.

“As in those cases, dismissal is necessary here,” their filing argued. “Just as a sitting president is completely immune from any criminal process, so too is President Trump as president-elect.”

Special counsel prosecutors who were pursuing the federal cases against Trump indeed filed paperwork on 25 November asking for their dismissal – citing justice department policy that his team has repeatedly invoked.

“It has long been the position of the Department of Justice that the United States constitution forbids the federal indictment and subsequent criminal prosecution of a sitting president,” wrote Molly Gaston, the top deputy for special counsel Jack Smith.

“That prohibition is categorical and does not turn on the gravity of the crimes charged, the strength of the government’s proof, or the merits of the prosecution, which the government stands fully behind.”

Manhattan prosecutors have argued against dismissal in prior court papers and have suggested a solution that would obviate any concerns about interrupting his presidency – including “deferral of all remaining criminal proceedings until after the end of defendant’s upcoming presidential term”.

In their argument for dismissal this week, Trump’s lawyers said that delaying proceedings for four years would not be a workable solution. “With respect to presidential immunity, it would be egregious and unlawful for this court to hold the prospect of a 2029 sentencing over President Trump’s head while he continues his service to this country.”

Donald Trump’s pick to lead the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), Chad Chronister, said on Tuesday that he was withdrawing from consideration.

“Over the past several days, as the gravity of this very important responsibility set in, I’ve concluded that I must respectfully withdraw from consideration,” Chronister, a Florida sheriff, said in a social media post.

Trump announced his intention to pick Chronister, the current sheriff of Hillsborough county, Florida, to lead the DEA on Sunday, saying he would focus on stemming the flow of fentanyl across the US border with Mexico. The agency is part of the justice department and responsible for enforcing US drug laws.

Chronister did not offer further details on his decision on social media and the Trump transition team did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Chronister follows former Republican representative Matt Gaetz, Trump’s first pick to serve as attorney general, in withdrawing his name for a post in the administration. Gaetz withdrew following scrutiny over a federal sex-trafficking investigation that cast doubt on his ability to be confirmed as the country’s chief federal law enforcement officer.

Trump’s pick of Chronister for the DEA job drew backlash from conservatives, who raised concerns over his actions during the Covid-19 pandemic and him saying that his office “does not engage in federal immigration enforcement activities”.

In March 2020, Chronister arrested the pastor of a megachurch who held services with hundreds of people and violated a safer-at-home order in place aimed at limiting the spread of the coronavirus.

“Shame on this pastor, their legal staff and the leaders of this staff for forcing us to do our job. That’s not what we wanted to do during a declared state of emergency,” Chronister said at the time. “We are hopeful that this will be a wake-up call.”

US representative Thomas Massie of Kentucky was among those airing public complaints, saying Chronister should be “disqualified” for the arrest.

Trump’s transition team said it had reached an agreement on Tuesday with the justice department that would allow it to submit names for background checks and security clearances, needed for access to classified information.

The top Democrat in the US House of Representatives, Hakeem Jeffries, has called on Joe Biden to pardon some “working-class Americans” after the president faced criticism for pardoning his son Hunter.

“During his final weeks in office, President Biden should exercise the high level of compassion he has consistently demonstrated throughout his life, including toward his son, and pardon on a case-by-case basis the working-class Americans in the federal prison system whose lives have been ruined by unjustly aggressive prosecutions for nonviolent offenses,” Jeffries said in a statement.

Biden, who leaves office on 20 January, for months had said he would not pardon his son, who was found guilty of lying about being addicted to illegal drugs while buying a gun and pleaded guilty to criminal charges of failing to pay $1.4m in taxes. The sweeping pardon also applied to any other crimes “he committed or may have committed” between 1 January 2014 and 1 December this year.

The president said he believed his son had been made the target of a politically motivated prosecution. Republicans including Donald Trump condemned the move, as did some Democrats who said it eroded trust in the judicial system.

Last month, more than 60 members of Congress urged Biden to use his clemency power to confront mass incarceration and reunite families.

“Now is the time to use your clemency authority to rectify unjust and unnecessary criminal laws passed by Congress and draconian sentences given by judges,” the lawmakers, led by Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts and Jim Clyburn of South Carolina, wrote in a letter.

The letter noted that the US has disproportionately incarcerated people of color, low-income individuals, members of the LGBTQ+ community and those with disabilities, and that 90% of the federal prison population was convicted on non-violent offenses.

As of November, there were more than 12,000 bids for sentence commutations and 4,000 pardon requests on his desk.

Ed Pilkington contributed reporting

Congressman Sean Casten, Democrat of Illinois, introduced a privileged resolution on Tuesday demanding the House ethics committee release its investigative report on former representative Matt Gaetz, even after Gaetz withdrew from consideration after being nominated to be Donald Trump’s attorney general, amid sexual scandal.

Casten’s resolution calls for immediate public disclosure of the committee’s draft report, including conclusions, recommendations and supporting materials, with provisions to protect sensitive information and witness identities.

The ethics committee’s investigation was centered around serious allegations against Gaetz, including potential sexual misconduct, inappropriate congressional behavior, misuse of campaign funds, using illicit drugs, and possible bribery. Gaetz has consistently denied these claims.

Casten’s move came weeks after he led 97 House Democrats in signing a letter requesting the report’s release. In this case, the resolution will force a House vote within two legislative days, though Republican leadership is expected to resist.

Speaker Mike Johnson, a Louisiana Republican, has opposed releasing the report in the past, arguing that ethics investigations typically conclude when a member leaves Congress. Gaetz resigned from the House as soon as Trump nominated him to become attorney general, and when he stepped aside eight days later after it was clear he would struggle to be confirmed even with a Republican majority in the Senate, he indicated he would not seek to return to Congress.

However, Casten has often pointed to previous cases, such as the 2011 investigation of former Representative Eric Massa, where investigations continued after a member’s resignation.

“The committee on ethics has, on many occasions, released its reports on former members,” Casten said in a statement. “Resigning from Congress should not allow members to avoid accountability for allegations as serious as those faced by Matt Gaetz.”

Johnson’s office did not reply to a request for comment on whether his stance has changed. The Republican ethics committee chair, Michael Guest, declined to comment when asked if the committee would now release the report.

Congresswoman Susan Wild, the top Democrat on the committee, declined to comment.

The ethics committee meeting is scheduled for Thursday to discuss next steps concerning the congressional investigation.

France is staring into the unknown as the minority government of the prime minister, Michel Barnier, faces near-certain defeat in a no-confidence vote that could dramatically intensify the political crisis in one of the EU’s key member states.

If the vote on Wednesday is carried, Barnier’s administration, which took office only in September, would be the first in France to be ousted with a motion of no confidence since 1962. Its fall, at the hands of the far-right and leftwing parties, would be a significant blow to Europe weeks before Donald Trump returns to the White House.

The vote risked making “everything more difficult and more serious”, a sombre Barnier told MPs on Tuesday, adding that France’s situation was already “difficult in budgetary and financial terms” and “very difficult in economic and social terms”.

In a television interview late on Tuesday, Barnier warned there was “a lot of tension in France” but said that for the country to regain political stability he should remain in office.

He added: “The moment is serious. It is difficult, but the stakes are not impossible.”

The hardline interior minister Bruno Retailleau said that if the government was toppled it would “throw France and the French into an insufferable situation”. Those backing the motion were playing “Russian roulette” with its future, he said.

A parliamentary debate is due to start at 4pm local time, followed by a vote roughly three hours later. Two separate no-confidence motions have been tabled, by the far-left and far-right opposition, with the former widely predicted to pass.

The president, Emmanuel Macron, who is on a visit to Saudi Arabia, is expected to return to France for what the media have described as a “moment of truth” that risked “plunging France into the great political and financial unknown”.

France’s political crisis, brewing over the past three months, finally erupted on Monday when Barnier said he would push the social security component of his fragile government’s 2025 budget through parliament without a vote.

The constitutional measure allowing him to do so, known as article 49.3, offers MPs the chance to challenge the government’s move through a no-confidence motion voted on within 48 hours. If the vote is successful, the government is out.

“Blocking this budget is, alas, the only way the constitution gives us to protect the French people from a dangerous, unfair and punitive budget,” Marine Le Pen, of the far-right National Rally (RN), the largest single party in parliament, said on Tuesday.

Barnier, appointed by Macron after snap June elections returned a lower house divided into three roughly equal blocs without a clear majority, tried to win MPs’ backing for a belt-tightening budget to restore France’s dire finances.

His proposals included tax increases and public spending cuts totalling about €60bn (£50bn) aimed at reducing the country’s public-sector deficit to about 5% of GDP, down from 6.1% this year – more than double the ceiling permitted in the eurozone.

Despite a range of concessions from the veteran conservative prime minister, both the left-leaning New Popular Front (NFP) alliance and the RN, which together have enough MPs to unseat the government, are due to present no-confidence motions.

Le Pen has confirmed that her party will vote for the NFP’s motion, tabled by the radical left Unbowed France (LFI), but the far-right party’s own no-confidence motion was not expected to find enough support on the left of the national assembly.

France’s finance minister, Antoine Armand, told France 2 public television that opposition MPs would be “damaging” the country by ousting the government. “Who will bear the consequences?” he asked. “First and foremost, the French.”

If Barnier’s government does fall, it would be the shortest-lived of any administration since the start of the Fifth Republic in 1958. Although the prime minister would have to offer his resignation, Macron could ask him to stay on in a caretaker capacity.

The president would then have to nominate a new premier, but that could well not come before next year. France’s constitution does not permit parliament to be dissolved twice in the space of a year, so there can be no new elections before July.

A caretaker government would in principle be able to pass special emergency budget legislation that would roll over spending limits and tax provisions from this year to next, meaning there would no immediate risk of a US-style government shutdown.

Although LFI and its allies have consistently contested Barnier since he took office, Le Pen’s RN – which in effect holds the government’s fate in its hands – has until now refrained from pulling the trigger by voting with the left-leaning opposition parties.

The decision to do so also represents a gamble for the RN’s figurehead, who is awaiting judgment in a case of alleged misuse of EU funds and, if found guilty in March, could be ruled ineligible for France’s next presidential election, due in 2027.

Le Pen has spent years trying to present the RN as a responsible party of government and while polls suggest a majority of its voters would back a move to bring down the government, more moderate conservatives may well be put off.

France is staring into the unknown as the minority government of the prime minister, Michel Barnier, faces near-certain defeat in a no-confidence vote that could dramatically intensify the political crisis in one of the EU’s key member states.

If the vote on Wednesday is carried, Barnier’s administration, which took office only in September, would be the first in France to be ousted with a motion of no confidence since 1962. Its fall, at the hands of the far-right and leftwing parties, would be a significant blow to Europe weeks before Donald Trump returns to the White House.

The vote risked making “everything more difficult and more serious”, a sombre Barnier told MPs on Tuesday, adding that France’s situation was already “difficult in budgetary and financial terms” and “very difficult in economic and social terms”.

In a television interview late on Tuesday, Barnier warned there was “a lot of tension in France” but said that for the country to regain political stability he should remain in office.

He added: “The moment is serious. It is difficult, but the stakes are not impossible.”

The hardline interior minister Bruno Retailleau said that if the government was toppled it would “throw France and the French into an insufferable situation”. Those backing the motion were playing “Russian roulette” with its future, he said.

A parliamentary debate is due to start at 4pm local time, followed by a vote roughly three hours later. Two separate no-confidence motions have been tabled, by the far-left and far-right opposition, with the former widely predicted to pass.

The president, Emmanuel Macron, who is on a visit to Saudi Arabia, is expected to return to France for what the media have described as a “moment of truth” that risked “plunging France into the great political and financial unknown”.

France’s political crisis, brewing over the past three months, finally erupted on Monday when Barnier said he would push the social security component of his fragile government’s 2025 budget through parliament without a vote.

The constitutional measure allowing him to do so, known as article 49.3, offers MPs the chance to challenge the government’s move through a no-confidence motion voted on within 48 hours. If the vote is successful, the government is out.

“Blocking this budget is, alas, the only way the constitution gives us to protect the French people from a dangerous, unfair and punitive budget,” Marine Le Pen, of the far-right National Rally (RN), the largest single party in parliament, said on Tuesday.

Barnier, appointed by Macron after snap June elections returned a lower house divided into three roughly equal blocs without a clear majority, tried to win MPs’ backing for a belt-tightening budget to restore France’s dire finances.

His proposals included tax increases and public spending cuts totalling about €60bn (£50bn) aimed at reducing the country’s public-sector deficit to about 5% of GDP, down from 6.1% this year – more than double the ceiling permitted in the eurozone.

Despite a range of concessions from the veteran conservative prime minister, both the left-leaning New Popular Front (NFP) alliance and the RN, which together have enough MPs to unseat the government, are due to present no-confidence motions.

Le Pen has confirmed that her party will vote for the NFP’s motion, tabled by the radical left Unbowed France (LFI), but the far-right party’s own no-confidence motion was not expected to find enough support on the left of the national assembly.

France’s finance minister, Antoine Armand, told France 2 public television that opposition MPs would be “damaging” the country by ousting the government. “Who will bear the consequences?” he asked. “First and foremost, the French.”

If Barnier’s government does fall, it would be the shortest-lived of any administration since the start of the Fifth Republic in 1958. Although the prime minister would have to offer his resignation, Macron could ask him to stay on in a caretaker capacity.

The president would then have to nominate a new premier, but that could well not come before next year. France’s constitution does not permit parliament to be dissolved twice in the space of a year, so there can be no new elections before July.

A caretaker government would in principle be able to pass special emergency budget legislation that would roll over spending limits and tax provisions from this year to next, meaning there would no immediate risk of a US-style government shutdown.

Although LFI and its allies have consistently contested Barnier since he took office, Le Pen’s RN – which in effect holds the government’s fate in its hands – has until now refrained from pulling the trigger by voting with the left-leaning opposition parties.

The decision to do so also represents a gamble for the RN’s figurehead, who is awaiting judgment in a case of alleged misuse of EU funds and, if found guilty in March, could be ruled ineligible for France’s next presidential election, due in 2027.

Le Pen has spent years trying to present the RN as a responsible party of government and while polls suggest a majority of its voters would back a move to bring down the government, more moderate conservatives may well be put off.

Rescue teams looking for three climbers who went missing on New Zealand’s highest mountain have expressed “grave concerns” over the party’s welfare in the rugged terrain, as bad weather hampers search efforts for the second day in a row.

US nationals Kurt Blair, 56, and Carlos Romero, 50, and a Canadian man flew by helicopter on Saturday to a camp on Aoraki Mount Cook with plans to summit the 3,724 metre (12,218 ft) mountain.

The three men did not show up for their return flight on Monday morning, triggering the search-and-rescue effort.

Police are working with the US and Canadian embassies to inform and support the families of the three men. They have withheld details of the Canadian national until authorities can contact his family.

Helicopters and department of conservation staff were deployed to search the mountain on Monday. But on Wednesday Aoraki area commander inspector Vicki Walker told Radio New Zealand bad weather would probably force rescuers to delay a further search until Thursday.

Rescuers have focused their attention on the Zurbriggen ridge – believed to be the route the missing party took. On Monday, the search team unearthed several climbing-related items – including an ice-axe and a jacket – believed to belong to the trio.

A group of climbers descending the ridge told search teams they had spoken with a group heading up the mountain, believed to be the missing climbers, Walker said.

The ascending climbers had indicated their intention to summit the mountain, she said.

The routes are well-used but “things can change [and] the weather can change, that makes your intended route unsustainable,” Walker said. “We do hold grave concerns for the party.”

Weather forecaster Metservice said gales, snow and thunderstorms were expected late on Wednesday, with weather due to clear on Thursday morning.

Aoraki Mount Cook is the highest peak in the Southern Alps – a harsh but scenic mountain terrain extending down much of the South Island.

Over the past century, dozens of climbers have died on Mount Cook, where rockfalls are common, avalanches often occur at higher altitudes and weather can deteriorate quickly. Local media reported in 2014 that 78 people had died since 1907.

Scores more have died in the surrounding national park, which is known for its mountains and glaciers.

Reuters contributed to this report

Namibia has elected its first female leader, with Netumbo Nandi-Ndaitwah declared the winner of last week’s presidential election in a result that will extend the ruling Swapo party’s 34-year hold on power.

Nandi-Ndaitwah, the current vice-president, won with 57% of the vote, according to official results, defying predictions that she might be forced into a runoff. Swapo has ruled the country since its independence from apartheid South Africa in 1990.

“The Namibian nation has voted for peace and stability,” Nandi-Ndaitwah, 72, said after the final results were announced late on Tuesday.

Nandi-Ndaitwah was a member of the underground independence movement in Namibia in the 1970s. She was promoted from foreign minister to vice-president in February, after president Hage Geingob died while in office.

Opposition parties have rejected the results after the election was marred by technical problems, including shortages of ballot papers and other issues, causing election officials to extend voting until Saturday. The opposition parties claim the extension was illegal and intend to challenge the results in court.

Panduleni Itula, 67, who practised as a dentist in Whitley Bay near Newcastle before returning to Namibia in 2013, came second with 25.5% of the vote, below the 29% share he secured in 2019.

Nandi-Ndaitwah also outperformed her party, which received 53% of the parliamentary vote, down from 65% five years ago. Itula’s new Independent Patriots for Change (IPC) party also came second, with 20% of the vote.

She was widely viewed as a steady hand, a seasoned diplomat not tainted by the corruption scandals that had engulfed some other members of Swapo.

Her triumph also means that Namibia bucks a trend of incumbent liberation movements being punished by restive younger voters in southern Africa.

This year, South Africa’s African National Congress lost its parliamentary majority for the first time since apartheid ended, the party that had ruled Botswana since independence from Britain in 1966 was booted from office and Mozambique has been hit by protests for almost two months since an allegedly rigged election.

Journalists at the Guardian and the Observer are holding a 48-hour strike in protest at the proposed sale of the Observer newspaper to Tortoise Media.

The strike, the first at the Guardian in more than 50 years, is due to take place on Wednesday 4 December and Thursday 5 December.

Tortoise is run by James Harding, the former editor of the Times and former director of BBC News. It has put forward plans to continue publishing the Observer on a Sunday and build the title’s digital presence. It would combine the Observer with Tortoise’s podcasts, newsletters and live events. News of Tortoise’s approach for the Observer emerged in September.

A Guardian spokesperson said: “We recognise the strength of feeling about the proposed sale of the Observer and appreciate that NUJ members wish to make their views heard. While we respect the right to strike, we do not believe a strike is the best course of action in this case and our talks with the NUJ continue.

“We have a plan in place to minimise the impact of strike action on staff, readers and subscribers and we will continue to publish online and produce the print edition as usual.”

National Union of Journalists members passed a motion last month stating that selling the Sunday newspaper to Tortoise would be a “betrayal” of the Scott Trust’s commitment to the Observer. The trust is the ultimate owner of Guardian Media Group.

If the transaction proceeds, Observer staff have been told they can opt to take voluntary redundancy on enhanced terms or that if they transfer to Tortoise that their existing terms and conditions will be honoured. Harding has said that the sale offers the chance to invest in and extend the Observer’s legacy.

Ole Jacob Sunde, the chair of the Scott Trust, said in an email to staff on Wednesday: “Throughout the process our goal has always been to do what is right for Guardian and Observer readers and staff so that both titles continue to promote liberal journalism and thrive long into the future. This has been at the forefront of our discussions as a board.”

He said the Scott Trust would stay on as a part-owner of the Observer in the proposed deal, and that any new owners would have to embody the values of editorial independence, press freedom and liberal journalism that had been part of the Observer’s ethos since Guardian Media Group bought it in 1993.

Sunde added: “I fully respect people’s rights to take industrial action. I also think it’s right that we share relevant information in a timely manner. I am confident that this has been – and continues to be – a detailed and thoughtful process.”

The strike means that readers may notice some differences to the Guardian’s website on Wednesday and Thursday and in the print edition on Thursday and Friday.

Due to deadlines, some of the stories that appear on the website and in the newspaper on those days will not have been written on the day in question. In other cases, anonymous bylines may be used. Guardian US and Guardian Australia staff are not part of the strike action.

The union said the strike coincided with the Observer – the world’s oldest Sunday newspaper – marking 233 years since it first began publication.

The NUJ general secretary-elect, Laura Davison, said: “Guardian and Observer members have the full backing of the NUJ as they undertake this significant industrial action – the first for over 50 years.

She added: “The massive vote to take this step shows journalists’ desire to publicly highlight to readers and those in charge their collective concerns about the future of the title. The Observer holds a unique and important place in public life and our members care about the next chapter in its history.”

The ballot for strike action last month showed that of those eligible to participate, 75% cast a vote, with 93% supporting industrial action.

Journalists at the Guardian and the Observer are holding a 48-hour strike in protest at the proposed sale of the Observer newspaper to Tortoise Media.

The strike, the first at the Guardian in more than 50 years, is due to take place on Wednesday 4 December and Thursday 5 December.

Tortoise is run by James Harding, the former editor of the Times and former director of BBC News. It has put forward plans to continue publishing the Observer on a Sunday and build the title’s digital presence. It would combine the Observer with Tortoise’s podcasts, newsletters and live events. News of Tortoise’s approach for the Observer emerged in September.

A Guardian spokesperson said: “We recognise the strength of feeling about the proposed sale of the Observer and appreciate that NUJ members wish to make their views heard. While we respect the right to strike, we do not believe a strike is the best course of action in this case and our talks with the NUJ continue.

“We have a plan in place to minimise the impact of strike action on staff, readers and subscribers and we will continue to publish online and produce the print edition as usual.”

National Union of Journalists members passed a motion last month stating that selling the Sunday newspaper to Tortoise would be a “betrayal” of the Scott Trust’s commitment to the Observer. The trust is the ultimate owner of Guardian Media Group.

If the transaction proceeds, Observer staff have been told they can opt to take voluntary redundancy on enhanced terms or that if they transfer to Tortoise that their existing terms and conditions will be honoured. Harding has said that the sale offers the chance to invest in and extend the Observer’s legacy.

Ole Jacob Sunde, the chair of the Scott Trust, said in an email to staff on Wednesday: “Throughout the process our goal has always been to do what is right for Guardian and Observer readers and staff so that both titles continue to promote liberal journalism and thrive long into the future. This has been at the forefront of our discussions as a board.”

He said the Scott Trust would stay on as a part-owner of the Observer in the proposed deal, and that any new owners would have to embody the values of editorial independence, press freedom and liberal journalism that had been part of the Observer’s ethos since Guardian Media Group bought it in 1993.

Sunde added: “I fully respect people’s rights to take industrial action. I also think it’s right that we share relevant information in a timely manner. I am confident that this has been – and continues to be – a detailed and thoughtful process.”

The strike means that readers may notice some differences to the Guardian’s website on Wednesday and Thursday and in the print edition on Thursday and Friday.

Due to deadlines, some of the stories that appear on the website and in the newspaper on those days will not have been written on the day in question. In other cases, anonymous bylines may be used. Guardian US and Guardian Australia staff are not part of the strike action.

The union said the strike coincided with the Observer – the world’s oldest Sunday newspaper – marking 233 years since it first began publication.

The NUJ general secretary-elect, Laura Davison, said: “Guardian and Observer members have the full backing of the NUJ as they undertake this significant industrial action – the first for over 50 years.

She added: “The massive vote to take this step shows journalists’ desire to publicly highlight to readers and those in charge their collective concerns about the future of the title. The Observer holds a unique and important place in public life and our members care about the next chapter in its history.”

The ballot for strike action last month showed that of those eligible to participate, 75% cast a vote, with 93% supporting industrial action.

Filippo Turetta has been sentenced to life in jail for the murder of Giulia Cecchettin, a university student whose brutal killing cast a grim spotlight on femicide in Italy.

Cecchettin, 22, was stabbed more than 70 times before her body was wrapped in black plastic bags and dumped in a ditch close to a lake north of Venice in November last year. Her murder triggered protests across the country.

Turetta, Cecchettin’s ex-boyfriend, was arrested in Germany on 19 November 2023, the day after her body was found. He told Venice’s assize court in October that he had planned to kidnap and kill Cecchettin after she refused to get back together with him.

Judges also ordered Turetta to pay a total of €760,000 in compensation to the Cecchettin family.

The prosecutor Andrea Petroni had called for a life sentence, saying that Turetta had acted with “particular brutality”.

Turetta’s lawyer, Giovanni Caruso, had argued that the life sentence was excessive, saying his client was “not Pablo Escobar”, the notorious Colombian drug baron.

Cecchettin, a biomedical engineering student, disappeared on 11 November 2023 after going to a shopping mall in Marghera, accompanied by Turetta, to buy a dress for her upcoming graduation.

During the week-long police search, a roadside surveillance image emerged of Turetta hitting Cecchettin, who could be seen trying to escape before being forced back into the car.

Commenting on the verdict, her father, Gino, told reporters that “justice has been done according to the laws in force”. He added, however, that “as a society, we have all lost”.

He said last week that his daughter’s memory had been further “humiliated” by the Turetta comparison with Escobar. Caruso on Tuesday shook hands with her father, reportedly telling him: “I understand. It’s my job, it’s not easy.”

Andrea Camerotto, Cecchettin’s uncle, told reporters: “I am not for forgiveness; I will never forgive [the person] who killed my niece and I will never forgive those who harm women.”

Cecchettin’s relationship with Turetta lasted about a year before she ended it in August 2023. Her sister, Elena, told the Guardian last week that the “control and manipulation” had started early on, with a fit of jealousy after Giulia said she was going to meet a male friend she had known from high school. He had never previously been physically violent, she added, but as with many femicide cases, Turetta could not accept that the relationship had ended.

A foundation was set up last month in Cecchettin’s memory.

Since Cecchettin’s death, 106 women in Italy have been killed by a man. In the vast majority of cases the suspect was either a current or former partner.

Authorities fear a grandmother who disappeared while looking for her cat may have been swallowed up by a sinkhole that recently opened up in a western Pennsylvania village.

Crews lowered a pole camera with a sensitive listening device into the hole in Marguerite on Tuesday morning but detected nothing. A second camera lowered into the hole showed what could have been a shoe.

The family of Elizabeth Pollard, 64, called police at about 1am Tuesday to say she had not been seen since going out Monday evening to search for Pepper, her cat.

Police said they found Pollard’s car parked near Monday’s Union Restaurant in Marguerite, about 40 miles (65km) east of Pittsburgh. Pollard’s five-year-old granddaughter was found safe inside the car.

The maintenance-hole-sized opening had not been seen by hunters and restaurant workers who were in the area in the hours before Pollard’s disappearance, leading rescuers to speculate the sinkhole was new.

“We are pretty confident we are in the right place. We’re hoping there is still a void she could be in,” John Bacha, chief of the Pleasant Valley volunteer fire company, told Triblive.

Dozens of firefighters on the scene used an excavator, ladders and hoses to remove material from around the edges and inside the sinkhole as they searched for Pollard. The opening of the sinkhole had grown to about the size of a small backyard swimming pool by Tuesday evening.

Steve Limani, spokesperson for the Pennsylvania state police, said the shoe was about 30ft (9 meters) below the surface.

“It almost feels like it opened up with her standing on top of it,” Limani said.

Pollard lives in a small neighborhood across the street from where her car and granddaughter were found, Limani said.

The young girl “nodded off in the car and woke up. Grandma never came back,” Limani said. The child stayed in the car until two troopers rescued her.

Police said sinkholes, which are depressions in the ground, occur in the area because of subsidence from coal-mining activity. Sinkholes are fairly common due to collapsed caves, old mines or dissolving material, Paul Santi, a professor of geological engineering at the Colorado School of Mines, said earlier this year.

A team from the Pennsylvania department of environmental protection, which responded to the scene, concluded the underground void is likely the result of work in the Marguerite mine, last operated by the HC Frick Coke Company in 1952. The Pittsburgh coal seam is about 20 feet (6 meters) below the surface in that area.

Neil Shader, a spokesperson for the department, said the state’s bureau of abandoned mine reclamation will examine the scene after the search is over to see whether the sinkhole was indeed caused by mine subsidence.

Debbie Nelson, the mother of rapper Eminem, whose rocky relationship with her son was known widely through his hit song lyrics, has died. She was 69.

Eminem’s longtime representative Dennis Dennehy confirmed Nelson’s death in an email on Tuesday. He did not provide a cause of death, although Nelson had battled lung cancer.

Nelson’s fraught relationship with her son, whose real name is Marshall Mathers III, has been no secret since the Detroit rapper became a star.

Eminem has disparaged his mother in songs such as the 2002 single Cleaning Out My Closet. Eminem sings: “Witnessin’ your mama poppin’ prescription pills in the kitchen. Bitchin’ that someone’s always goin’ through her purse and shit’s missin’. Goin’ through public housing systems, victim of Münchausen’s syndrome. My whole life I was made to believe I was sick when I wasn’t.”

In lyrics from his Oscar-winning hit Lose Yourself from the movie 8 Mile, his feelings seemed to have simmered, referencing his “mom’s spaghetti”. The song went on to win best rap song at the 2004 Grammy awards.

Nelson brought and settled two defamation lawsuits over Eminem’s statements about her in magazines and on radio talk shows. In her 2008 book, My Son Marshall, My Son Eminem, she attempted to set the record straight by providing details about the rapper’s early life.

The highly acclaimed rapper earlier this month won for best hip-hop act at the 2024 MTV Europe Music Awards and was inducted into the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame in 2022.

He announced last month that he was going to be a grandfather, revealing by way of a touching music video that his daughter Hailie Jade is pregnant.

Mattel was sued on Tuesday by a South Carolina mother for mistakenly putting a link to a pornographic website on packaging for dolls tied to the blockbuster movie Wicked.

In a proposed class-action filed in federal court in Los Angeles, Holly Ricketson said she had bought a Wicked doll for her daughter, who then visited an adult entertainment website through the link provided by the toymaker.

Ricketson said her daughter showed her hardcore photographs from the website and both were “horrified” by what they saw, suffering emotional distress.

The plaintiff said she would not have bought the doll had she known of the mistake, and Mattel has not offered refunds despite recalling the dolls on 11 November.

Mattel declined to comment on the lawsuit but said in a statement that sales of Wicked dolls with correct packaging had resumed in stores and online. It has expressed regret for the error.

The toymaker, based in El Segundo, California, had intended to link purchasers to the WickedMovie.com website, not to a similarly named website for people at least 18 years old.

Mattel recommends the dolls for children aged four and up.

Tuesday’s lawsuit seeks at least $5m in damages for people in the United States who bought Wicked dolls whose packaging included the errant link.

It accuses Mattel of negligence, selling products unfit for sale, and violating California consumer-protection laws.