TikTok stopped working in the US late on Saturday, shortly before a federal ban on the Chinese-owned short-video app was due to take effect.

The app was no longer available on Apple’s iOS App Store or Google’s Play Store. The US Congress passed a law in April mandating that parent company ByteDance either sell TikTok to a non-Chinese owner or face a total shutdown. It chose the latter.

TikTok said that divestment “is simply not possible: not commercially, not technologically, not legally”. The company held that line until the very end.

The app’s disappearance has been five years in the making. Donald Trump first proposed a ban on TikTok in mid-2020 via executive order, which did not succeed. Various members of Congress proposed measures that would do the same, only one passed. The Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act became law, mandating TikTok be sold or be banned.

“A law banning TikTok has been enacted in the U.S. Unfortunately, that means you can’t use TikTok for now. We are fortunate that President Trump has indicated that he will work with us on a solution to reinstate TikTok once he takes office. Please stay tuned,” a message to users attempting to use the app said.

TikTok’s attorney told the supreme court that the app would “go dark” on 19 January. After TikTok disappears from app stores, preventing new downloads and updates, it will gradually obsolesce while the ban remains in place. Without regular maintenance, the app’s smooth functionality will suffer glitches and may become vulnerable to cyber-attacks.

TikTok fought the act tooth and nail in court, arguing that blocking an app beloved by so many would violate their free speech rights, a losing argument. It seemed the bill might disappear before enacted, as a similar provision did in Montana, which banned TikTok within its borders in 2023, the first in the US to do so. The state’s law was overturned before it took effect.

Two days before the deadline for ByteDance to sell the popular app, used by 170 million Americans, the US supreme court ruled that the law was constitutional and that its provisions should stand. Biden said he will leave enforcement of the bill up to Trump. The White House said in a statement on Friday that TikTok “should remain available to Americans, but simply under American ownership”.

In response to the ruling, TikTok chief Shou Chew angled for the president-elect to save his app. “On behalf of everyone at TikTok and all our users across the country, I want to thank President Trump for his commitment to work with us to find a solution that keeps TikTok available in the United States,” he said in a video posted to TikTok.

Trump tried to intervene on TikTok’s behalf in its supreme court case at the 11th hour, though he himself is the father of the ban. He took a shine to the app during his 2024 presidential campaign after finding a large audience there. He will be inaugurated on Monday and may order the justice department not to enforce the bill, though he said the supreme court decision should be “respected”. It is unclear whether he can totally circumvent a TikTok ban.

Trump said on Saturday he would “most likely” give TikTok a 90-day reprieve from a potential ban after he takes office on Monday.

“The 90-day extension is something that will be most likely done, because it’s appropriate,” he told NBC. “If I decide to do that, I’ll probably announce it on Monday.”

TikTok users in the US have been defecting not to YouTube Shorts or Instagram Reels, though both of those products will likely see a post-ban boost, but to Xiaohongshu, otherwise known as RedNote, a Chinese video-sharing app.

As one user put it: “I’d drop-ship my DNA to the front door of the Chinese Communist party before I watch an Instagram Reel.”

Reuters contributed reporting

The United States of America deleted TikTok early on the morning of 19 January. A government formed “by the people, for the people”, in the words of Abraham Lincoln, has made scant evidence available to those people as to why. As those in power at the 11th hour realize how unpopular such a paternalistic move might be, each is doing their best to lay blame with the others.

Why did the US ban an app used and beloved by some 170 million Americans? For fear of China’s propaganda and data collection. It’s a far-reaching, unprecedented move. The text of the Protecting Americans From Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, passed in April and signed by Joe Biden, reads: “This bill prohibits distributing, maintaining, or providing internet hosting services for a foreign adversary controlled application (eg, TikTok).” Both a federal appeals court and the US supreme court have affirmed that rationale as sufficient.

In their unanimous ruling, US supreme court justices wrote: “There is no doubt that, for more than 170 million Americans, TikTok offers a distinctive and expansive outlet for expression, means of engagement, and source of community. But Congress has determined that divestiture is necessary to address its well-supported national security concerns regarding TikTok’s data collection practices and relationship with a foreign adversary.”

And yet the government has to date published no evidence that the Chinese Communist party has manipulated Americans’ TikTok feeds. The mere spectre of such “covert manipulation”, as the US solicitor general called it during supreme court oral arguments, was enough. The US attempted to submit classified evidence to the court, which may have contained the smoking digital gun, but the court declined to consider it since the information would be withheld from TikTok’s counsel. To the second reason – TikTok does collect sensitive information on its users.

The justices wrote in their unanimous opinion: “Even if China has not yet leveraged its relationship with ByteDance Ltd to access US TikTok users’ data, petitioners offer no basis for concluding that the Government’s determination that China might do so is not at least a ‘reasonable inferenc[e] based on substantial evidence.’”

And so here we are. The deadline for TikTok’s parent company, ByteDance, to announce a sale to a non-Chinese owner has passed without intervention from the US supreme court, Biden or the US Congress. Donald Trump wants to save the app, and he’s loudly thinking about issuing an executive order to do it, but that will have to wait for another day. For now, TikTok is gone.

Each party involved is trying hard to disclaim responsibility.

From the start, ByteDance adopted an all-or-nothing approach, refusing to entertain the possibility of selling the app. Two years ago, Beijing indicated it would likewise oppose a sale, and the Chinese government has offered few comments since. There were no reports of deals almost reached or a secret meeting between a potential buyer and a company executive. Should a sale be put in motion, Beijing would need to approve the export of TikTok’s algorithm to a foreign power. It was ban or bust. It didn’t have to be.

The White House, for its part, on Friday clung to its position that TikTok “should remain available to Americans, but simply under American ownership”. What has the White House done to make that happen? It was Biden himself who signed the ban-or-sale bill into law. Biden now says he will not enforce the ban, throwing the political football to Trump, who will be inaugurated on Monday and says he’ll give TikTok a 90-day reprieve from the ban.

But it was Trump himself who originated the TikTok ban in 2020. He now says he wants to “save TikTok” and may order the US justice department to go light on the enforcement of it. Circumventing an act of Congress affirmed by the nation’s highest court would be an extraordinary feat of legal contravention, and yet it is one of the likely outcomes of our current predicament. Who was it, then, who banned TikTok? Whose fault is it?

Scrolling through the app on Friday, references to the ban run the gamut from playful jabs at the government’s disconnection:

“It’s not global warming. It’s not access to healthcare, welfare – boring! Corruption at the top, citizens getting shot, with all that’s going on, right now’s the perfect time for banning TikTok!” the lyrics of a song by @oct_official about the current situation read. It has received about 600,000 likes.

To rage:

“The saddest part of this entire fucking thing is that the United States government just looked its people square in the fucking face, right in the eyeballs, and said, ‘Your voice doesn’t matter, and it never fucking did!’ They sell you the American dream; they sell you the freedoms that you think you fucking have; and then they turn around, they strip them from you, and they say there’s not a fucking thing you can do about it. Fascist countries ban apps,” @bryanandrewsmusic, with 2.6m followers, yelled from his car. His video has accrued 1.3m likes.

To heartfelt eulogies:

“It genuinely feels like our parents just came in the middle of the school year and said, ‘Yeah, forget all your friends, forget all the hard work you did at this school, you’re going to have to start from scratch,” TikToker @inzlay said in a video of herself crying and bidding farewell to her TikTok following of 24,500. She racked up 300,000 likes. “It sounds dramatic to say I don’t know what I’ll do without TikTok, but I really don’t know who I’m going to be without TikTok. A large part of who I have become in the last six years and a large part of my growth has come from a lot of the stuff I’ve learned off this app. I really hate to say goodbye.”

In court, however, justices have sided with the argument that the government can judge new technologies and major expressive outlets to be threats and snuff them out. Thus the legal argument stands, and the ban is upheld.

Donald Trump has said he will “most likely” give the Chinese-owned TikTok app a 90-day reprieve from a potential ban in the US after he takes office on Monday morning.

The incoming president said on Saturday, in an interview with NBC News, that he was considering the extension on a Sunday deadline laid down for the parent company of the wildly popular app to sell TikTok to a non-Chinese-buyer or face a ban under US law.

“I think that would be, certainly, an option that we look at. The 90-day extension is something that will be most likely done, because it’s appropriate. You know, it’s appropriate. We have to look at it carefully. It’s a very big situation,” Trump said in the phone interview.

“If I decide to do that, I’ll probably announce it on Monday,” he said.

Trump’s comments come after the outgoing Biden administration kicked a decision on the issue over to the succeeding administration and TikTok appealed for greater “clarity and assurance” so that US tech hosts of the service would not be in legal jeopardy.

The company said on Friday it plans to “go dark” on Sunday unless it receives assurances from the current administration. Outgoing White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre called TikTok’s plans to go dark “a stunt” in a statement on Saturday morning.

“We have seen the most recent statement from TikTok. It is a stunt, and we see no reason for TikTok or other companies to take actions in the next few days before the Trump administration takes office on Monday,” she said.

“We have laid out our position clearly and straightforwardly: actions to implement this law will fall to the next administration. So TikTok and other companies should take up any concerns with them,” she said.

Under US law, the president can grant an extension if he certifies to Congress that there’s a path to divestiture, there’s “significant progress” toward executing it and that a legal agreement to do so is in place. But no binding legal agreement has been made public.

After the US supreme court upheld the law banning the app, TikTok’s CEO, Shou Chew, who is slated to attend Trump’s inauguration on Monday, posted a video praising Trump’s support.

“I want to thank President Trump for his commitment to work with us to find a solution that keeps TikTok available in the United States,” he said. “This is a strong stand for the first amendment and against arbitrary censorship.”

TikTok users posting videos of cats or dancing do not pose a security threat to the UK, a cabinet minister has said, as he defended the government’s decision not to ban the Chinese-owned video platform.

The government has allowed the app to continue running in Britain, as it stopped working in the US before a federal ban comes into force.

Britain’s approach to China threatens to be one of a number of sources of tension between Downing Street and the incoming Trump administration, with the UK looking for a rapprochement with Beijing while the US president-elect threatens further trade tariffs.

Jones told the BBC on Sunday: “We always keep all of these technology issues under consideration, whether it’s for national security or data privacy concerns – we have laws in place and processes to do that.

“We have no plan from the UK, so we won’t be following the same path that the Americans have followed, unless or until, at some point in the future there is a threat that we are concerned about in the British interest.”

He added: “There is a different approach on government devices [on which] we’ve not been allowed to use TikTok for many years. The last Conservative government took the same position because there’s sensitive information on those devices, but for consumers who want to post videos of their cats or dancing, that doesn’t seem like a national security threat to me.”

The government’s position contrasts with that taken in the US, where TikTok stopped working this weekend ahead of a law that would force its parent company, ByteDance, either to sell it to a non-Chinese owner or shut it down entirely. TikTok has said it cannot be sold to another company and so chose to remove the app from app stores over the weekend.

Trump has threatened to ramp up tariffs on China after taking office on Monday. His position on TikTok, however, has changed since he was last in office.

Trump proposed a TikTok ban in 2020 but has recently promised to work with the company to find a political solution to the standoff, having found a large audience on the platform during the 2024 election campaign.

He said on Saturday he would “most likely” grant the company a 90-day reprieve from the federal ban while he worked out what to do with it in the longer term.

A Nato flotilla likened to “the security camera of the Baltic” has assembled off the coast of Estonia as the military alliance seeks to protect European undersea cables and pipelines from sabotage.

In a move that ratchets up a struggle with Russia over the seabed that has remained largely covert until now, a Dutch frigate and naval research ship, as well as a German minesweeper have all arrived in Tallinn under a thick January sea fog.

A French minesweeper is expected and more Nato vessels are on the way in support of a joint effort, called Baltic Sentry, that was agreed in Helsinki last week.

“The group will grow in the near future, with other ships joining us, so in the end, we will be about six, seven ships,” said Cmdr Erik Kockx, the Belgian head of a mine countermeasures taskforce that has been drawn into Baltic Sentry.

“We will in the first case function as the security cameras of the Baltic Sea, which means that nobody can undertake any actions against critical underwater infrastructure without us having seen them and being able to react in a proper way.”

The latest incident which triggered the Nato response took place on Christmas Day when the Estlink 2 power cable between Finland and Estonia, and four data cables were damaged, according to Finnish authorities, by an oil tanker, the Eagle S, dragging its anchor along the seabed for 60 miles (100km) until it snagged on the cables.

The Eagle S was ordered into Finnish territorial waters, boarded by a special police squad descending from helicopters, and is now detained off the small port of Porvoo, east of Helsinki. The ship was found to be missing an anchor that was later salvaged from the seabed where it appears to have separated from its chains, and nine of the crew have been banned from leaving Finland while the inquiry is under way.

The Eagle S embodies the grey, amorphous nature of the tense situation in this corner of the Baltic, where it is hard to distinguish between careless accidents and deliberate acts of hybrid warfare.

The 74,000-tonne Chinese-built tanker has had three previous names, and is now sailing under the flag of the Cook Islands, owned by a corporation in Dubai but managed by an Indian company, with a Georgian captain and a Georgian-Indian crew.

The ship was reportedly on its way from the Russian port of Ust-Luga with 35,000 tonnes of petrol bound for Turkey. Nato and the Finnish authorities believe it is part of Russia’s “shadow fleet” of vessels from around the world quietly commissioned by Moscow to transport Russian oil in defiance of sanctions imposed after Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine.

The working theory of the Finnish police is that ships and crews that can be commissioned to bust sanctions can also be hired to carry out sabotage.

The Eagle S’s Dubai-based owner, Caravella, has denied the allegations and challenged the ship’s detention through its Finnish lawyer, Herman Ljungberg.

“The vessel and its master, which I represent, has not been provided with any information of the investigations,” Ljungberg said in a written statement to the Guardian.

“We have not given any decisions nor legal basis for the boarding which took place over three weeks ago which I dare to call the action of hijacking.”

Ljungberg said the seizure of the Eagle S contravened the law of the sea and the Finnish criminal code.

“The Finnish authorities did not have jurisdiction whatsoever to board the vessel and conduct investigations. FULL STOP,” the lawyer wrote.

It has emerged that the Eagle S was also involved in an incident off the Dutch coast in November, in which it was allegedly observed to sail to and fro over the Atlantic Crossing 1, a telecommunications cable linking the US to Britain, the Netherlands and Germany.

The shipping website Lloyd’s List cited an anonymous source as saying the tanker was found to be “loaded with spying equipment”, including sensors that had been dropped over the side of the ship. According to Finnish authorities, however, no unusual equipment was found when it was boarded in December.

The Eagle S incident is the third time in recent months that critical infrastructure on the Baltic seabed has been damaged in murky circumstances. In October 2023, the Balticconnector gas pipeline between Finland and Estonia was sheared by the anchor of a Hong Kong-flagged container ship, the Newnew Polar Bear. The Chinese government conducted an investigation and admitted the ship was responsible but claimed it was an accident.

On 20 November, another Chinese bulk carrier, the Yi Peng 3, was accused of dragging its anchor over two fibre-optic communications cables, one running between Finland and Germany, the other between Lithuania and the Swedish island of Gotland.

Again the Chinese government carried out its own investigation but despite a pledge of cooperation, Beijing did not allow Swedish investigators onboard and the Yi Peng 3 left the Baltic while the Swedish inquiry was still under way. The two incidents raised questions over whether China too had become a protagonist in hybrid warfare in the Baltic.

“One can say that incidents in which the undersea infrastructure is damaged are very frequent worldwide. However, in the Baltic Sea, we have not witnessed such a string of episodes with most important strategic infrastructure – gas pipelines, power lines, and major data cables – since it became operational,” Tomas Jermalavičius, the head of studies at Tallinn’s International Centre for Defence and Security, said.

The severing of the Estlink 2 on Christmas Day has not led to immediate power cuts, as supplies have been diverted from elsewhere in the grid, but it will take months to repair during which time the region’s power supply will be significantly more fragile.

The breach came at a time of heightening tension leading up to 8 February when the three Baltic states, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, will sever one of the last vestiges of their distant Soviet past and decouple their power networks from the Russia energy grid, synchronising with the European grid instead through a power link to Poland.

“Moscow would certainly be interested in disrupting the process of our desynchronisation (perhaps even preventing it from happening), raising its costs, and discrediting the Baltic governments by causing chaos, confusion, and fear,” Jermalavičius said. “The prospect of power blackouts is a chilling one.”

The Dutch head of the Nato marine group assigned to protect the seabed infrastructure, Commodore Arjen Warnaar, had few doubts about who was responsible for the Estlink 2 rupture.

“That is something that is still being evaluated and we’re always keeping that possibility in mind,” Warnaar said on Friday, speaking on the bridge of the Dutch frigate Tromp, moored in Tallinn.

Asked if there was another possibility, he replied: “Yes – aliens.”

When Baltic Sentry was agreed by Baltic Nato members at a summit meeting in Helsinki on Tuesday, the Nato secretary general, Mark Rutte, described the recent incidents as “possible sabotage” and underlined the stakes in protecting the undersea energy and internet cables, noting that 1.3m km of undersea cables were responsible for an estimated $10tn (£8.2tn) worth of financial transactions every day.

“Ship captains must understand that potential threats to our infrastructure will have consequences, including possible boarding, impounding, and arrest,” Rutte said.

The naval taskforce assembling in Tallinn can draw on Nato members’ intelligence on shipping, surveillance from the air and space, underwater sonars repurposed from hunting mines, drone submersibles and a new generation of underwater sensors.

“Any ship that is leaving St Petersburg will know that it is being followed,” Kockx said. “And if that ship has the intention to undertake any unlawful actions, it will think twice.”

An extraordinary personal legal battle which has been years in preparation is to pit one of the most famous members of the British royal family against the world’s best-known media baron this week. On Tuesday Prince Harry’s lawsuit against Rupert Murdoch’s newspaper group, owners of the Sun and the now defunct News of the World, will officially begin at the High Court in London.

Fifth in line to the throne, King Charles’s younger son lives in self-imposed exile in California, but is due to appear in court in person once the case gets fully under way next month. The Duke of Sussex, 40, is suing News Group Newspapers (NGN), over claims that journalists on his popular titles worked unlawfully with private investigators, delving into his private life, between 1996 and 2011. He sees himself as the last man standing in a struggle to get the newspapers to take legal responsibility for the crimes he and others have alleged. Another surviving case brought by Lord Watson, the former Labour deputy leader, will be heard alongside the Prince’s.

About 40 other claimants, many of them celebrities such as Hugh Grant and Sienna Miller, have already settled claims against Murdoch’s group. Most were deterred from going to trial by the huge legal bills that could be imposed on them, even after a win in court. If they had previously rejected a financial offer from NGN to pursue their grievance, they could have been found liable for millions. After accepting a settlement last year, Hugh Grant said he did so after finding out he could be liable for £10m in costs.

“They have settled because they’ve had to settle,” Prince Harry told the New York Times before Christmas. “One of the main reasons for seeing this through is accountability, because I’m the last person that can actually achieve that.”

However, the civil trial, scheduled to run until mid-March, is likely to draw in other famous witnesses, including Grant, Miller, and Lily Allen, as well as testimony from eminent figures such as former prime minister Gordon Brown and the justice minister, Shabana Mahmood. It will also involve public statements from whistleblowing journalists.

Defending their reputations from allegations that they were aware of unlawful activities and even attempted to conceal them, will be many of the most powerful names in British media, including Murdoch and his son, James, Rebekah Brooks, now CEO of News UK, Victoria Newton, editor of the Sun, and the British journalist Will Lewis, who is today controversially in charge at the Washington Post, as its publisher and CEO. Lawyers for the Prince claim Lewis was implicated in a ruse to conceal evidence of hacking by removing computer files. Lewis told the the Times last summer: “Any allegations of wrongdoing are untrue.”

A spokesperson for NGN said: “Both [Watson and the Duke of Sussex] allege unlawful destruction of emails by News International between 2010-2011. This allegation is wrong, unsustainable, and is strongly denied. NGN will be calling a number of witnesses including technologists, lawyers and senior staff to defeat the claim.”

A source close to the Prince’s legal team told the Observer: “People concentrate on the allegations of phone hacking, but that is actually a small part of it. In fact, the unlawful activities we will provide evidence of were much broader, including phone tapping, blagging – or gaining information through trickery – and going through bins for paperwork.” The extent of payments to private investigators will also be considered.

The newspaper group’s bosses have previously suggested that many of their stories about the private lives of well-known or powerful people were legitimately sourced through anonymous tip-offs or by people ringing the newsroom in return for money.

The Prince launched his legal action against NGN in 2019, the same week that his wife, Meghan Markle, launched her own case against the Mail on Sunday for alleged breach of privacy and copyright infringement, over its publishing of a private letter she had sent to her father.

Harry is believed to want to hold key people accountable for the damage that he alleges was done to himself and his wider family as a result of intrusion and harassment from the press. Murdoch and his organisation have so far avoided public discussion about a document trail that the claimants argue reveals criminal activityand a concerted cover-up.

Early weeks in court will cover what are termed “generic issues”, such as examining how widespread any unlawful practices were and who knew of them. Worryingly for the defendants, broad legal proofs that unlawful information gathering was routine could be established here just by “inference”, rather than with explicit documentation. Signs of concealment, use of coded language, or that the destruction of paperwork was rife would also be damaging to the defence. This first phase will also examine allegations that NGN misled police and provided false statements to the Leveson public inquiry into media ethics between 2011 and 2012.

Those presenting the Prince’s lawsuit, it is understood, do not expect to lose any of more than 30 individual allegations of unlawful activity, but the bigger prize is the final hearing of the evidence in open court. “This will be about witnesses speaking their truth in front of the police and in public,” the source said. Most significant may be any evidence supporting the claims that newspaper staff committed perjury or perverted the course of justice.

Tom Watson’s case, which will allege the hacking of the parliamentary committee he formerly chaired while it sat to consider the hacking allegations themselves, will be heard from 10 February 10^th, before the Prince’s case.

The Prince wants to attend the Invictus Games, of which he is founder and patron, and which begins on 8 February, before appearing in court. He is also thought to be planning to call on only a few witnesses, to spare others from being thrust into the spotlight. One witness may be the mother of the late television presenter Caroline Flack.

Harry has testified before in a hacking case brought against Mirror Group Newspapers, in the summer of 2023. The judge in the upcoming case, Timothy Fancourt, also heard that case and ruled the Prince had been a victim of “widespread and habitual hacking”. He was awarded £140,600 and then settled the rest of his privacy claims against the Mirror Group for at least £400,000.

A spokesperson for NGN said: “In 2011 an apology was published by NGN to victims of voicemail interception by the News of the World. The company publicly committed to paying financial compensation and since then has paid settlements to those with claims. In some cases, particularly those relating to The Sun, it has made commercial sense (and in accordance with common litigation practice) for the parties to come to a financial settlement without NGN accepting liability.

“NGN strongly denies that any of its titles hacked Mr Watson or acted unlawfully and will also argue his claim is brought out of time … [The Duke of Sussex’s] allegations of mobile phone hacking have been struck out by the court so will not be part of the trial. His claim focuses now on allegations of unlawful information gathering … His claim will be fully defended, including on the grounds that it is brought out of time.”

Novak Djokovic will boycott on-court interviews at the Australian Open and media appearances with Channel Nine until he receives an apology from the Australian television network after its reporter “made a mockery” of Serbian fans and “made insulting and offensive comments” towards him.

Djokovic had been due to speak with Jim Courier for the on-court interview after advancing into the quarter-finals, but after a brief off-mic conversation with Courier Djokovic instead took the mic and briefly addressed the crowd before signing autographs and leaving the court.

Djokovic then addressed the issue with a statement at the start of his post-match press conference: “Couple days ago the famous sports journalist who works for official broadcaster Channel Nine here in Australia, made a mockery of Serbian fans and also made insulting and offensive comments towards me,” he said. “And since then, he chose not to issue any public apology. Neither did Channel Nine. So since they’re official broadcasters, I chose not to give interviews for Channel Nine.

“I have nothing against Jim Courier or the Australian public. It was a very awkward situation for me to face on the court today. It’s unfortunate I chose to say something to the crowd, but obviously it wasn’t the time and space or situation for me to explain what I’m doing right now. I leave it to Channel Nine to handle this the way they think they see fit. That’s all.” He later posted a video on his X account addressing fans in which he further explained the situation.

Tony Jones, a veteran reporter for Channel Nine, was criticised last week for a television segment conducted in front of a Serbian crowd. The video has since spread virally on social media: “Welcome back to Melbourne Park, where you can see the Novak Djokovic fans, they’re in full voice. The chants are quite extraordinary,” Jones said.

After turning around to face the crowd, Jones then began singing towards them: “Novak, he’s overrated. Novak’s a has-been. Novak, kick him out. Boy, I’m glad they can’t hear me,” he sang.

Djokovic was pictured speaking with Craig Tiley, the Australian Open tournament director, after leaving the court: “I told him: ‘If you guys want to fine me for not giving an on-court interview, that’s OK, I’ll accept that ‘cause I feel like this is something that needs to be done.’ That’s all there is to it.”

Daniil Medvedev has been fined more than half of his Australian Open prize money for his behaviour at Melbourne Park.

The Russian, a three-time beaten finalist, crashed out of the tournament in the second round following a five-set loss to the American teenager Learner Tien, during which he received a point penalty after throwing his racket, while he also skipped the mandatory post-match press conference.

He was fined £54,000, one of the biggest totals in grand slam history, for unsportsmanlike conduct, plus an extra £8,200 for breaking a net camera by repeatedly smashing it with his racket during his first-round win over Kasidit Samrej.

Medvedev will also have to reimburse organisers for the cost of the camera, taking another chunk out of his overall prize money of £102,000.

France’s Corentin Moutet also received a sizeable fine of £12,300 for unsportsmanlike conduct, while Britain’s Jack Draper was penalised £3,300 for smashing his racket during his third-round win over Aleksandar Vukic.

Two judges have been killed in a shooting on Saturday at the supreme court building in Tehran, Iranian state media have reported.

“This morning, a gunman infiltrated the supreme court in a planned act of assassination of two brave and experienced judges. The two judges were martyred in the act,” the judiciary’s Mizan Online website reported.

Mizan said the assailant killed himself after the “terrorist” act. The state news agency, IRNA, said one other person was wounded.

The two slain judges have been identified by Mizan as Ali Razini and Mohammad Moghisseh, both of whom handled cases “fighting crimes against national security, espionage and terrorism”.

The judiciary spokesperson Asghar Jahangir said on state television that “a person armed with a handgun entered the room” of the two judges and shot them.

“Individuals have been identified, summoned or arrested in connection with the incident,” he added, without providing further details.

The motive behind the killings was not immediately clear, but Mizan said the assailant was not involved in any cases before the supreme court.

Authorities said an investigation into the attack was under way.

President Masoud Pezeshkian expressed his condolences over the deaths, calling on the authorities to act swiftly.

He said: “I strongly urge the security and law enforcement forces to take the necessary measures as soon as possible by examining the dimensions and angles of this reprehensible act and to identify its perpetrators.”

Moghisseh, 68, was sanctioned by the US in 2019 for having “overseen countless unfair trials, during which charges went unsubstantiated and evidence was disregarded”, according to the US Treasury.

Razini, 71, held several important positions in Iran’s judiciary and was previously targeted in a 1998 assassination attempt by assailants “who planted a magnetic bomb in his vehicle”, according to Mizan.

Though attacks targeting judges are rare, Iran has seen a number of shootings targeting high-profile figures in recent years.

In October, a Shiite Muslim preacher was shot dead in the southern city of Kazerun after leading Friday prayers.

In April 2023, a powerful cleric identified as Abbas Ali Soleimani was shot dead at a bank in the northern province of Mazandaran.

Two judges have been killed in a shooting on Saturday at the supreme court building in Tehran, Iranian state media have reported.

“This morning, a gunman infiltrated the supreme court in a planned act of assassination of two brave and experienced judges. The two judges were martyred in the act,” the judiciary’s Mizan Online website reported.

Mizan said the assailant killed himself after the “terrorist” act. The state news agency, IRNA, said one other person was wounded.

The two slain judges have been identified by Mizan as Ali Razini and Mohammad Moghisseh, both of whom handled cases “fighting crimes against national security, espionage and terrorism”.

The judiciary spokesperson Asghar Jahangir said on state television that “a person armed with a handgun entered the room” of the two judges and shot them.

“Individuals have been identified, summoned or arrested in connection with the incident,” he added, without providing further details.

The motive behind the killings was not immediately clear, but Mizan said the assailant was not involved in any cases before the supreme court.

Authorities said an investigation into the attack was under way.

President Masoud Pezeshkian expressed his condolences over the deaths, calling on the authorities to act swiftly.

He said: “I strongly urge the security and law enforcement forces to take the necessary measures as soon as possible by examining the dimensions and angles of this reprehensible act and to identify its perpetrators.”

Moghisseh, 68, was sanctioned by the US in 2019 for having “overseen countless unfair trials, during which charges went unsubstantiated and evidence was disregarded”, according to the US Treasury.

Razini, 71, held several important positions in Iran’s judiciary and was previously targeted in a 1998 assassination attempt by assailants “who planted a magnetic bomb in his vehicle”, according to Mizan.

Though attacks targeting judges are rare, Iran has seen a number of shootings targeting high-profile figures in recent years.

In October, a Shiite Muslim preacher was shot dead in the southern city of Kazerun after leading Friday prayers.

In April 2023, a powerful cleric identified as Abbas Ali Soleimani was shot dead at a bank in the northern province of Mazandaran.

Donald Trump has launched a cryptocurrency “meme coin” ahead of his inauguration for a second term as US president, called $Trump.

He announced the launch on Truth Social and X on Friday night. The asset has since soared in value, more than tripling in price from about $20 per token to more than $70, with at least $24bn in trading volume as of Sunday morning and more than $14bn in market capitalization.

A “meme coin” is a type of cryptocurrency inspired by trends such as internet memes with no inherent utility, and are often susceptible to price swings and crashes. The “Hawk Tuah girl”’s meme coin dropped 95% shortly after its release last month, fallen from a $500m market capitalization to $25m, with investors submitting complaints with the SEC of insider trading.

The cryptocurrency community has been eagerly anticipating Trump’s second term, with anticipated favorable regulatory environments and Trump claiming he intends to make the US the “crypto capital of the planet”.

The president-elect has nominated Paul Atkins to serve as Chair of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), a known crypto enthusiast who served as co-chair of the crypto advocacy group Digital Chamber’s Token Alliance since 2017.

Trump has also promised to issue an executive order once in office to create a crypto advisory council with as many as 20 members.

The speculative nature of crypto assets has incited concerns over a potential bubble, where political endorsements and support far inflate asset prices beyond fundamental values and do not reflect the risks associated with investments.

“Strong political and government endorsements of crypto, paradoxically, pose a threat to its decentralisation ethos and could ultimately undermine the appeal of crypto assets,” wrote Larisa Yarovaya, an associate professor of finance and director of the Centre for Digital Finance at Southampton Business School, for the Guardian earlier this month. “If, in 2025, the SEC turns a blind eye, consumers could be left entirely unprotected from financial losses – especially when another meme coin bubble bursts.”

According to the Trump meme coin website, a Trump-owned company called CIC Digital LLC owns 80% of the coin’s supply of 200m tokens, which is expected to grow to 1bn over three years.

Trump has previously released batches of crypto trading cards during his presidential campaign, generating over $4m per release in total revenue. His sons Eric Trump and Donald Trump Jr also launched a cryptocurrency venture, World Liberty Financial, in 2024, inciting concerns of an overt conflict of interest.

Leading crypto firms have poured at least $10m into Trump’s Inauguration fund.

The meme coin’s website included a disclaimer stating: “Trump Memes are intended to function as an expression of support for, and engagement with, the ideals and beliefs embodied by the symbol “$TRUMP” and the associated artwork, and are not intended to be, or to be the subject of, an investment opportunity, investment contract, or security of any type. GetTrumpMemes.com is not political and has nothing to do with any political campaign or any political office or governmental agency.”

A group of MPs has withdrawn a controversial report into Bangladesh after complaints that it was biased in favour of the ousted government of Sheikh Hasina.

The all-party parliamentary group (APPG) on the Commonwealth issued a report on Bangladesh last November that criticised the current regime in Dhaka but was accused of significant inaccuracies.

Officials say, however, that it is no longer being distributed and is “under review” after a Labour MP complained about it in the House of Commons.

“The report in question remains an internal document under review and has been shared with the [Foreign Office] as part of the group’s broader deliberative process,” a spokesperson said. “It is not intended for wider dissemination, and the APPG will not be taking the matter further or making any follow-ups.”

Hasina’s niece Tulip Siddiq resigned as City minister over her previously undisclosed links to her aunt’s party, triggering accusations that the Awami League was interfering in British politics.

The report, entitled The Ongoing Situation in Bangladesh, was released to the press in November, three months after Hasina was deposed by a student-led rebellion against her authoritarian rule. That rebellion was met by a brutal but ultimately unsuccessful crackdown from security forces, resulting in an estimated 1,000 deaths.

The report makes a series of criticisms about Hasina’s successor, the Nobel peace prize winner Muhammad Yunus. Andrew Rosindell, the Conservative chair of the APPG, wrote in an accompanying press release: “Bangladesh should have a great future where opportunities are open and available to everyone rather than just supporters of whatever regime is in power … Without an immediate change of tack, the goodwill the new government enjoys internationally will be in danger of evaporating.”

The group’s report accused Yunus’s administration of “using the law as a political weapon” and empowering “hardline Islamists”.

“We have received evidence that murder charges are being slapped on former ministers, Awami League leaders, MPs, former judges, scholars, lawyers and journalists in such numbers to raise questions around their credibility,” the report read, relying mainly on evidence from the Rights & Risk Analysis Group, a New Delhi-based thinktank.

Experts, however, criticised it for citing a relatively low estimate of deaths, and claiming that most had occurred after Hasina had fled the country rather than as a result of violence by her police and armed forces.

The report said: “The majority of these [deaths occurred] after 5 August when millions came into the street protesting against police tactics against demonstrators and looking for reprisals against supporters of the last government.”

The finding contradicts an earlier one from the UN human rights commissioner, who released a report in August saying: “The majority of deaths and injuries have been attributed to the security forces and the student wing affiliated with the Awami League.”

The report also claimed the new government in Dhaka had charged 194,000 people with crimes, whereas experts say that number is more likely to refer to the number of people named in police reports about possible crimes.

Rupa Huq, a Labour MP who has recently spent time in Bangladesh, criticised the report in the Commons this week, calling it a “hatchet job on the interim government of Bangladesh”. Huq claimed Yunus had personally raised the report with her, asking: “What is your government doing, issuing these falsities in the name of parliament?”

Naomi Hossain, a professor at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London, said: “The report features basic errors that the most superficial knowledge of Bangladesh would prevent … It is either egregiously biased or just extremely bad analysis. As a tool for accountability it fails completely.”

A spokesperson for the APPG said: “The group has decided to shift its focus exclusively toward the Commonwealth of Nations as an institution and, as such, will no longer be producing country-specific reports.”

Conditions similar to Covid lockdowns should be imposed on criminals as an alternative to overflowing prisons, barristers have told the government.

In an official submission to an ongoing sentencing review led by former Conservative justice secretary David Gauke, the Bar Council called for consideration of more “creative use of punishment”. Ideas put forward by the body, which represents barristers in England and Wales, include enhanced home detention measures for non-violent offenders and “part-time prisons” that would help inmates reintegrate into society.

“A greater use of 20-hour curfews as a direct alternative to custody would have a variety of benefits,” says a document submitted to the review. “It may be that similar restrictions to those imposed during the Covid-related lockdowns could be introduced as punitive measures.”

The Bar Council said that laws already existed to ban offenders from pubs, sports grounds and social events, which could “constitute a significant deprivation of liberty” without putting them in jail.

It also urged the government to look for inspiration to Sweden, where inmates can be released for set periods between several hours and several days to visit family, complete education courses and look for work.

The body said a form of part-time prison could be designed for low-risk offenders who have not committed violent crimes, allowing them to work, train and maintain family ties while preparing them for release.

The Bar Council is one of numerous groups submitting ideas and evidence to Gauke’s review of sentencing policy, which was launched in October and is expected to conclude later this year. It follows a prison population crisis which caused the Tories to start early release schemes and emergency capacity measures, including using police cells to hold inmates.

Labour launched a new early release programme after the general election and has been accelerating transfers into open prisons to ease pressure on secure jails, while continuing projects to build new prisons.

But a critical National Audit Office report released last month said that even if construction targets are hit, the plans are “insufficient to meet projected future demand”, and a shortage of 12,400 prison places is predicted by the end of 2027.

The watchdog attributed the crisis to “previous governments’ failure to ensure the number of prison places was aligned with criminal justice policies”, such as lengthening sentences for numerous crimes and recruiting thousands of police officers.

Michelle Heeley KC, who led the working group that drew up the Bar Council’s sentencing proposals, said the current system was “not working”.

“The number of people in prison has constantly risen but the crime rate hasn’t reduced and reoffending has increased. Sending people to prison for longer is not having the deterrent effect people thought it would,” she told the Observer.

“The reality is that the government is running out of prison places, and if you want to restrict people’s liberty and punish them, you’ve got to get more creative.”

When launching the sentencing review, the Ministry of Justice said the prison population in England and Wales had doubled over the last 30 years, creating the highest incarceration rate of any western European country. In late 2023, the Conservatives launched a new sentencing bill that would have created a “presumption” against sentences of under a year in most cases. But it failed to become law because the election was called early.

Separate proposals to end short prison sentences had been put forward by Gauke in 2019 but were scrapped after Boris Johnson became prime minister and sacked him from government.

Heeley said that while prison “will always have a place” for dangerous offenders, that more needed to be done through education and therapy to stop people being drawn into crime, adding: “It’s about getting the balance between punishment and rehabilitation.”

A Ministry of Justice spokesperson said: “The Lord Chancellor launched the Independent Sentencing Review to create a more effective criminal justice system and ensure that no government is ever forced to release prisoners early again.

“The review, which is led by former Lord Chancellor David Gauke, has completed a call for evidence and will report on their findings in the spring.”

Changing habits and the gloomy state of the world are taking the fizz out of French champagne sales, the producers’ association has said, with shipments down nearly 10% last year.

Consumers in crucial markets such as the US and home country France cut down on the luxury beverage, as economic and political anxiety dampened the party mood.

“Champagne is a real barometer of the state of mind of consumers,” said Maxime Toubart, the president of the Syndicat Général des Vignerons, the growers’ trade union, and co-president of the Comité Champagne (Champagne Committee), the joint trade association.

“It is not time to celebrate given inflation, conflicts across the world, economic uncertainties and political wait-and-see in some of the largest champagne markets, such as France and the United States.”

More affordable alternatives including prosecco, English sparkling wine and crémant are increasingly replacing champagne among consumers, with demand for the premium French bubbly down to the lowest levels in more than two decades. Cut-price tipples have become more competitive in terms of quality in recent years.

Growing evidence suggests gen Z and millennials in key markets such as the US are turning their backs on alcohol, often in favour of indulgences such as mocktails and marijuana, just as baby boomers retire and spend less on wine.

Last July, French champagne producers ordered a cut in the number of grapes harvested after sales fell more than 15% in the first half of 2024. Full-year shipments were down 9.2% from 2023 at 271.4m bottles, according to the Comité Champagne.

There was a post-pandemic boom in demand for champagne in 2022 when shipments reached 326m bottles but it has since been on a downward slide. About 299m bottles shipped in 2023, a decline of more than 8%.

The 2024 harvest in France’s Champagne region had already been hit by frosts and wet weather accelerated by climate breakdown that increased mildew attacks on the precious vines.

The French sales market comprised 118.2m bottles last year, down 7.2% compared with 2023, which the association put down to prevailing “gloom” in a country rocked by political upheaval.

François Bayrou, a veteran centrist and ally of President Emmanuel Macron, was sworn in as the fourth prime minister in a year in December as France has struggled with a growing crisis in a divided parliament.

Champagne exports also fell last year, with 153.2m bottles shipped, down nearly 11% on 2023.

“It is in less favourable periods that we must prepare for the future, maintain our environmental [standards] trajectory, conquer new markets and new consumers,” said David Chatillon, a co-president of the Comité Champagne.

Reuters contributed to this report.

Bob Dylan’s typewritten drafts for his 1965 song Mr Tambourine Man sold for more than £400,000 at auction on Saturday.

The two yellow sheets of paper contain three progressive drafts of the lyrics with annotations on the third draft of the song.

They went under the hammer in Nashville, Tennessee, with an estimated price tag of $400,000 to $600,000, eventually selling for $508,000 (£417,000).

The lyrical drafts were among 60 items that were up for sale in the dedicated auction for the singer at the Musicians Hall of Fame and Museum, with 50 pieces from the personal collection of American music journalist Al Aronowitz.

In March 1964, Aronowitz awoke to find Dylan, then 22, asleep on his sofa and the lyrics to Mr Tambourine Man crumpled up in his bin.

He had spent the night writing and rewriting his new song on a typewriter at Aronowitz’s home in New Jersey before discarding the early drafts.

A 1968 oil painting created and signed by Dylan went for $260,000. The artwork, which depicts a figure in bold colours and a cubist style, was produced by the American songwriter at the beginning of his artistic endeavours after his first wife, Sara, gave him oil paints for his 27th birthday.

The executive director and co-founder of Julien’s Auctions, Martin Nolan, described it as a “fantastic auction with outstanding sales”.

Nolan added: “We’re honoured to highlight this truly unique collection with so many historic Bob Dylan items from the grandfather of rock journalism, Al Aronowitz.

“Today’s white glove auction just reinforces the extraordinary impact and everlasting love that people have for Dylan, which transcends generations.”

Among the other high value lots was a 1983 Fender Telecaster electric guitar that was owned and played by Dylan before he gave it to famed amplifier technician and musician Cesar Diaz.

The instrument surpassed its estimate of $80,000 to $120,000 to sell for $222,250.

A number of sketches by Dylan also soared past their estimated price tags, including one of a hand on a memo pad from the Plaza hotel in New York City.

It was expected to sell for $1,500 to $2,500 but was eventually sold for $88,900.

A Levi’s denim jacket hand embellished with velvet, lace and other patches worn by the singer in the 1987 musical drama film Hearts of Fire went for $25,400.

The sale also included a 1963 handbill from his first major headline performance at Town Hall in New York City, early vintage photographs and a signed harmonica.

The collection of 60 items brought in nearly $1.5m in sales, according to Julien’s Auctions.