A woman who was shot dead outside a Kent pub on Valentine’s Day has been named by police as Lisa Smith.

Tributes to Ms Smith, 43, from Slough, have been left at the scene of the fatal shooting outside the Three Horseshoes pub in Knockholt shortly after 19:00 GMT on Friday.

Flowers and balloons – including one for “Wonderful Mum” – were accompanied by messages such as “rest in peace” and “fly high, pretty lady”.

Police said they found a vehicle containing a gun on the Queen Elizabeth II Bridge, which crosses the River Thames, near Dartford.

Detectives are investigating the possibility that the suspect entered the water.

Police said call handlers had received reports of a man “on the wrong side of the barrier” on the Dartford bridge on Friday.

Officers are continuing to search areas of the River Thames and are focusing their efforts on recovering him from the water, Kent Police said.

The force also said it believed the suspect was known to the victim.

There had been no prior contact between the police and the victim or suspect, and it is not clear if the gun was legally owned.

Rev Tim Edwards, vicar of St Katherine’s church in Knockholt, told BBC Radio Kent how he heard about the shooting.

“I had a text message from one of my church wardens,” he said, “and my immediate reaction was ‘no, that must be a misunderstanding, that doesn’t make sense.’

“As I’ve spoken to people, that sort of feeling has been replicated.

“There is a sense of shock, that is the word that every single person I have spoken to has used.

“It just doesn’t feel real, this sort of thing doesn’t happen. It’s the sort of thing you see on television, it’s not the sort of thing you see here in your own village.”

He added the community was “doing what village communities do” by supporting each other, “pulling together and looking after one another”.

Steve Maines, a parish councillor in Knockholt, previously said he heard a “commotion” outside the pub on Friday night.

He said: “We were sitting having our Valentine’s Day meal when all of a sudden we heard this huge commotion outside in the car park.

“We were told someone had been shot, so we had to leave.”

Local resident Dorothy Wong added: “I heard around three to four bangs outside and loud shouting from a woman’s voice.”

The Three Horseshoes is located about five miles (8km) north-west of Sevenoaks.

UK Special Forces command rejected resettlement applications from more than 2,000 Afghan commandos who had shown credible evidence of service in units that fought alongside the SAS and SBS, the Ministry of Defence has confirmed for the first time.

UK Special Forces officers appear to have rejected every application from a former Afghan commando referred to them for sponsorship, despite the Afghan units having fought with the British on life-threatening missions against the Taliban.

The MoD had previously denied there was a blanket policy to reject members of the units – known as the Triples – but the BBC has not been able to find any evidence that UK Special Forces (UKSF) supported any resettlement applications.

Asked if UKSF had supported any applications, the MoD declined to answer the question.

The Triples – so-called because their designations were CF 333 and ATF 444 – were set up, trained, and paid by UK Special Forces and supported the SAS and SBS on operations in Afghanistan. When the country fell to the Taliban in 2021, they were judged to be in grave danger of reprisal and were entitled to apply for resettlement to the UK.

The rejection of their applications was controversial because it came at a time when a public inquiry in the UK was investigating allegations that British Special Forces had committed war crimes on operations in Afghanistan where the Triples were present.

The inquiry has the power to compel witnesses who are in the UK, but not non-UK nationals who are overseas. If resettled, former members of the Triples could be compelled by the inquiry to provide potentially significant evidence.

BBC Panorama revealed last year that UK Special Forces command had been given veto power over their resettlement applications and denied them asylum in Britain. The revelation caused a wave of anger among some former members of the SAS and others who served with the Afghan units.

The MoD initially denied the existence of the veto, suggesting that the BBC’s reporting had been inaccurate, but then-Defence Minister Andrew Murrison was later forced to tell the House of Commons the government had misled parliament in its denials.

The confirmation of the more than 2,000 rejections emerged in court hearings earlier this month during a legal challenge brought by a former member of the Triples. Lawyers for the MoD applied for a restriction order which temporarily prevented the BBC from reporting on the relevant parts of the proceedings, before withdrawing their application last week under challenge.

Documents disclosed in court also showed that at the same time the MoD was denying the existence of the veto, it already knew that every rejection decision made by UK Special Forces was potentially unsound and would have to be independently reviewed.

• Special forces blocked resettlement for elite Afghan troops
• Minister says Afghan commandos described ‘horrific’ SAS crimes
• SAS unit repeatedly killed Afghan detainees, BBC finds

Mike Martin MP, a member of the defence select committee and former British Army officer who served in Afghanistan, told the BBC the rejections were “extremely concerning”.

“There is the appearance that UK Special Forces blocked the Afghan special forces applications because they were witnesses to the alleged UK war crimes currently being investigated in the Afghan inquiry,” Martin said.

“If the MoD is unable to offer any explanation, then the matter should be included in the inquiry,” he added.

Johnny Mercer, the former Conservative MP for Plymouth Moor View, who served alongside the SBS in Afghanistan, testified to the Afghan inquiry that he had spoken to former members of the Triples and heard “horrific” allegations of murder by UK Special Forces.

Mercer said it was “very clear to me that there is a pool of evidence that exists within the Afghan [special forces] community that are now in the United Kingdom that should contribute to this Inquiry”.

The MoD began a review last year of all 2,022 resettlement applications referred to and rejected by UK Special Forces. All contained what MoD caseworkers on the resettlement scheme regarded as “credible” evidence of service with the Triples units.

The government said at the time that the review would take 12 weeks, but more than a year later it has yet to be completed. Some rejections have already been overturned, allowing former Triples to come to the UK. But the MoD has refused to inform the Afghan commandos whether they are in scope of the review or if their rejections were upheld, unless they write to the MoD.

Many are in hiding in Afghanistan, making it difficult to obtain legal representation or pro-actively contact the MoD. Dozens have reportedly been beaten, tortured, or killed by the Taliban since the group regained control of the country.

“Although decisions have been overturned, it’s too late for some people,” said a former Triples officer. “The delays have caused a lot of problems. People have been captured by the Taliban or lost their lives,” he said.

The officer said that the Afghan commandos worked alongside British Special Forces “like brothers” and felt “betrayed” by the widespread rejections.

“If Special Forces made these rejections they should say why. They should have to answer,” he said.

The MoD is now facing a legal challenge to aspects of the review, including the decision not to inform applicants whether their case is being reviewed or disclose the criteria used to select those in scope.

The legal challenge is being brought by a former senior member of the Triples who is now in the UK, on behalf of commandos still in Afghanistan.

“Our client’s focus is on his soldiers left behind in Afghanistan, some of whom have been killed while they wait for these heavily delayed protection decisions,” said Dan Carey, a partner at the law firm Deighton Pierce Glynn.

“As things stand they have a right to request a reassessment of a decision they haven’t even been told about. And there are others who think they are part of the Triples Review when the secret criteria would tell them that their cases aren’t even being looked at.”

Lawyers acting for the former member of the Triples also heavily criticised the level of disclosure in the case by the MoD, which has not handed over any documentation from within UK Special Forces or government records about the decision-making process that led to the rejections.

In court filings, they criticised the “total inadequacy” of the MoD’s disclosure, calling it an “an obvious failure to comply with the duty of candour and to provide necessary explanation” of the process.

New evidence that emerged last week in court also showed that the MoD appeared to have rejected out of hand some applicants who served with UK Special Forces in Afghanistan after 2014 – when Britain’s conventional armed forces left Helmand province – without even referring them to UK Special Forces headquarters for sponsorship.

The MoD has not explained the reasoning behind the policy, which was kept secret from applicants. A spokesperson for the MoD said that after 2014 the UK’s role “evolved from combat operations to primarily training, advising and assisting CF 333, who were under the command of the Afghan Ministry of Interior”.

But officers who served with UK Special Forces told the BBC that the Triples continued to support British-led operations after 2014.

“Saying the Triples didn’t support UK Special Forces operations after 2014 isn’t true at all,” said former officer who served with UKSF.

“We had a squadron of CF 333 with us. We worked closely together. These were NATO targets, UK planned operations,” he said.

The Ministry of Defence has previously told the BBC: “There has been no evidence to suggest that any part of the MoD has sought to prevent former members of the Afghan specialist units from giving evidence to the inquiry.”

Do you have information about this story that you want to share?

Get in touch using SecureDrop, a highly anonymous and secure way of whistleblowing to the BBC which uses the TOR network.

Or by using the Signal messaging app, an end-to-end encrypted message service designed to protect your data.

• How to use SecureDrop

Signal: 0044 7714 956 936

Please note that the SecureDrop link will only work in a Tor browser. For information on keeping secure and anonymous, here’s some advice on how to use SecureDrop.

The US State Department has dropped a statement from its website which stated that Washington does not support Taiwan’s independence – a move which has sparked anger in China.

China said the revision “sends a wrong… signal to separatist forces advocating for Taiwan independence”, and asked the US to “correct its mistakes”.

The department’s fact sheet on Taiwan-US relations earlier included the phrase “we do not support Taiwan independence” – this was removed last week as part of what it said was a “routine” update.

A US spokesperson was quoted as saying that it remains committed to the “One China” policy, it said, where US recognises and has formal ties with China rather than Taiwan.

China sees self-governed Taiwan as a breakaway province that will eventually be part of the country, and has not ruled out the use of force to achieve this.

But many Taiwanese consider themselves to be part of a separate nation, although most are in favour of maintaining the status quo where Taiwan neither declares independence from China nor unites with it.

As well as dropping the phrase, the factsheet, which was updated last Thursday, also says the US will support Taiwan’s membership in international organisations “where applicable”.

Commenting on the changes, a spokesperson at the American Institute in Taiwan – the US’ de facto embassy on the island – told local media that the fact sheet had been “updated to inform the general public about [the US’] unofficial relationship with Taiwan”.

“We have long stated that we oppose any unilateral changes to the status quo from either side.”

On Sunday, Taiwan’s Foreign Minister Lin Chia-lung thanked the US for what he called “positive, Taiwan-friendly wordings”.

But in their regular press conference on Monday, Beijing’s foreign ministry slammed the move, calling the revision a “serious regression” in the US’ stance on Taiwan.

“This sends a wrong and serious signal to separatist forces advocating for Taiwan independence and is another example of the U.S. stubbornly persisting with its wrong policy of using Taiwan to contain China,” said Chinese spokesperson Guo Jiakun.

“We urge the US to immediately correct its mistakes [and] earnestly adhere to the One China principle.”

The choice by the Trump administration of Saudi Arabia as the location for key talks on Ukraine underscores how far the Kingdom has come diplomatically from the near pariah state it became after the murder of the Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi in 2018.

The shadow that cast over the country and its de facto leader, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman in particular, appears to have lifted, although there are still concerns occasionally raised at international forums over Saudi Arabia’s human rights record.

On many fronts – in entertainment and sport in particular – the country has spent huge amounts of money to further its ambitions to be a major player on the world stage.

Diplomatically, the Saudi leadership has also been enhancing its role. During the Biden years, the Kingdom increased its pivot away from reliance on the US as its key international ally.

The Saudis made clear that they would follow what they perceive as their interests first and foremost – striking up closer relationships with countries viewed as key rivals to the US, such as Russia and China.

The return of Donald Trump to the White House will have been welcomed by the Saudis.

His first foreign visit in his first term was to Saudi Arabia – and the transactional nature of his foreign policy is more conducive to the current Saudi leadership.

One of the possible achievements that Mr Trump would most like to chalk up on his record would be a peace deal between the Saudis and Israel – which would be the culmination of the Abraham Accords that he initiated in his first term.

But the war in Gaza has subsequently got in the way and may well raise the price that Saudi Arabia will demand for a peace agreement.

The Saudis were very quick to announce their definitive rejection of Mr Trump’s plan for Gaza – to remove all the Palestinians and rebuild it as a resort.

It has spurred the Kingdom to try to come up with a workable alternative plan with other Arab states – which would see Gazans remain in place as the enclave is rebuilt and would lead to a two state solution of the conflict.

The Trump administration’s current thinking would seem to be at odds with this – in its policy towards both Gaza and the occupied West Bank.

How this will be resolved will be key to the dynamics in the evolving relationship between Saudi Arabia and the US.

What is clear is that the Saudis have no intention of reining in their ambition of becoming an essential player in global diplomacy.

When US President Donald Trump wanted someone to meet Russian President Vladimir Putin last week to open negotiations for a potential deal to end the Russia-Ukraine war, he didn’t dispatch his secretary of state.

The man he sent to the Kremlin to handle a titanic geopolitical challenge does not even have a diplomatic background.

Instead Trump picked his personal friend, golf buddy and billionaire real estate developer Steve Witkoff.

The president has made Witkoff his Middle East envoy. But last week the Bronx-born businessman talked about ending a conflict in Eastern Europe with Putin for “about three hours”, in Trump’s words.

Trump said he, too, had a long call with Putin, signalling a possible slight thaw in relations between the two countries.

They swapped prisoners last week, in a deal that Witkoff helped to facilitate in a trip to Moscow. It appears that they discussed the Ukraine war while he was there.

Witkoff also played a part in brokering the current ceasefire agreement between Israel and Hamas, for which both Trump and his predecessor Joe Biden took credit.

Witkoff is now returning to the region – specifically Saudi Arabia – for the first US-Russian face-to-face talks over the war in Ukraine after Trump’s call with Putin.

But the bold moves made by Trump’s team are stirring concern among Western allies, who fear a new world order in which key players are shut out of discussions. Ukraine and other European nations were not invited to the Saudi meeting.

• Rubio and Witkoff to meet Russian delegation in Saudi Arabia
• Ukraine says it was not invited to US-Russia talks
• Trump welcomes freed schoolteacher back to US from Russia
• Trump team’s messaging on foreign policy leaves world guessing

So, who is Witkoff – dubbed by US media as “the man in the room”, taking centre stage as more potentially consequential international talks take place?

He was one of Trump’s first picks for his top team after his presidential election win in November. Trump wrote: “Steve will be an unrelenting voice for PEACE, and make us all proud.”

“The president sees Steve as one of the world’s great dealmakers,” a White House official told Axios. Witkoff’s preferred negotiating tactic was to use charm, according to another associate, but he could also turn up the pressure.

The 67-year-old was raised in Long Island, New York and trained as a real estate developer in one of America’s most cut-throat markets.

As a long-time Republican donor, he has known Trump for decades, and, like the president, made his fortune in real estate in both New York and Florida.

Addressing last year’s Republican National Convention, during which he recalled speaking to Trump in the aftermath of an assassination attempt, Witkoff called the other man his “true and dear friend… in good times and bad times”.

The two men are also long-time golfing companions, US Senator Lindsey Graham told NBC News. “Steve and I would be the two guys who would play Trump and somebody else, and lose,” Graham said.

Graham added that Witkoff first mentioned his interest in becoming Middle East envoy to Trump during a lunchtime conversation. “That stunned me, because I didn’t know he was interested in the Mideast,” Graham said.

Witkoff’s deal-making skills were on display during Trump’s 2024 campaign. He helped to ease tension between Trump and his defeated Republican presidential primary rival, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis.

Witkoff also reportedly met Georgia Governor Brian Kemp to smooth things over, after Kemp drew Trump’s scorn for refusing to support his unfounded claims of fraud in the 2020 election which Trump lost to Biden.

He currently serves as chairman of the University of Miami’s business school real estate advisory board, and was appointed by Trump during his first term to the board of trustees of the John F Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.

Pope Francis is being treated for a “complex clinical situation” and will remain in hospital for as long as necessary, the Vatican has said.

The 88-year-old was admitted to Rome’s Gemelli hospital on Friday to undergo treatment and tests for bronchitis.

In an update on Monday, the Vatican said the pontiff has a “polymicrobial infection” of his respiratory tract, which has required a change in his treatment.

Before his admission last week, the Pope had bronchitis symptoms for several days and had delegated officials to read prepared speeches at events.

Vatican spokesman Matteo Bruni told reporters on Monday that the pontiff was in good spirits.

A short statement on his condition said: “All tests carried out to date are indicative of a complex clinical picture that will require appropriate hospitalisation.”

The pontiff’s weekly general audience, which is usually held each Wednesday, has been cancelled for this week, the statement added.

A further update on the Pope’s condition would be released later on Monday, Mr Bruni added.

Over the weekend, the Vatican said the Pope was stable and that he’d been told to have “complete rest” to aid his recovery.

The Pope was unable to deliver his regular weekly prayer on Sunday in St Peter’s Square or lead a special mass for artists to mark the Catholic Church’s Jubilee Year.

Last Wednesday, the Pope asked a priest to read part of his speech because of his difficulties with illness.

He also held meetings at his Vatican residence last week in an attempt to rest and recover.

The Argentine pontiff has spent nearly 12 years as leader of the Roman Catholic Church.

He previously spent three nights at the same hospital in March 2023 for bronchitis treatment.

In December the same year, he was forced to cancel his trip to the United Arab Emirates for the COP28 climate summit because of another bout of illness.

He has suffered a number of health issues throughout his life, including having part of one of his lungs removed at age 21.

Meta has announced plans to build a 50,000km (31,000 mile) subsea cable across the world.

The tech giant said Project Waterworth – connecting the US, India, South Africa, Brazil and other regions – will be the world’s longest underwater cable project when completed.

Meta, which owns Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp, has sought to extend its presence in technology beyond social media, including in artificial intelligence (AI) and the infrastructure that supports it.

It said its new cable project would provide “industry-leading connectivity” to five major continents and help support its AI projects.

“This project will enable greater economic co-operation, facilitate digital inclusion, and open opportunities for technological development in these regions,” Meta said in a blog post.

The cable would be the longest to date that uses a 24 fibre-pair system, giving it a higher capacity, according to the firm.

Subsea cables have become increasingly important as they provide the means to power a variety of digital services and transfer data worldwide at speed.

One regularly-cited statistic suggests more than 95% of the world’s internet traffic is transferred through undersea cables.

Telecommunications market research firm TeleGeography says there are currently more than 600 publicly-known subsea cable systems worldwide.

This includes the 2Africa cable, backed by Meta and mobile network operators such as Orange, Vodafone and China Mobile, which links three continents and spans 45,000km.

And the tech firms that serve as major providers of web services have invested huge sums in cable infrastructure.

Google said in 2024 it would build the first subsea cable connecting Africa and Australia, and announced a $1bn investment to boost connectivity to Japan with two new subsea cables in the Pacific Ocean.

Telecoms and technology analyst Paolo Pescatore told the BBC that Meta “has shown a strong desire to own more of the connectivity slice”.

“This is a further demonstration as it seeks to leapfrog rivals in providing users with an unique experience by tightly integrating hardware, software, platform and its growing aspirations in connectivity,” he said.

“Ultimately these moves, while welcome from an investment perspective, will raise further eyebrows among regulators and other key stakeholders given increasing dominance of big tech.”

The rising importance of subsea cables has increased concerns over their vulnerability to attacks or accidents.

Following a spate of severed cables, experts have said undersea communications infrastructure is a growing arena for geopolitical tensions and conflict.

Nato launched a mission in January to increase surveillance of ships in the Baltic Sea after damage to critical undersea cables last year.

• Listen: Tech Life – how engineers fix subsea internet cables
• The deep-sea ’emergency service’ that keeps the internet running

A UK parliamentary committee recently issued a call for evidence about the UK’s resilience in the face of potential disruption.

This said pointed to growing concern over “Russian and Chinese capabilities to hold undersea infrastructure at risk – particularly during periods of heightened tension or conflict”.

Meta said in its blog post announcing Project Waterworth it would lay its cable system up to 7,000 meters deep and “use enhanced burial techniques in high-risk fault areas, such as shallow waters near the coast, to avoid damage from ship anchors and other hazards”.

Singapore’s opposition leader Pritam Singh has been found guilty of lying under oath to a parliamentary committee.

A court imposed the maximum fine of S$7,000 ($5,223; £4,148) for each of two charges. Singh said that he would appeal against the conviction and sentence.

The charges relate to Singh’s handling of Raeesah Khan, a former lawmaker from his party, who lied to parliament in a separate case.

The verdict in this high-profile trial comes as Singapore is gearing up for its next general election, which must be held by November. Singh’s Workers’ Party holds nine out of 87 elected seats in parliament.

Under Singapore’s constitution, any MP can lose their seat or be barred from running for office for five years if they are fined at least S$10,000 or jailed for more than a year.

The election department has since clarified that the S$10,000 threshold only applies to a single offence, according to local media. This means Singh’s fines will not trigger disqualification.

“The question on most people’s minds is the consequences for the upcoming election,” Chong Ja-Ian, associate professor at the National University of Singapore, told the BBC.

Singh’s case could either be “played up” by state media or “fizzle out” of public attention, he said.

Singh told reporters outside the court on Monday that he intended to run in the upcoming election.

The verdict on Monday, which lasted more than two hours, was delivered to a packed courtroom. Members of the press who could not fit into the courtroom, including the BBC, viewed a livestream of the verdict from a separate room.

District Judge Luke Tan, who delivered the verdict, said several pieces of evidence showed that Singh “never wanted Ms Khan to clarify [her] lie” and had “direct and intimate involvement” in guiding Khan to continue her narrative.

Prosecutors sought the maximum fine of S$7,000 for each of Singh’s two charges, while the defence asked for S$4,000.

Singh, 48, maintained his innocence throughout the trial, arguing that he had wanted to give Khan time to deal with what was a sensitive issue.

Singh’s case has gripped the city-state, where a usually uneventful political scene – dominated by the ruling People’s Action Party – has in recent years seen a rare string of scandals.

The saga started in August 2021 when Khan claimed in parliament that she had witnessed the police misbehave towards a sexual assault victim. She later admitted that her anecdote was not true.

Khan was fined S$35,000 for lying and abusing her parliamentary privilege. She has since resigned from the party and parliament.

During a parliamentary committee investigation into the incident later that year, Khan testified that the party’s leaders, including Singh, had told her to “continue with the narrative” despite finding out that it was not true. This was prior to her eventual admission.

Singh denied this, but also said that he had given Khan “too much time to settle herself before closing this issue with her”.

The parliamentary committee concluded that Singh was not being truthful and referred the case to the public prosecutor.

Judge Tan said on Monday that Singh’s actions after learning of Khan’s lie were “strongly indicative that the accused did not want Ms Khan to clarify the untruth at some point”.

Singh’s Workers’ Party is the opposition party with the largest presence in parliament.

The party made significant gains during the 2020 election, increasing their number of seats from six to 10 – the biggest victory for the opposition since Singapore gained independence in 1965. Singh was named the opposition leader after the polls.

One of those seats has since been vacated by Khan.

A star-studded cast have taken part in a three-hour special to celebrate the 50th anniversary of legendary US comedy show Saturday Night Live.

The SNL50 show took place on Sunday (not Saturday) – but it was live, as always, from Studio 8H in New York City’s Rockefeller Centre.

The programme, famed for its sketches and celebrity hosts, premiered in October 1975 and is responsible for launching the careers of comedy legends including Eddie Murphy and Bill Murray.

Some returned for the anniversary special, alongside younger acts. Here are some of the highlights:

• How SNL became a TV phenomenon
• Kamala Harris makes a surprise appearance
• Adele’s excitement and terror at hosting SNL

Woman of the moment Sabrina Carpenter kicked off the show by performing a duet alongside Paul Simon of folk rock duo Simon and Garfunkel. The pair sang a rendition of the band’s 1966 hit Homeward Bound.

Simon first appeared on the comedy series back in 1976, singing the same song with The Beatles’ George Harrison.

Espresso singer Carpenter joked that neither she nor her parents had been born then.

Nirvana returned to the stage with surprise guest Post Malone – introduced by actor Adam Sandler. The actor reminisced about the original bandmates’ last SNL performance with frontman Kurt Cobain shortly before his death.

Post Malone joined Dave Grohl, Krist Novoselic and Pat Smear to play the band’s iconic hit Smells Like Teen Spirit.

It came after the surviving members of the 90s rock band reunited for another special performance last month to raise money for the LA fires relief fund.

SNL’s jokes regularly centre around politics or news events, so it seemed unlikely that one of the most high-profile current celebrity showdowns – between Justin Baldoni and Blake Lively – would be spared.

The It Ends With Us stars are currently embroiled in a bitter legal dispute, with a court date set for 2026.

In what appeared to be a reference to the drama, Lively’s husband (who is also named in the complaint) Ryan Reynolds was part of a Q&A in which Tina Fey and Amy Poehler appeared on stage to take questions from the audience.

Asked how he was doing, Reynolds replied “Great!” Then, seeming concerned, he asked: “Why, what have you heard?”

US actress Aubrey Plaza made one of her first public appearances since the death of her husband.

Director and screenwriter Jeff Baena died in January at the age of 47. The pair had been together for more than a decade and married in 2021.

On Sunday, Plaza popped up in the audience to introduce Miley Cyrus and Brittany Howard for a performance of Sinead O’Connor’s Nothing Compares 2 U.

She paid tribute to Baena wearing a tie-dye shirt – it is unclear if it belonged to him but the couple wore tie-dye outfits for their wedding after the director got into the hobby during Covid.

An almost unrecognisable Meryl Streep made her SNL debut in a sketch hitting on Pedro Pascal and calling her character a “bad girl”.

She also referenced her iconic film in which she played fierce fashion boss Miranda Priestly, joking: “This devil wears nada.”

What would this special be without a face from the very first season of the show? It was fitting for Garrett Morris, an original cast member and the first black person on set of Saturday Night Live, to return to the studio.

He started the sketch declaring “I am Garrett Morris” to a big cheer, and joked that back when he joined the cast he had “no idea ya’ll that I would be required to do so many reunion shows”.

Domingo was back. There was no surprise that arguably the most viral character of the last season would return for this special.

Previously, we saw him at the wedding of Kelsey and Matt, when her bridesmaids revealed in a musical ensemble that she had been having an affair with Domingo.

On the anniversary special, Domingo’s brothers turned up at the couple’s vow renewal. Santiago, aka musician Bad Bunny, and Reynaldo, played by Pedro Pascal, joined in when the groomsmen formed their own ensemble.

It was revealed, this time round, that Matt and Santiago had got to know one another.

The last time Kim Kardashian was on SNL, she made headlines for kissing comedian Pete Davidson on Aladdin’s magic carpet – a kiss that was rumoured to be the start of their relationship.

On Sunday, Kardashian returned for an updated version of the singing Maharelle Sisters with former cast members Ana Gasteyer, Kristen Wiig and Scarlett Johansson – whose husband is the regular “Weekend Update” anchor Colin Jost.

Introduced by his rarely seen Anger Management co-star Jack Nicholson, actor Adam Sandler sang about the show’s history.

He gave a long list of previous cast members, noting several who had died including veteran SNL-ers Chris Farley and Norm MacDonald along with Gilda Radner, Jan Hooks and Phil Hartman.

Tom Hanks, wearing a black suit and tie, aptly performed a spoof segment named “In Memoriam”.

He introduced a tribute to “SNL characters and sketches that have aged horribly”, describing the subsequent montage as “unquestionably in poor taste”.

He pointed out to the audience in spite of that: “You all laughed at them. So if anyone should be cancelled, shouldn’t it be you the audience? Something to think about.”

South Korea has banned new downloads of China’s DeepSeek artificial intelligence (AI) chatbot, according to the country’s personal data protection watchdog.

The government agency said the AI model will become available again to South Korean users when “improvements and remedies” are made to ensure it complies with the country’s personal data protection laws.

In the week after it made global headlines, DeepSeek became hugely popular in South Korea leaping to the top of app stores with over a million weekly users.

But its rise in popularity also attracted scrutiny from countries around the world which have imposed restrictions on the app over privacy and national security concerns.

South Korea’s Personal Information Protection Commission said the DeepSeek app became unavailable on Apple’s App Store and Google Play on Saturday evening.

It came after several South Korean government agencies banned their employees from downloading the chatbot to their work devices.

South Korea’s acting president Choi Sang-mok has described Deepseek as a “shock”, that could impact the country’s industries, beyond AI.

Despite the suspension of new downloads, people who already have it on their phones will be able to continue using it or they may just access it via DeepSeek’s website.

China’s DeepSeek rocked the technology industry, the markets and America’s confidence in its AI leadership, when it released its latest app at the end of last month.

Its rapid rise as one of the world’s favourite AI chatbots sparked concerns in different jurisdictions.

Aside from South Korea, Taiwan and Australia have also banned it from all government devices.

The Australian government has insisted its ban is not due to the app’s Chinese origins, but because of the “unacceptable risk” it says it poses to national security.

Italy’s regulator, which briefly banned ChatGPT in 2023, has done the same with DeepSeek.

The company has been asked to address concerns over its privacy policy before it becomes available again on app stores.

Data protection authorities in France and Ireland have also posed questions to DeepSeek about how it handles citizens’ personal information – including whether it is stored on servers in China, as its privacy policy suggests.

It also says that, like other generative AI tools, it may collect information such as email addresses and dates of birth, and use input prompts to improve their product.

Meanwhile, lawmakers in the US have proposed a bill banning DeepSeek from federal devices, citing surveillance concerns.

At the state-government level, Texas, Virginia and New York, have already introduced such rules for their employees.

DeepSeek’s “large language model” (LLM) has reasoning capabilities that are comparable to US models such as OpenAI’s o1, but reportedly requires a fraction of the cost to train and run.

That has raised questions about the billions of dollars being invested into AI infrastructure in the US and elsewhere.

A cracked windscreen forced US Secretary of State Marco Rubio into a rapid U-turn as his plane, en route to the Munich Security Conference, had to turn back an hour into the flight.

America’s top diplomat, his senior officials and the travelling press returned to Andrews Air Force Base near Washington DC on Thursday night.

But despite the mid-air scare the news was already firmly elsewhere. In Europe, US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth had stunned America’s allies with a speech setting out what many saw as a series of concessions Ukraine would have to make to sign any peace deal with Russia brokered by President Trump.

Hegseth said it was “unrealistic” to think Ukraine could win back its sovereign territory occupied by Russia, as was its demand for Nato membership, adding it was up to European and not US troops to keep the peace.

Critics, including some Republicans in Washington, castigated the speech, saying it gave away all of Ukraine’s leverage ahead of any negotiations. It was, they argued, a US capitulation to Russian President Vladimir Putin.

“It’s certainly an innovative approach to a negotiation to make very major concessions even before they have started,” said former Swedish Prime Minister Carl Bildt, who co-chairs the European Council on Foreign Relation, a think tank.

• Ukraine end game: What each side wants from a peace deal
• Ukraine in maps: Tracking the war with Russia

The following day, Hegseth wound back some of what he had said. He clarified that all options were in fact still on the table for Trump to use as leverage between Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

“What he decides to allow or not allow is at the purview of the leader of the free world, President Trump,” said Hegseth. However he added he had been “simply pointing out realism” and rejected the idea he had offered any undue concessions to Moscow.

As for Rubio, the broken-down plane delayed his arrival in Munich, where his officials were briefing about his own priorities for the trip.

The United States would work for a “just and lasting peace” in which European countries would take the lead in creating a “durable security framework”, they said.

European leaders are expected to meet in Paris on Monday for urgent talks aimed at ensuring that their countries are fully involved in any Ukraine peace negotiations.

The US secretary of state’s position contained no trace of laying out limits for Ukraine in the way the defence secretary had done. Then, also in the German city, Vice-President JD Vance said the US could use “military tools of leverage” to compel Russia to do a deal, appearing to contradict Hegseth who had said no US troops would be deployed to Ukraine.

Later in the Oval Office, the fallout from Hegseth’s speech was put to President Trump – along with the commentary of a Republican senator who described it as a “rookie mistake”, like something a pro-Putin pundit could have written.

Had Trump been aware of what Hegseth was going to say? “Generally speaking, yeah, generally speaking I was,” said the president. “I’ll speak to Pete, I’ll find out,” he added.

The three days of to and fro gave some of the first major insights into Trump’s evolving position on one of the most consequential issues he faces – Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine and his vow to end the war – and also into how his administration is formulating and messaging its foreign policy.

On the substance, Hegseth’s speech – alongside Trump’s lengthy statement about an apparently warm phone call with Putin aimed at starting negotiations with Ukraine – sent shockwaves through European capitals, despite Hegseth’s attempts to row back.

“Any quick fix is a dirty deal,” said the European Union foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas of the prospect of a US-led deal with Russia that might leave Ukraine’s voice on the sidelines.

Then there is the question of the way US foreign policy under Trump was being communicated. What happened in Munich seemed to be partly an attempt by his senior officials to interpret and relay Trump’s positions, but that effort resulted in sometimes explosive and often contradictory statements – some of which were then partly diluted or reversed.

• JD Vance’s blast at Europe ignores Ukraine and defence agenda
• Trump wants peace. Ukrainians fear what that might look like

It is not yet clear how much this is the result of a new but ill-coordinated administration still clarifying its lines to take internally, as opposed to a deliberate feature of a presidency less concerned about officials freelancing with rhetoric, even if it sows some confusion, so long as they remain loyal to his final word.

Trump’s first term saw a series of high-profile sackings or resignations of top officials who contradicted or disagreed with him, including three national security advisers, two defence secretaries and a secretary of state.

This time around, his appointments have been characterised more frequently by a willingness to show loyalty. Pete Hegseth, who had no previous experience running a military or government or agency, was a Fox News weekend presenter and former National Guard major who aligns strongly with Trump’s thinking and agenda.

His appointment was highly contested and scraped through its confirmation process with three Republican senators voting against him, seeing the result tied 50-50 with JD Vance casting the tie-breaking vote.

As Trump said himself this week he was “OK” with the idea of taking Ukraine joining Nato off the negotiating table, calling it “not practical”.

Hegseth’s comments were hardly out of line with the president’s position – rather they were an amplification of it to an audience anxious to shore up Ukraine’s negotiating position not weaken it.

The challenge for those affected is that the precise position of US foreign policy is having to be defined. One of its features is uncertainty. This may well be deliberate – Donald Trump using the “madman” theory of foreign relations – often attributed to former Republican President Richard Nixon.

This suggests that being powerful but unpredictable is a way to make allies stay close while coercing adversaries. It would also explain a sense of his own officials going rogue but within the parameters of Trump’s broadly known positions.

But as this theory’s name suggests, it also carries considerable risks of mistakes or miscalculation in an already violent and uncertain world.

Trump’s recent proposals for Gaza – emptying it of its Palestinian population to build the “Riviera of the Middle East” under US ownership – were similarly permeated with confusion and contradiction.

While his officials appeared to try to correct some of what he set out – as only “temporary relocation” for example –Trump later doubled down saying it would in fact be “permanent” with no right of return.

As for Rubio – who wants the state department to be the most influential government agency when it comes to Trump’s decision-making – his colleagues’ comments at Munich were already overshadowing his own.

His smaller, replacement plane finally landed in Europe – windscreen intact but without the press pool on board, while most of the headlines were also going elsewhere.

Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky has called for the creation of an “army of Europe” amid rising concern the US may no longer come to the continent’s aid.

Speaking at the Munich Security Conference, he said US Vice-President JD Vance had made it clear the old relationship between Europe and America was “ending” and the continent “needs to adjust to that”.

He also said Ukraine would “never accept deals made behind our backs without our involvement” after Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin agreed to start peace talks.

On Saturday, the US Secretary of State Marco Rubio held a phone call with Russia’s foreign minister “building on” Wednesday’s call between Trump and Putin.

• Ukraine in maps: Tracking the war with Russia
• What’s happening in Ukraine after three years of conflict with Russia?

Russia’s foreign ministry said Saturday’s call had been made “at the request of the US side”. The statement did not give any further details on Ukraine but said both sides had “reaffirmed commitment to restoring a … dialogue” between the two countries.

Trump’s call with the Russian president earlier this week broke nearly three years of silence between Washington and Moscow.

Earlier on Saturday, Trump’s special envoy to Ukraine also said Europe would be consulted but not take part in talks between the US and Russia, if and when they happen.

In remarks likely to raise concern in Ukraine and among European allies, Keith Kellogg said previous negotiations had failed because too many parties had been involved.

“It may be like chalk on the blackboard, it may grate a little bit, but I am telling you something that is really quite honest,” he said on Saturday.

Zelensky also said that he had blocked a Trump-led deal that would have given the US access to vast amounts of Ukrainian natural resources because it lacked “security guarantees” for Kyiv and “does not protect us”.

Trump has pushed for access to rare minerals in Ukraine in return for aid, or even as compensation for the support the US has already provided.

Earlier this week, US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth said Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine was a “factory reset” for Nato which signalled the alliance needed to be “robust”, “strong” and “real”.

On Saturday, Zelensky said: “Let’s be honest. Now we can’t rule out the possibility that America might say no to Europe on an issue that threatens it.

“Many, many leaders have talked about Europe that needs its own military – an army of Europe.”

The concept of a European army has been proposed by other leaders, including France’s Emmanuel Macron who has long backed the bloc’s own military to reduce its reliance on the US.

The idea was quickly rebuffed by the EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas.

Zelensky said: “A few days ago, President Trump told me about his conversation with Putin. Not once did he mention that America needs Europe at the table – that says a lot.

“The old days are over when America supported Europe just because it always had.”

As Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine nears its three-year anniversary, Trump and Hegseth have both said it is unlikely that Ukraine will join Nato.

The US defence secretary also said a return to Ukraine’s pre-2014 borders was unrealistic.

Zelensky said he would “not take Nato membership for Ukraine off the table”.

Trump had a phone call with Putin last week where they discussed peace talks regarding Ukraine, apparently sidelining key allies.

Zelensky said that, as well as Ukraine, Europe “should have a seat at the table when decisions about Europe are being made”.

The US president later said that he and Putin planned to meet in Saudi Arabia, and wrote on social media that the two had invited each other to their respective capitals.

No date has been set for Trump’s visit to Moscow.

On Ukraine’s involvement in talks, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said last week that Kyiv “will of course one way or another be taking part in the negotiations”.

Germany’s chancellor, Olaf Scholz, said his country would never support a dictated peace.

Poland’s Prime Minister Donald Tusk said Europe needs its own plan on Ukraine, or “other global players will decide about our future”.

A series of US declarations rocked last week’s Munich Security Conference and caused discord among the European politicians in attendance.

Now US and Russian officials are expected to meet in Saudi Arabia next week to begin negotiations on ending the war in Ukraine.

However, Ukraine and European politicians have not been invited to attend, despite insisting they must be involved for any ceasefire to be credible.

Instead, they will meet in Paris on Monday for an emergency summit to discuss the conflict and the continent’s security.

Here are five takeaways from Munich.

Nato, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, was formed in 1949 with the primary aim of blocking expansion in Europe by the former Soviet Union.

Now numbering 32 members, including several Eastern European countries, members agree that if one of them is attacked, the others should help defend it.

But after this week the post-World War Two security architecture for Europe is no more. America is still in Nato but Europe can no longer automatically rely on the US to come to its aid.

In Brussels, US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth called on Nato’s European members to spend much more on defence, saying they would have to provide the “overwhelming” share of military funding for Ukraine.

The US and Russia are going to make a deal to end the war in Ukraine, whether Europe and Ukraine like it or not.

The talks in Saudi Arabia will end a three-year freeze in talking to Vladimir Putin, despite urgent warnings by Kyiv that the Russian leader is not to be trusted.

They follow a phone call between Donald Trump and Putin on Wednesday.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio will be joined by national security adviser Mike Waltz and the US special envoy to the Middle East, Steve Witkoff, US officials said.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, who has repeatedly said he would not accept any deal struck without his country’s input, said Kyiv had not been invited to the talks.

Europe, everyone agrees, needs to rapidly raise its defence spending if it has any hope of deterring a newly emboldened Russia.

The current Nato-mandated minimum of 2% of GDP is likely to rise to 3%. Russia currently spends more than twice that on defence in percentage terms.

In January, Trump urged Nato’s European members to spend 5% of their national income on defence. Nato Secretary-General Mark Rutte has also urged member states to boost their defence spending.

But Europe as a whole has already overtaken the US in terms of aid to Ukraine. In total, it has allocated €70bn ($73bn; £58bn) in financial and humanitarian aid as well as €62bn in military aid. This compares to €64bn in military aid from the US as well as €50bn in financial and humanitarian allocations.

US Vice President JD Vance’s blistering attack on Europe’s policies on Friday was called “ill-judged” and “insulting” by many of the delegates at the Munich Security Conference.

They had hoped he would reassure them the US was not abandoning Ukraine.

Instead, he spent the majority accusing European governments – including the UK’s – of retreating from their values, and ignoring voter concerns on migration and free speech.

The address was met by silence in the hall, and later denounced by several politicians at the conference.

But the speech appealed to others on both sides of the Atlantic and Donald Trump called it “brilliant”.

While the Munich conference was occupied by the geopolitical, Donald Trump announced plans to bring in a 25% tariff on all steel and aluminium imports from March.

It was evidence there are now very obvious rifts between Washington’s positions and Europe’s on several issues, from trade to dealing with Russia.

It is a divide that the UK is struggling to bridge, with Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer telling reporters both relationships were important and Britain was “not choosing between the US and the EU”.

But the Trump team’s own messaging is sometimes contradictory, rowing back on grand pronouncements the day after they have been made.

Europe’s leaders are scrambling. Their hastily convened security summit in Paris on Monday is proof of that.

They are still reeling from not being invited by the US to talks with Russia over the future of Ukraine. US President Donald Trump said on Sunday he could be meeting Russian President Vladimir Putin “very soon”.

Can Europe, under pressure, put political differences and domestic economic concerns aside, and come up with a united front on security spending and on Ukraine’s future, including potentially sending troops there – to force themselves a spot at the negotiating table?

They are going to try.

On Monday morning, UK prime minister Sir Keir Starmer said the UK was “ready and willing to put troops on the ground”. Even in Germany, ahead of a heated election, the foreign policy spokesman of the CDU party, expected to win the most seats, said Europe’s largest country would also be willing to commit troops within an international framework.

The Trump administration is clearly not 100% sure what it wants to do about Ukraine. There were a number of mixed messages over the weekend.

This allows Europe a tiny window of opportunity to try to persuade the American president it’s an invaluable partner.

It hopes to do that via this Paris meeting, getting the ball rolling on two major issues demanded by Donald Trump: That Europe spend and do more for its own defence, and that Europe send troops to Ukraine after a ceasefire.

Europe’s leaders insist Kyiv be directly involved in ceasefire talks too. They’ve long maintained the view that “there can be no decisions about Ukraine, without Ukraine”.

But it’s about even more than that for Europe.

It is the cold realisation – much dreaded, but not entirely unexpected – that the Trump administration does not prioritise relations either with European partners, or their defence.

Europe has relied on a security umbrella provided by the US since World War Two.

Depending on the parameters of the Russia-US talks over Ukraine, and how emboldened Putin feels by them, there is also a European fear this could end up changing their continent’s security architecture.

Putin historically resents the spread of Nato eastwards. Russian neighbours – the tiny, former Soviet Baltic States and also Poland – now feel particularly exposed.

Not all European countries will be at Monday’s summit. Just those with military heft: the UK, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain and Denmark – which is expected to represent the Baltic and Nordic nations, plus the EU Council president and the secretary general of the defence alliance, Nato.

Other countries will reportedly have later, follow-up meetings.

Even at the small Paris gathering, it will be hard, if not impossible, to agree concrete defence spending increases. Poland plans to spend 4.47% of its GDP on defence in 2025. The UK is struggling towards, and hasn’t yet reached, 2.5% of its GDP.

But leaders can pledge to coordinate better, spend more inside Nato and shoulder most of Ukraine’s post-war reconstruction. The EU is expected to bolster its defence effort too.

A large part of the Paris meeting will also focus on the question of sending troops to Ukraine after a ceasefire.

The idea being discussed is not for peacekeeping troops but rather a “reassurance force”, stationed behind, rather than on, any eventual ceasefire line.

The aim of a European troop presence would be three-fold. To send a message to Ukrainians: that they are not alone. Another message to the US, to show that Europe is “doing its bit” for defence of its own continent, and the last message to Moscow, to warn that if it breaks the terms of an eventual ceasefire, it won’t be dealing with Kyiv alone.

But it’s a controversial concept and may not be popular with voters. In Italy for example, 50% of people asked don’t want to send any more weapons to Ukraine, never mind sending sons and daughters, sisters and brothers there.

There are so many as yet unanswered questions:

How many troops would each European country have to send, for how long, and under whose command? What would their mission statement be – for example if Russia broke the terms of an agreed ceasefire, would that mean European soldiers would be directly at war with Russia? Would the US have their back if so?

Europe would want a US security guarantee before deploying soldiers to Ukraine. It may not get one.

It’s far too much to be decided on Monday. And leaders, including UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer, come to Paris with their own domestic concerns – can they afford extra defence spending, do they have the troops to send to Ukraine?

Richard – now Lord – Dannatt is the former head of the British Army. He told the BBC that the UK military is too depleted to provide a significant proportion of troops for Ukraine. He said around 100,000 troops would probably be needed in total and the UK would be expected to provide a considerable number of those. The British Army insists it has earned a worldwide reputation for excellence.

But this summit is more broad brushstrokes than fine print. The conversation can at least get started publicly.

Will Donald Trump be paying attention?

Hard to know.

There’s talk of sending an envoy to Washington after the Paris meeting to make Europe’s case. Italy’s Prime Minister, Giorgia Meloni, is close to the Trump administration, for example.

Sir Keir Starmer has a planned visit to Washington in a few days. This could be his chance to act as a bridge between Europe and the US.

The Paris meeting also offers an opportunity for the UK and other European leaders to further mend relations after the bitterness of Brexit.

Mark Leonard, head of the European Council on Foreign Relations, notes that Starmer could “demonstrate that Britain is a responsible stakeholder for European security … Something that will be noticed and translate into goodwill when it comes to negotiations on other issues”.

Issues like trade relations and law enforcement co-operation which the UK hopes to improve with the EU going forward.

Host nation France is feeling confident. President Macron has long advocated that Europe be less reliant on outside countries for supply chains, tech capabilities and very much so when it comes to defence. He made headlines a year ago by first mooting the idea of troops on the ground in Ukraine.

France is “fiercely proud” that its intelligence and security services are not intertwined with the US, unlike the UK, says Georgina Wright, deputy director for international studies at the Institut Montaigne. That makes it less complicated to untangle, now that Trump is in the White House, demanding that Europe take care of itself.

The US has sent a document to European allies consisting of six points and questions, such as which countries would be willing to deploy troops to Ukraine as part of a peace settlement, and which governments would be prepared to increase sanctions on Russia, including more strictly enforcing existing ones.

But Julianne Smith, until recently the US ambassador to Nato, says this kind of complicated diplomatic work normally takes weeks of meetings and can’t be organised by filled-in forms.

She adds that whatever Europe’s leaders achieve in Paris, if they use that to demand a seat at the negotiating table over Ukraine, their hand is weak.

“If Trump blinks and says no, does Europe refuse to help altogether? They can’t cut off their nose to spite their face.”

Essentially, if the US plans to turn away from Ukraine and from Europe more broadly in terms of security, they will have to significantly up their defence game anyway.

If Donald Trump isn’t watching, Vladimir Putin certainly is.

Sir John Major has warned that democracy is under threat as the United States steps back from its leading role in the world.

The former prime minister told the BBC that US President Donald Trump’s policy of American “isolation” was creating a power vacuum that would embolden nations like Russia and China.

Sir John, who was PM from 1990 to 1997, said the gains made since the collapse of the Soviet Union were now being reversed – and that there was “no doubt” Russia would invade elsewhere before long.

He said that “ugly nationalism” growing concurrently was making for a “very unsettled time”.

His comments come as European leaders prepare for an emergency summit on Monday on the war in Ukraine.

US and Russian officials are due to open peace talks in the coming days despite concerns European nations including Ukraine were being locked out.

Sir John also rejected US Vice-President JD Vance’s recent criticism of Europe’s record on free speech, suggesting the remarks should have been directed at the authorities in Moscow or Beijing.

He told BBC Radio 4’s The World This Weekend: “It’s extremely odd to lecture Europe on the subject of free speech and democracy at the same time as they’re cuddling [Russian President Vladimir] Putin.

“In Mr Putin’s Russia, people who disagree with him disappear, or die, or flee the country, or – on a statistically unlikely level – fall out of high windows somewhere in Moscow.”

Sir John said the world was changing and “may not be reshaping in a way that is congenial to the West”.

He continued: “Many of the gains we made over recent years, when the Soviet Union collapsed, are now being reversed and you see a very aggressive Russia again in Ukraine.

“And if they were to succeed with their venture in Ukraine, no doubt they’d be elsewhere before too long.

“There is no doubt in my mind that democracy has been in modest decline over the last 18 years.

“There is an ugly nationalism growing, mostly from the intolerant right… So it is a very unsettled time.”

The former Conservative leader, who presided over a tumultuous time for the UK’s economy, said he sympathised with the challenges the current Chancellor Rachel Reeves faced, but said the global situation may require more defence funding.

“It’s very, very easy to say from outside government, ‘I’d just do this and I’d spend all this money’.

“I would prefer to say I would realise in my plans that we have to make a very material increase in the level of defence expenditure and do it as a priority as soon as it is credible to do so.”

Speaking earlier on the BBC’s Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg programme, Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds said the UK and Europe had to respond to US demands for them to pay more towards their “collective defence” in the face of “greater threats”.

He said the government would set out a roadmap to increase defence spending from 2.3% to 2.5% of the nation’s economic output, but declined to offer a definitive timetable.

Reynolds also played down divisions between the US and its allies over resolving the Ukraine conflict, insisting there was “still a great deal of common ground”.

Sir John has made public interventions on a number of issues in recent years, including Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, which started in 2022.

Shortly after the war began, he and another former prime minister, Gordon Brown, were among signatories of a petition calling for Putin to face a Nuremberg-style trial for war crimes over his actions in Ukraine.

South Korean actress Kim Sae-ron has been found dead in Seoul, police have said.

The 24-year-old was found in her home in the city’s Seongsu-dong district by a friend at around 16:55 (07:55 GMT) on Sunday.

Officers said no signs of foul play had been found and they were investigating the cause of death.

Kim began her career as a child actor and was seen as one of South Korea’s most promising young actresses.

Born in Seoul in 2000, she rose to prominence with her role in 2009 film A Brand New Life – which saw her appear at the Cannes Film Festival.

She went on to star in South Korea’s highest grossing film of 2010 The Man from Nowhere and 2012 thriller The Neighbour, for which she received award recognition.

Other notable roles include the 2014 film A Girl at My Door and television roles such as Mirror of the Witch in 2016.

The actress largely withdrew from the public eye in 2022 due to a drink driving incident, for which she was fined 20 million won (£11,000) in April 2023.

Kim’s last role was in Netflix’s 2023 Korean drama Bloodhounds. Variety reported that most of her role was edited out due to the driving incident.

The UN climate summit in the United Arab Emirates in 2023 ended with a call to “transition away from fossil fuels”. It was applauded as a historic milestone in global climate action.

Barely a year later, however, there are fears that the global commitment may be losing momentum, as the growth of clean energy transition is slowing down while burning of fossil fuels continues to rise.

And now there is US President Donald Trump’s “national energy emergency”, embracing fossil fuels and ditching clean energy policies – that has also begun to influence some countries and energy companies already.

In response to Trump’s “drill, baby, drill” slogan aimed at ramping up fossil fuel extraction, and the US notifying the UN of its withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement, Indonesia, for instance, has hinted that it may follow suit.

“If the United States does not want to comply with the international agreement, why should a country like Indonesia comply with it?” asked Hashim Djojohadikusumo, special envoy for climate change and energy of Indonesia, as reported by the country’s government-run news agency Antara.

Indonesia has remained in the list of top 10 carbon-emitting countries for years now.

“Indonesia produces three tons of carbon [per person a year] while the US produces 13 tons,” he asked at the ESG Sustainable Forum 2025 in Jakarta on 31 January.

“Yet we are the ones being told to close our power plants… So, where is the sense of justice here?”

Nithi Nesadurai, director with Climate Action Network Southeast Asia, said the signals from her region were concerning.

She said the “richest country and the largest oil producer in the world” increasing its production gives other states “an easy excuse to increase their own – which they are already doing”.

In South Africa, Africa’s biggest economy and a major carbon emitter, a $8.5bn foreign-aided transition project from the coal sector was already moving at a snail’s pace, and now there are fears that it may get derailed further.

Wikus Kruger, director of Power Futures Lab at the University of Cape Town, said there was a “possibility” that decommissioning of old coal-fired power stations would be “further delayed”.

However he said that while there was some “walk back” from transition to renewables, there was still growth in the clean energy sector that was expected to continue.

Argentina withdrew its negotiators from the COP29 climate meeting in Baku last November, days after Trump won the US presidency. It has since followed Trump’s lead in signalling it will withdraw from the Paris Agreement of 2015 – which underpins global efforts to combat climate change.

“We now expect our oil and gas production to go up,” Enrique Viale, president of the Argentine Association of Environmental Lawyers, told the BBC.

“President Milei has hinted that he intends to withdraw from the Paris Agreement and has said environmentalism is part of the woke agenda.”

Meanwhile, energy giant Equinor has just announced it is halving investment in renewable energy over the next two years while increasing oil and gas production, and another oil major, BP, is expected to make a similar announcement soon.

Trump has not just said “drill, baby, drill” but also: “We will export American energy all over the world.”

Potential foreign buyers are already lining up.

India and the US have agreed to significantly increase the supply of American oil and gas to the Indian market.

At the end of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s US visit on 14 February, the two countries issued a joint statement that “reaffirmed” the US would be “a leading supplier of crude oil and petroleum products and liquified natural gas to India”.

A few days after Trump’s inauguration, South Korea, the world’s third largest liquified natural gas importer, has hinted its intention to buy more American oil and gas aimed at reducing a trade surplus with the US and improving energy security, international media have reported from Seoul.

Officials with Japan’s largest power generator, JERA, have told Reuters they too want to increase purchases of liquified natural gas from the US to diversify supply, as it currently imports half of it from the Asia-Pacific region.

“There is certainly a threat that if the US seeks to either flood markets with cheap fossil fuels, or bully countries into buying more of its fossil fuels, or both, the global energy transition might be slowed,” said Lorne Stockman, research director with Oil Change International, a research and advocacy organisation for transition to clean energy.

Scientists have said there can be no new fossil fuel extraction and there needs to be a rapid reduction of carbon emissions (around 45% by 2030 from the 2019 level) if the world is to limit warming to 1.5 Celsius compared to the pre-industrial period.

“The economics of energy supply are a key driver of decarbonisation,” said David Brown, director of energy transition practice at Wood Mackenzie, a global energy think-tank.

“The resource base of US energy supports the role of natural gas and liquids production. By contrast, import-dependent economies such as China, India, and those in Southeast Asia have a dramatic economic incentive to decarbonise sources of energy.”

Global energy transition investment surpassed $2tn for the first time last year but studies have also shown that the growth of clean energy transition has markedly slowed in recent years, while many major banks continue to finance fossil fuels.

It has been dubbed one of the world’s rarest treasure troves of art but few people outside its host country know about it.

For decades, masterpieces by the likes of Pablo Picasso, Vincent Van Gogh, Andy Warhol and Jackson Pollock have been kept in the basement of a museum in Iran’s capital Tehran, shrouded in mystery.

According to estimates in 2018, the collection is worth as much as $3bn.

Only a small portion of the work has been exhibited since the 1979 Iranian Revolution but in recent years, the Tehran Museum of Contemporary Art has been showcasing some of its most captivating pieces.

The Eye to Eye exhibition at the Tehran Museum of Contemporary Art, which opened in October 2024, was extended twice due to overwhelming public demand, running until January 2025.

The display was widely regarded as one of the most significant exhibitions in the history of the museum, and it also became its most visited.

The showcase featured more than 15 works unveiled for the first time, including a sculpture by Jean Dubuffet – marking its first-ever appearance in an Iranian exhibition.

From abstract expressionism to pop art, the collection at the museum serves as a time capsule of pivotal artistic movements.

Among the artwork is Warhol’s portrait of Farah Pahlavi – Iran’s last queen – a rare piece blending his pop art flair with Iranian cultural history.

Elsewhere, Francis Bacon’s work called Two Figures Lying on a Bed with Attendants shows figures appearing to spy on two naked men lying on a bed.

On the opposite wall in the basement of the museum, a portrait of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the founder of the Islamic Republic of Iran, is on display in juxtaposition.

The museum was built in 1977 under the patronage of Pahlavi, the exiled widow of the last Shah of Iran who was overthrown during the revolution.

Pahlavi was a passionate art advocate and her cousin, architect Kamran Diba, designed the museum.

It was established to introduce modern art to Iranians and to bridge Iran closer to the international art scene.

The museum soon became home to a stunning array of works by luminaries including Picasso, Warhol and Salvador Dali, alongside pieces by leading Iranian modernists, and quickly established itself as a beacon of cultural exchange and artistic ambition.

But then came the 1979 revolution. Iran became an Islamic republic as the monarchy was overthrown and clerics assumed political control under Ayatollah Khomeini.

Many artworks were deemed inappropriate for public display because of nudity, religious sensitivities or political implications.

Pierre-Auguste Renoir’s Gabrielle with Open Blouse was deemed too scandalous. And Warhol’s portrait of the former queen of Iran was too political. In fact, Pahlavi’s portrait was vandalised and torn apart with a knife during the revolutionary turmoil.

After the revolution, many of the artworks were locked away, collecting dust in a basement that became the stuff of art world legend.

It was only in the late 1990s that the museum reclaimed its cultural significance during the reformist presidency of Mohammad Khatami.

Suddenly the world remembered what it had been missing. Art lovers could not believe their eyes. Van Gogh, Dali, even Monet – all in Tehran.

Some pieces were loaned to major exhibitions in Europe and the United States, briefly reconnecting the collection with the global art world.

Hamid Keshmirshekan, an art historian based in London, has studied the collection and calls it “one of the rarest treasure troves of modern art outside the West”.

The collection includes Henry’s Moore’s Reclining Figure series – an iconic piece by one of Britain’s most celebrated sculptors – and Jackson Pollock’s Mural on Indian Red Ground, a vibrant example of the American’s painting technique pulsing with energy and emotion.

Picasso’s The Painter and His Model – his largest canvas from 1927 – also features, a strong example of his abstract works from the post-cubism period.

And there is Van Gogh’s At Eternity’s Gate – one of the very rare survivals of his first printmaking campaign during which he produced six lithographs in November 1882.

But for art lovers in Britain, the collection is out of reach. The UK Foreign Office advises against all travel to Iran and says British and British-Iranian dual nationals are at significant risk of arrest, questioning or detention.

Having a British passport or connections to the UK can be reason enough for detention by the Iranian authorities, it says.

Challenges remain for the museum which operates under a tight budget. Shifting political priorities mean that it often functions more as a cultural hub than a traditional museum.

Yet it continues to be a remarkable institution – an unlikely guardian of modern art masterpieces in the heart of Tehran.

Donald Trump has made the mass deportation of undocumented foreign nationals a key policy, with the US said to have identified about 18,000 Indian nationals it believes entered illegally.

Last week Narendra Modi said India would take back its nationals who were in the US illegally, and also crack down on the “human trafficking ecosystem”.

“These are children of very ordinary families, and they are lured by big dreams and promises,” he said during his visit to Washington.

Now a new paper by Abby Budiman and Devesh Kapur from Johns Hopkins University has shed light on the numbers, demographics, entry methods, locations and trends relating to undocumented Indians over time.

Here are some of the more striking findings.

Unauthorised immigrants make up 3% of the US population and 22% of the foreign-born population.

The number of undocumented Indians among them is contested however, with estimates varying widely due to differing calculation methods.

Pew Research Center and Center for Migration Studies of New York (CMS) estimate some 700,000 people as of 2022, making them the third-largest group after Mexico and El Salvador.

In contrast, the Migration Policy Institute (MPI) puts the figure at 375,000, ranking India fifth among origin countries.

The official government data from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) offers yet another picture, reporting 220,000 unauthorised Indians in 2022.

The vast differences in estimates highlight the uncertainty surrounding the true size of the undocumented Indian population, according to the study.

Indian migrants make up only a small share of the overall unauthorised migrant population in the US.

If Pew and CMS estimates are accurate, nearly one in four Indian immigrants in the US is undocumented – an unlikely scenario given migration patterns, the study says. (Indian immigrants are one of the fastest-growing groups in the US, surging from 600,000 in 1990 to 3.2 million in 2022.)

The DHS estimated in 2022 that the undocumented Indian population in the US dropped 60% from its 2016 peak, falling from 560,000 to 220,000.

How did the number of undocumented Indians drop so steeply from 2016 to 2022? Mr Kapur says the data doesn’t provide a clear answer, but plausible explanations could be that some obtained legal status while others returned, particularly due to COVID-related hardships.

However, this estimate doesn’t reflect a 2023 surge in Indians at US borders, meaning the actual number could now be higher.

Despite rising border encounters, US government estimates show no clear increase in the overall undocumented Indian population from the US financial year (FY) 2020 to 2022, according to the study.

Encounters refer to instances where non-citizens are stopped by US authorities while attempting to cross the country’s borders with Mexico or Canada.

Visa overstays by Indians have remained steady at 1.5% since 2016.

The number of Indian recipients of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (Daca) has also declined from 2,600 in 2017 to 1,600 in 2024. The Daca programme protects migrants who came to the US as children.

To sum up: the undocumented Indian population grew both in numbers and as a share of all unauthorised migrants, rising from 0.8% in 1990 to 3.9% in 2015 before dropping to 2% in 2022.

The US has two main land borders.

The southern border along the states of Arizona, California, New Mexico and Texas bordering Mexico sees the most migrant crossings. Then there’s the US-Canada border spanning 11 states.

Before 2010, encounters involving Indians at the two borders were minimal, never exceeding 1,000.

Since 2010, nearly all encounters involving Indians occurred along the US-Mexico southern border.

In FY 2024, encounters of Indian nationals on the northern border surged to 36% of all Indian crossings, up from just 4% the previous year.

Canada had become a more accessible entry point for Indians, with shorter visitor visa processing times than the US.

Also, there was a surge in attempted border crossings from 2021 onwards, and the encounters at the Mexico border peaked in 2023.

“This is not specific to Indians. It is part of a larger surge of migrants trying to come into the US after Biden was elected. It is as if there was a high tide of migrants and Indians were a part of it,” Mr Kapur told the BBC.

The study finds that the states with the largest Indian immigrant populations -California (112,000), Texas (61,000), New Jersey (55,000), New York (43,000) and Illinois (31,000) – also have the highest numbers of unauthorised Indian immigrants.

Indians make up a significant share of the total unauthorised population in Ohio (16%), Michigan (14%), New Jersey (12%) and Pennsylvania (11%).

Meanwhile, states where more than 20% of Indian immigrants are unauthorised include Tennessee, Indiana, Georgia, Wisconsin and California.

“We expect this because it’s easier to blend in and find work in an ethnic business – like a Gujarati working for a Gujarati-American or a Punjabi/Sikh in a similar setup,” Mr Kapur said.

The US immigration system allows people who are detained at the border who fear persecution in their home countries to undergo credible “fear screenings”. Those who pass can seek asylum in court, leading to a rise in asylum applications alongside rising border apprehensions.

Administrative data doesn’t reveal the exact demographics of Indian asylum seekers, but court records on spoken languages provide some insight.

Punjabi-speakers from India have dominated Indian asylum claims since 2001. After Punjabi, Indian asylum seekers spoke Hindi (14%), English (8%) and Gujarati (7%).

They have filed 66% of asylum cases from FY 2001–2022, suggesting Punjab and the neighbouring state of Haryana as key migrant sources.

Punjabi speakers from India also had the highest asylum approval rate (63%), followed by Hindi speakers (58%). In contrast, only a quarter of Gujarati speakers’ cases were approved.

US data collected by Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) shows Indian asylum requests in the US have skyrocketed.

The requests jumped tenfold in just two years, rising from about 5,000 in 2021 to over 51,000 in 2023.

While this spike is most dramatic in the US, similar trends are seen in Canada, the UK and Australia, where Indians are among the largest asylum-seeking groups, the study says.

Mr Kapur believes this is “largely a way to game the asylum system rather than an objective fear of persecution, as processing takes years”.

Given the large number of Punjabi-speakers who seek asylum, it’s unclear what has changed in the northern Indian state ruled by the Congress party (2017-22) and latterly the Aam Aadmi Party (2022–present) to drive this surge.

Under Trump’s second presidency, asylum requests are set to plummet.

Within his first week, a key app for migrants was shut down and removed from app stores, cancelling nearly 300,000 pending appointments, including asylum cases already in progress.

US data shows most Indian asylum seekers are Punjabi and Gujarati – groups from India’s wealthier states, better able to afford high migration costs.

In contrast, Indian Muslims and marginalised communities and people from conflict zones like the regions affected by Maoist violence and Kashmir, rarely seek asylum, the study says.

So most Indian asylum seekers are economic migrants, not from the country’s poorest or conflict-hit regions.

The arduous journey to the US – whether via Latin America or as “fake” students in Canada – costs 30-100 times India’s per capita income, making it accessible only to those with assets to sell or pledge, the study says.

Not surprisingly, Punjab and Gujarat – top origin states for unauthorised Indians – are among India’s wealthier regions, where land values far exceed returns from farming.

“Even illegality takes a lot of money to pursue,” the study says.

While rising asylum claims may seem linked to “democratic backsliding” in India, correlation isn’t causation, the authors say .

Punjab and Gujarat have long histories of emigration, with migrants heading not just to the US but also the UK, Canada and Australia.

Remittances – India received an estimated $120bn in 2023 – fuel aspirations for a better life, driven not by poverty but “relative deprivation”, as families seek to match the success of others abroad, the study says.

A parallel industry of agents and brokers in India has cashed in on this demand.

The Indian government, says the study, “has looked the other way, likely because the issue of illegal migration is much more a burden for receiving than sending countries”.

Between 2009 and 2024, around 16,000 Indians were deported, according to India’s ministry of external affairs.

These deportations averaged 750 per year under Obama, 1,550 under Trump’s first term, and 900 under Biden.

Indian migrant removals spiked between FY 2023 and 2024, but the peak was in 2020 with nearly 2,300 deportations.

Stars were all smiles despite the chilly weather as they walked the red carpet at London’s Royal Festival Hall, for this year’s Bafta Film Awards.

Nominees and guests posed for photos as they gathered for the UK film calendar’s biggest night.

The choice by the Trump administration of Saudi Arabia as the location for key talks on Ukraine underscores how far the Kingdom has come diplomatically from the near pariah state it became after the murder of the Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi in 2018.

The shadow that cast over the country and its de facto leader, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman in particular, appears to have lifted, although there are still concerns occasionally raised at international forums over Saudi Arabia’s human rights record.

On many fronts – in entertainment and sport in particular – the country has spent huge amounts of money to further its ambitions to be a major player on the world stage.

Diplomatically, the Saudi leadership has also been enhancing its role. During the Biden years, the Kingdom increased its pivot away from reliance on the US as its key international ally.

The Saudis made clear that they would follow what they perceive as their interests first and foremost – striking up closer relationships with countries viewed as key rivals to the US, such as Russia and China.

The return of Donald Trump to the White House will have been welcomed by the Saudis.

His first foreign visit in his first term was to Saudi Arabia – and the transactional nature of his foreign policy is more conducive to the current Saudi leadership.

One of the possible achievements that Mr Trump would most like to chalk up on his record would be a peace deal between the Saudis and Israel – which would be the culmination of the Abraham Accords that he initiated in his first term.

But the war in Gaza has subsequently got in the way and may well raise the price that Saudi Arabia will demand for a peace agreement.

The Saudis were very quick to announce their definitive rejection of Mr Trump’s plan for Gaza – to remove all the Palestinians and rebuild it as a resort.

It has spurred the Kingdom to try to come up with a workable alternative plan with other Arab states – which would see Gazans remain in place as the enclave is rebuilt and would lead to a two state solution of the conflict.

The Trump administration’s current thinking would seem to be at odds with this – in its policy towards both Gaza and the occupied West Bank.

How this will be resolved will be key to the dynamics in the evolving relationship between Saudi Arabia and the US.

What is clear is that the Saudis have no intention of reining in their ambition of becoming an essential player in global diplomacy.

The US State Department has dropped a statement from its website which stated that Washington does not support Taiwan’s independence – a move which has sparked anger in China.

China said the revision “sends a wrong… signal to separatist forces advocating for Taiwan independence”, and asked the US to “correct its mistakes”.

The department’s fact sheet on Taiwan-US relations earlier included the phrase “we do not support Taiwan independence” – this was removed last week as part of what it said was a “routine” update.

A US spokesperson was quoted as saying that it remains committed to the “One China” policy, it said, where US recognises and has formal ties with China rather than Taiwan.

China sees self-governed Taiwan as a breakaway province that will eventually be part of the country, and has not ruled out the use of force to achieve this.

But many Taiwanese consider themselves to be part of a separate nation, although most are in favour of maintaining the status quo where Taiwan neither declares independence from China nor unites with it.

As well as dropping the phrase, the factsheet, which was updated last Thursday, also says the US will support Taiwan’s membership in international organisations “where applicable”.

Commenting on the changes, a spokesperson at the American Institute in Taiwan – the US’ de facto embassy on the island – told local media that the fact sheet had been “updated to inform the general public about [the US’] unofficial relationship with Taiwan”.

“We have long stated that we oppose any unilateral changes to the status quo from either side.”

On Sunday, Taiwan’s Foreign Minister Lin Chia-lung thanked the US for what he called “positive, Taiwan-friendly wordings”.

But in their regular press conference on Monday, Beijing’s foreign ministry slammed the move, calling the revision a “serious regression” in the US’ stance on Taiwan.

“This sends a wrong and serious signal to separatist forces advocating for Taiwan independence and is another example of the U.S. stubbornly persisting with its wrong policy of using Taiwan to contain China,” said Chinese spokesperson Guo Jiakun.

“We urge the US to immediately correct its mistakes [and] earnestly adhere to the One China principle.”

Donald Trump has made the mass deportation of undocumented foreign nationals a key policy, with the US said to have identified about 18,000 Indian nationals it believes entered illegally.

Last week Narendra Modi said India would take back its nationals who were in the US illegally, and also crack down on the “human trafficking ecosystem”.

“These are children of very ordinary families, and they are lured by big dreams and promises,” he said during his visit to Washington.

Now a new paper by Abby Budiman and Devesh Kapur from Johns Hopkins University has shed light on the numbers, demographics, entry methods, locations and trends relating to undocumented Indians over time.

Here are some of the more striking findings.

Unauthorised immigrants make up 3% of the US population and 22% of the foreign-born population.

The number of undocumented Indians among them is contested however, with estimates varying widely due to differing calculation methods.

Pew Research Center and Center for Migration Studies of New York (CMS) estimate some 700,000 people as of 2022, making them the third-largest group after Mexico and El Salvador.

In contrast, the Migration Policy Institute (MPI) puts the figure at 375,000, ranking India fifth among origin countries.

The official government data from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) offers yet another picture, reporting 220,000 unauthorised Indians in 2022.

The vast differences in estimates highlight the uncertainty surrounding the true size of the undocumented Indian population, according to the study.

Indian migrants make up only a small share of the overall unauthorised migrant population in the US.

If Pew and CMS estimates are accurate, nearly one in four Indian immigrants in the US is undocumented – an unlikely scenario given migration patterns, the study says. (Indian immigrants are one of the fastest-growing groups in the US, surging from 600,000 in 1990 to 3.2 million in 2022.)

The DHS estimated in 2022 that the undocumented Indian population in the US dropped 60% from its 2016 peak, falling from 560,000 to 220,000.

How did the number of undocumented Indians drop so steeply from 2016 to 2022? Mr Kapur says the data doesn’t provide a clear answer, but plausible explanations could be that some obtained legal status while others returned, particularly due to COVID-related hardships.

However, this estimate doesn’t reflect a 2023 surge in Indians at US borders, meaning the actual number could now be higher.

Despite rising border encounters, US government estimates show no clear increase in the overall undocumented Indian population from the US financial year (FY) 2020 to 2022, according to the study.

Encounters refer to instances where non-citizens are stopped by US authorities while attempting to cross the country’s borders with Mexico or Canada.

Visa overstays by Indians have remained steady at 1.5% since 2016.

The number of Indian recipients of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (Daca) has also declined from 2,600 in 2017 to 1,600 in 2024. The Daca programme protects migrants who came to the US as children.

To sum up: the undocumented Indian population grew both in numbers and as a share of all unauthorised migrants, rising from 0.8% in 1990 to 3.9% in 2015 before dropping to 2% in 2022.

The US has two main land borders.

The southern border along the states of Arizona, California, New Mexico and Texas bordering Mexico sees the most migrant crossings. Then there’s the US-Canada border spanning 11 states.

Before 2010, encounters involving Indians at the two borders were minimal, never exceeding 1,000.

Since 2010, nearly all encounters involving Indians occurred along the US-Mexico southern border.

In FY 2024, encounters of Indian nationals on the northern border surged to 36% of all Indian crossings, up from just 4% the previous year.

Canada had become a more accessible entry point for Indians, with shorter visitor visa processing times than the US.

Also, there was a surge in attempted border crossings from 2021 onwards, and the encounters at the Mexico border peaked in 2023.

“This is not specific to Indians. It is part of a larger surge of migrants trying to come into the US after Biden was elected. It is as if there was a high tide of migrants and Indians were a part of it,” Mr Kapur told the BBC.

The study finds that the states with the largest Indian immigrant populations -California (112,000), Texas (61,000), New Jersey (55,000), New York (43,000) and Illinois (31,000) – also have the highest numbers of unauthorised Indian immigrants.

Indians make up a significant share of the total unauthorised population in Ohio (16%), Michigan (14%), New Jersey (12%) and Pennsylvania (11%).

Meanwhile, states where more than 20% of Indian immigrants are unauthorised include Tennessee, Indiana, Georgia, Wisconsin and California.

“We expect this because it’s easier to blend in and find work in an ethnic business – like a Gujarati working for a Gujarati-American or a Punjabi/Sikh in a similar setup,” Mr Kapur said.

The US immigration system allows people who are detained at the border who fear persecution in their home countries to undergo credible “fear screenings”. Those who pass can seek asylum in court, leading to a rise in asylum applications alongside rising border apprehensions.

Administrative data doesn’t reveal the exact demographics of Indian asylum seekers, but court records on spoken languages provide some insight.

Punjabi-speakers from India have dominated Indian asylum claims since 2001. After Punjabi, Indian asylum seekers spoke Hindi (14%), English (8%) and Gujarati (7%).

They have filed 66% of asylum cases from FY 2001–2022, suggesting Punjab and the neighbouring state of Haryana as key migrant sources.

Punjabi speakers from India also had the highest asylum approval rate (63%), followed by Hindi speakers (58%). In contrast, only a quarter of Gujarati speakers’ cases were approved.

US data collected by Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) shows Indian asylum requests in the US have skyrocketed.

The requests jumped tenfold in just two years, rising from about 5,000 in 2021 to over 51,000 in 2023.

While this spike is most dramatic in the US, similar trends are seen in Canada, the UK and Australia, where Indians are among the largest asylum-seeking groups, the study says.

Mr Kapur believes this is “largely a way to game the asylum system rather than an objective fear of persecution, as processing takes years”.

Given the large number of Punjabi-speakers who seek asylum, it’s unclear what has changed in the northern Indian state ruled by the Congress party (2017-22) and latterly the Aam Aadmi Party (2022–present) to drive this surge.

Under Trump’s second presidency, asylum requests are set to plummet.

Within his first week, a key app for migrants was shut down and removed from app stores, cancelling nearly 300,000 pending appointments, including asylum cases already in progress.

US data shows most Indian asylum seekers are Punjabi and Gujarati – groups from India’s wealthier states, better able to afford high migration costs.

In contrast, Indian Muslims and marginalised communities and people from conflict zones like the regions affected by Maoist violence and Kashmir, rarely seek asylum, the study says.

So most Indian asylum seekers are economic migrants, not from the country’s poorest or conflict-hit regions.

The arduous journey to the US – whether via Latin America or as “fake” students in Canada – costs 30-100 times India’s per capita income, making it accessible only to those with assets to sell or pledge, the study says.

Not surprisingly, Punjab and Gujarat – top origin states for unauthorised Indians – are among India’s wealthier regions, where land values far exceed returns from farming.

“Even illegality takes a lot of money to pursue,” the study says.

While rising asylum claims may seem linked to “democratic backsliding” in India, correlation isn’t causation, the authors say .

Punjab and Gujarat have long histories of emigration, with migrants heading not just to the US but also the UK, Canada and Australia.

Remittances – India received an estimated $120bn in 2023 – fuel aspirations for a better life, driven not by poverty but “relative deprivation”, as families seek to match the success of others abroad, the study says.

A parallel industry of agents and brokers in India has cashed in on this demand.

The Indian government, says the study, “has looked the other way, likely because the issue of illegal migration is much more a burden for receiving than sending countries”.

Between 2009 and 2024, around 16,000 Indians were deported, according to India’s ministry of external affairs.

These deportations averaged 750 per year under Obama, 1,550 under Trump’s first term, and 900 under Biden.

Indian migrant removals spiked between FY 2023 and 2024, but the peak was in 2020 with nearly 2,300 deportations.

Pope Francis is being treated for a “complex clinical situation” and will remain in hospital for as long as necessary, the Vatican has said.

The 88-year-old was admitted to Rome’s Gemelli hospital on Friday to undergo treatment and tests for bronchitis.

In an update on Monday, the Vatican said the pontiff has a “polymicrobial infection” of his respiratory tract, which has required a change in his treatment.

Before his admission last week, the Pope had bronchitis symptoms for several days and had delegated officials to read prepared speeches at events.

Vatican spokesman Matteo Bruni told reporters on Monday that the pontiff was in good spirits.

A short statement on his condition said: “All tests carried out to date are indicative of a complex clinical picture that will require appropriate hospitalisation.”

The pontiff’s weekly general audience, which is usually held each Wednesday, has been cancelled for this week, the statement added.

A further update on the Pope’s condition would be released later on Monday, Mr Bruni added.

Over the weekend, the Vatican said the Pope was stable and that he’d been told to have “complete rest” to aid his recovery.

The Pope was unable to deliver his regular weekly prayer on Sunday in St Peter’s Square or lead a special mass for artists to mark the Catholic Church’s Jubilee Year.

Last Wednesday, the Pope asked a priest to read part of his speech because of his difficulties with illness.

He also held meetings at his Vatican residence last week in an attempt to rest and recover.

The Argentine pontiff has spent nearly 12 years as leader of the Roman Catholic Church.

He previously spent three nights at the same hospital in March 2023 for bronchitis treatment.

In December the same year, he was forced to cancel his trip to the United Arab Emirates for the COP28 climate summit because of another bout of illness.

He has suffered a number of health issues throughout his life, including having part of one of his lungs removed at age 21.

Muhsin Hendricks, a pioneering figure dubbed the world’s first openly gay imam, has been shot dead in South Africa.

The 57-year-old cleric ran a mosque in Cape Town intended as a safe haven for gay and other marginalised Muslims. He was killed on Saturday morning after the car in which he was travelling near the southern city of Gqeberha was ambushed.

“Two unknown suspects with covered faces got out of the vehicle and started firing multiple shots at the vehicle,” police said in a statement.

News of Hendricks’ death has sent shockwaves through the LGBTQ+ community and beyond, prompting an outpouring of tributes from across the globe.

Julia Ehrt, executive director at the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association (Ilga), called on the authorities to thoroughly investigate “what we fear may be a hate crime”.

“He supported and mentored so many people in South Africa and around the world in their journey to reconcile with their faith, and his life has been a testament to the healing that solidarity across communities can bring in everyone’s lives,” she said.

• Born free, killed by hate – the price of being gay in South Africa
• The volunteers taking on South African crime

Hendricks was killed after he had reportedly officiated at a lesbian wedding, though this has not been officially confirmed.

The details of the attack emerged through security footage that was shared on social media.

It shows a car pulling up and blocking the vehicle in which Hendricks was travelling as it was pulling away from the curb. According to police, the imam was in the back seat.

The angle of CCTV footage reveals what happened from one side of the road – an assailant jumps out of a car, runs to the ambushed vehicle and shoots repeatedly through the back passenger window.

Hendricks’ Al-Ghurbaah Foundation, which runs the Masjidul Ghurbaah mosque in the Wynberg suburb of Cape Town, confirmed he had died in a targeted attack on Saturday morning.

But Abdulmugheeth Petersen, chair of the foundation’s board, appealed via a WhatsApp group for their followers to be patient, stressing the importance of protecting Hendricks’ family.

Hendricks’ work challenged traditional interpretations of Islam and championed a compassionate, inclusive faith.

South Africa’s post-apartheid constitution was the first in the world to protect people from discrimination because of their sexual orientation and in 2006, became the first country in Africa to legalise same-sex marriage.

But despite a thriving LGBT community, gay people still face discrimination and violence. The country also has one of the highest murder rates in the world.

Hendricks came out as gay in 1996, which shocked the wider Muslim community in Cape Town and elsewhere.

That same year, he founded The Inner Circle, an organisation providing support and a safe space for queer Muslims seeking to reconcile their faith and sexuality before going on to establish the inclusive Masjidul Ghurbaah mosque.

He was the subject of a documentary in 2022 called The Radical, in which he said about the threats he faced: “The need to be authentic was greater than the fear to die.”

Hendricks often spoke about the importance of interfaith dialogue and the need to address the mental health issues and trauma faced by LGBTQ+ individuals within religious communities.

He told the Ilga World Conference in Cape Town last year: “It is important that we stop to look at religion as the enemy.”

Reverend Jide Macaulay, an openly gay Anglican minister, described Hendricks’ death as “truly heartbreaking”.

The British-Nigerian LGBTQ rights activist runs House of Rainbow, an organisation that provides support for gay people in Nigeria where same-sex relationships or public displays of affection are illegal, and paid tribute to Hendricks’ bravery.

“Your leadership, courage, and unwavering dedication to inclusive faith communities have left an indelible mark,” he said.

Sadiq Lawal, a gay Muslim man living in Nigeria, told the BBC that Hendricks, had made such an impact as he had made “the impossible possible” by saying the words: “I’m a queer imam.”

“He’s a mentor to many queer Muslims in Africa, especially in Nigeria, because of religious extremism,” he said.

“I’m still in shock and devastated.”

• Homosexuality: The countries where it is illegal to be gay
• The Cape Town schools learning from transgender students
• ‘Being openly gay has held my career back’ – SA footballer
• South Africa’s gay radio station makes waves
• How South Africa’s oldest Quran was saved by Cape Town Muslims

UK Special Forces command rejected resettlement applications from more than 2,000 Afghan commandos who had shown credible evidence of service in units that fought alongside the SAS and SBS, the Ministry of Defence has confirmed for the first time.

UK Special Forces officers appear to have rejected every application from a former Afghan commando referred to them for sponsorship, despite the Afghan units having fought with the British on life-threatening missions against the Taliban.

The MoD had previously denied there was a blanket policy to reject members of the units – known as the Triples – but the BBC has not been able to find any evidence that UK Special Forces (UKSF) supported any resettlement applications.

Asked if UKSF had supported any applications, the MoD declined to answer the question.

The Triples – so-called because their designations were CF 333 and ATF 444 – were set up, trained, and paid by UK Special Forces and supported the SAS and SBS on operations in Afghanistan. When the country fell to the Taliban in 2021, they were judged to be in grave danger of reprisal and were entitled to apply for resettlement to the UK.

The rejection of their applications was controversial because it came at a time when a public inquiry in the UK was investigating allegations that British Special Forces had committed war crimes on operations in Afghanistan where the Triples were present.

The inquiry has the power to compel witnesses who are in the UK, but not non-UK nationals who are overseas. If resettled, former members of the Triples could be compelled by the inquiry to provide potentially significant evidence.

BBC Panorama revealed last year that UK Special Forces command had been given veto power over their resettlement applications and denied them asylum in Britain. The revelation caused a wave of anger among some former members of the SAS and others who served with the Afghan units.

The MoD initially denied the existence of the veto, suggesting that the BBC’s reporting had been inaccurate, but then-Defence Minister Andrew Murrison was later forced to tell the House of Commons the government had misled parliament in its denials.

The confirmation of the more than 2,000 rejections emerged in court hearings earlier this month during a legal challenge brought by a former member of the Triples. Lawyers for the MoD applied for a restriction order which temporarily prevented the BBC from reporting on the relevant parts of the proceedings, before withdrawing their application last week under challenge.

Documents disclosed in court also showed that at the same time the MoD was denying the existence of the veto, it already knew that every rejection decision made by UK Special Forces was potentially unsound and would have to be independently reviewed.

• Special forces blocked resettlement for elite Afghan troops
• Minister says Afghan commandos described ‘horrific’ SAS crimes
• SAS unit repeatedly killed Afghan detainees, BBC finds

Mike Martin MP, a member of the defence select committee and former British Army officer who served in Afghanistan, told the BBC the rejections were “extremely concerning”.

“There is the appearance that UK Special Forces blocked the Afghan special forces applications because they were witnesses to the alleged UK war crimes currently being investigated in the Afghan inquiry,” Martin said.

“If the MoD is unable to offer any explanation, then the matter should be included in the inquiry,” he added.

Johnny Mercer, the former Conservative MP for Plymouth Moor View, who served alongside the SBS in Afghanistan, testified to the Afghan inquiry that he had spoken to former members of the Triples and heard “horrific” allegations of murder by UK Special Forces.

Mercer said it was “very clear to me that there is a pool of evidence that exists within the Afghan [special forces] community that are now in the United Kingdom that should contribute to this Inquiry”.

The MoD began a review last year of all 2,022 resettlement applications referred to and rejected by UK Special Forces. All contained what MoD caseworkers on the resettlement scheme regarded as “credible” evidence of service with the Triples units.

The government said at the time that the review would take 12 weeks, but more than a year later it has yet to be completed. Some rejections have already been overturned, allowing former Triples to come to the UK. But the MoD has refused to inform the Afghan commandos whether they are in scope of the review or if their rejections were upheld, unless they write to the MoD.

Many are in hiding in Afghanistan, making it difficult to obtain legal representation or pro-actively contact the MoD. Dozens have reportedly been beaten, tortured, or killed by the Taliban since the group regained control of the country.

“Although decisions have been overturned, it’s too late for some people,” said a former Triples officer. “The delays have caused a lot of problems. People have been captured by the Taliban or lost their lives,” he said.

The officer said that the Afghan commandos worked alongside British Special Forces “like brothers” and felt “betrayed” by the widespread rejections.

“If Special Forces made these rejections they should say why. They should have to answer,” he said.

The MoD is now facing a legal challenge to aspects of the review, including the decision not to inform applicants whether their case is being reviewed or disclose the criteria used to select those in scope.

The legal challenge is being brought by a former senior member of the Triples who is now in the UK, on behalf of commandos still in Afghanistan.

“Our client’s focus is on his soldiers left behind in Afghanistan, some of whom have been killed while they wait for these heavily delayed protection decisions,” said Dan Carey, a partner at the law firm Deighton Pierce Glynn.

“As things stand they have a right to request a reassessment of a decision they haven’t even been told about. And there are others who think they are part of the Triples Review when the secret criteria would tell them that their cases aren’t even being looked at.”

Lawyers acting for the former member of the Triples also heavily criticised the level of disclosure in the case by the MoD, which has not handed over any documentation from within UK Special Forces or government records about the decision-making process that led to the rejections.

In court filings, they criticised the “total inadequacy” of the MoD’s disclosure, calling it an “an obvious failure to comply with the duty of candour and to provide necessary explanation” of the process.

New evidence that emerged last week in court also showed that the MoD appeared to have rejected out of hand some applicants who served with UK Special Forces in Afghanistan after 2014 – when Britain’s conventional armed forces left Helmand province – without even referring them to UK Special Forces headquarters for sponsorship.

The MoD has not explained the reasoning behind the policy, which was kept secret from applicants. A spokesperson for the MoD said that after 2014 the UK’s role “evolved from combat operations to primarily training, advising and assisting CF 333, who were under the command of the Afghan Ministry of Interior”.

But officers who served with UK Special Forces told the BBC that the Triples continued to support British-led operations after 2014.

“Saying the Triples didn’t support UK Special Forces operations after 2014 isn’t true at all,” said former officer who served with UKSF.

“We had a squadron of CF 333 with us. We worked closely together. These were NATO targets, UK planned operations,” he said.

The Ministry of Defence has previously told the BBC: “There has been no evidence to suggest that any part of the MoD has sought to prevent former members of the Afghan specialist units from giving evidence to the inquiry.”

Do you have information about this story that you want to share?

Get in touch using SecureDrop, a highly anonymous and secure way of whistleblowing to the BBC which uses the TOR network.

Or by using the Signal messaging app, an end-to-end encrypted message service designed to protect your data.

• How to use SecureDrop

Signal: 0044 7714 956 936

Please note that the SecureDrop link will only work in a Tor browser. For information on keeping secure and anonymous, here’s some advice on how to use SecureDrop.

Singapore’s opposition leader Pritam Singh has been found guilty of lying under oath to a parliamentary committee.

A court imposed the maximum fine of S$7,000 ($5,223; £4,148) for each of two charges. Singh said that he would appeal against the conviction and sentence.

The charges relate to Singh’s handling of Raeesah Khan, a former lawmaker from his party, who lied to parliament in a separate case.

The verdict in this high-profile trial comes as Singapore is gearing up for its next general election, which must be held by November. Singh’s Workers’ Party holds nine out of 87 elected seats in parliament.

Under Singapore’s constitution, any MP can lose their seat or be barred from running for office for five years if they are fined at least S$10,000 or jailed for more than a year.

The election department has since clarified that the S$10,000 threshold only applies to a single offence, according to local media. This means Singh’s fines will not trigger disqualification.

“The question on most people’s minds is the consequences for the upcoming election,” Chong Ja-Ian, associate professor at the National University of Singapore, told the BBC.

Singh’s case could either be “played up” by state media or “fizzle out” of public attention, he said.

Singh told reporters outside the court on Monday that he intended to run in the upcoming election.

The verdict on Monday, which lasted more than two hours, was delivered to a packed courtroom. Members of the press who could not fit into the courtroom, including the BBC, viewed a livestream of the verdict from a separate room.

District Judge Luke Tan, who delivered the verdict, said several pieces of evidence showed that Singh “never wanted Ms Khan to clarify [her] lie” and had “direct and intimate involvement” in guiding Khan to continue her narrative.

Prosecutors sought the maximum fine of S$7,000 for each of Singh’s two charges, while the defence asked for S$4,000.

Singh, 48, maintained his innocence throughout the trial, arguing that he had wanted to give Khan time to deal with what was a sensitive issue.

Singh’s case has gripped the city-state, where a usually uneventful political scene – dominated by the ruling People’s Action Party – has in recent years seen a rare string of scandals.

The saga started in August 2021 when Khan claimed in parliament that she had witnessed the police misbehave towards a sexual assault victim. She later admitted that her anecdote was not true.

Khan was fined S$35,000 for lying and abusing her parliamentary privilege. She has since resigned from the party and parliament.

During a parliamentary committee investigation into the incident later that year, Khan testified that the party’s leaders, including Singh, had told her to “continue with the narrative” despite finding out that it was not true. This was prior to her eventual admission.

Singh denied this, but also said that he had given Khan “too much time to settle herself before closing this issue with her”.

The parliamentary committee concluded that Singh was not being truthful and referred the case to the public prosecutor.

Judge Tan said on Monday that Singh’s actions after learning of Khan’s lie were “strongly indicative that the accused did not want Ms Khan to clarify the untruth at some point”.

Singh’s Workers’ Party is the opposition party with the largest presence in parliament.

The party made significant gains during the 2020 election, increasing their number of seats from six to 10 – the biggest victory for the opposition since Singapore gained independence in 1965. Singh was named the opposition leader after the polls.

One of those seats has since been vacated by Khan.

President Donald Trump has asked the US Supreme Court to allow him to fire the head of an independent ethics agency that protects whistleblower federal employees.

He has filed an emergency appeal to the country’s highest court to rule on whether he can fire Hampton Dellinger, head of the US Office of Special Counsel.

It is thought to be the first case related to Trump’s blizzard of executive actions to reach the highest court.

Trump has also cut more than a dozen inspectors general at various federal agencies and fired thousands of employees across the US government.

Mr Dellinger, who was nominated by President Joe Biden, sued the Trump administration after he was fired by email this month.

He argued that his removal broke a law that says he can only be dismissed for poor job performance and that was not given as a reason in the email dismissing him.

The agency lists among its primary objectives the protection of federal employees from unlawful actions in reprisal to whistleblowing, according to its mission statement.

A federal judge in Washington DC issued a temporary order on Wednesday allowing Mr Dellinger to hold on to his position while the case is being considered.

District Judge Amy Berman Jackson said the firing broke US law which tried to ensure the independence of the agency and protect it from political interference.

On Saturday, a divided US Court of Appeals in the nation’s capital rejected the Trump administration’s request to overrule the lower court.

• What is Doge and why is Musk cutting so many jobs?
• Legal showdown looms as Trump tests limits of presidential power

That has led to the justice department filing an emergency appeal to the conservative-dominated Supreme Court, a filing seen by various US media.

“This court should not allow lower courts to seize executive power by dictating to the president how long he must continue employing an agency head against his will,” Sarah M Harris, acting solicitor general, wrote in the filing provided by the Department of Justice to the Washington Post.

“Until now, as far as we are aware, no court in American history has wielded an injunction to force the president to retain an agency head,” the acting solicitor general wrote, according to the Associated Press news agency.

The Republican president’s orders on immigration, transgender issues and government spending have also become bogged down in dozens of lawsuits in the lower courts. Those cases may ultimately wind up at the Supreme Court, too.

Trump’s efforts to reduce and reshape the 2.3 million-strong civilian federal workforce continued over the weekend.

Workers in various health agencies who are still within their probation periods received letters on Saturday evening informing them they would be terminated, sources told CBS News, the BBC’s US partner.

“Unfortunately, the agency finds that you are not fit for continued employment because your ability, knowledge and skills do not fit the agency’s current needs, and your performance has not been adequate to justify further employment at the agency,” read the letters.

At least 9,500 workers at the departments of Health and Human Services, Energy, Veterans Affairs, Interior and Agriculture have been fired by Trump, according to a tally from Reuters news agency.

Another 75,000 workers have taken a buyout offered to get them to leave voluntarily, according to the White House.

The cost-cutting initiative has been led by department of government efficiency, or Doge, a task force led by Elon Musk.

Democrats have decried Musk, the world’s richest man, as unelected and his actions as too sweeping – a “hostile takeover” in the words of the party’s Senate leader Chuck Schumer.

South Korean actress Kim Sae-ron has been found dead in Seoul, police have said.

The 24-year-old was found in her home in the city’s Seongsu-dong district by a friend at around 16:55 (07:55 GMT) on Sunday.

Officers said no signs of foul play had been found and they were investigating the cause of death.

Kim began her career as a child actor and was seen as one of South Korea’s most promising young actresses.

Born in Seoul in 2000, she rose to prominence with her role in 2009 film A Brand New Life – which saw her appear at the Cannes Film Festival.

She went on to star in South Korea’s highest grossing film of 2010 The Man from Nowhere and 2012 thriller The Neighbour, for which she received award recognition.

Other notable roles include the 2014 film A Girl at My Door and television roles such as Mirror of the Witch in 2016.

The actress largely withdrew from the public eye in 2022 due to a drink driving incident, for which she was fined 20 million won (£11,000) in April 2023.

Kim’s last role was in Netflix’s 2023 Korean drama Bloodhounds. Variety reported that most of her role was edited out due to the driving incident.

Europe’s leaders are scrambling. Their hastily convened security summit in Paris on Monday is proof of that.

They are still reeling from not being invited by the US to talks with Russia over the future of Ukraine. US President Donald Trump said on Sunday he could be meeting Russian President Vladimir Putin “very soon”.

Can Europe, under pressure, put political differences and domestic economic concerns aside, and come up with a united front on security spending and on Ukraine’s future, including potentially sending troops there – to force themselves a spot at the negotiating table?

They are going to try.

On Monday morning, UK prime minister Sir Keir Starmer said the UK was “ready and willing to put troops on the ground”. Even in Germany, ahead of a heated election, the foreign policy spokesman of the CDU party, expected to win the most seats, said Europe’s largest country would also be willing to commit troops within an international framework.

The Trump administration is clearly not 100% sure what it wants to do about Ukraine. There were a number of mixed messages over the weekend.

This allows Europe a tiny window of opportunity to try to persuade the American president it’s an invaluable partner.

It hopes to do that via this Paris meeting, getting the ball rolling on two major issues demanded by Donald Trump: That Europe spend and do more for its own defence, and that Europe send troops to Ukraine after a ceasefire.

Europe’s leaders insist Kyiv be directly involved in ceasefire talks too. They’ve long maintained the view that “there can be no decisions about Ukraine, without Ukraine”.

But it’s about even more than that for Europe.

It is the cold realisation – much dreaded, but not entirely unexpected – that the Trump administration does not prioritise relations either with European partners, or their defence.

Europe has relied on a security umbrella provided by the US since World War Two.

Depending on the parameters of the Russia-US talks over Ukraine, and how emboldened Putin feels by them, there is also a European fear this could end up changing their continent’s security architecture.

Putin historically resents the spread of Nato eastwards. Russian neighbours – the tiny, former Soviet Baltic States and also Poland – now feel particularly exposed.

Not all European countries will be at Monday’s summit. Just those with military heft: the UK, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain and Denmark – which is expected to represent the Baltic and Nordic nations, plus the EU Council president and the secretary general of the defence alliance, Nato.

Other countries will reportedly have later, follow-up meetings.

Even at the small Paris gathering, it will be hard, if not impossible, to agree concrete defence spending increases. Poland plans to spend 4.47% of its GDP on defence in 2025. The UK is struggling towards, and hasn’t yet reached, 2.5% of its GDP.

But leaders can pledge to coordinate better, spend more inside Nato and shoulder most of Ukraine’s post-war reconstruction. The EU is expected to bolster its defence effort too.

A large part of the Paris meeting will also focus on the question of sending troops to Ukraine after a ceasefire.

The idea being discussed is not for peacekeeping troops but rather a “reassurance force”, stationed behind, rather than on, any eventual ceasefire line.

The aim of a European troop presence would be three-fold. To send a message to Ukrainians: that they are not alone. Another message to the US, to show that Europe is “doing its bit” for defence of its own continent, and the last message to Moscow, to warn that if it breaks the terms of an eventual ceasefire, it won’t be dealing with Kyiv alone.

But it’s a controversial concept and may not be popular with voters. In Italy for example, 50% of people asked don’t want to send any more weapons to Ukraine, never mind sending sons and daughters, sisters and brothers there.

There are so many as yet unanswered questions:

How many troops would each European country have to send, for how long, and under whose command? What would their mission statement be – for example if Russia broke the terms of an agreed ceasefire, would that mean European soldiers would be directly at war with Russia? Would the US have their back if so?

Europe would want a US security guarantee before deploying soldiers to Ukraine. It may not get one.

It’s far too much to be decided on Monday. And leaders, including UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer, come to Paris with their own domestic concerns – can they afford extra defence spending, do they have the troops to send to Ukraine?

Richard – now Lord – Dannatt is the former head of the British Army. He told the BBC that the UK military is too depleted to provide a significant proportion of troops for Ukraine. He said around 100,000 troops would probably be needed in total and the UK would be expected to provide a considerable number of those. The British Army insists it has earned a worldwide reputation for excellence.

But this summit is more broad brushstrokes than fine print. The conversation can at least get started publicly.

Will Donald Trump be paying attention?

Hard to know.

There’s talk of sending an envoy to Washington after the Paris meeting to make Europe’s case. Italy’s Prime Minister, Giorgia Meloni, is close to the Trump administration, for example.

Sir Keir Starmer has a planned visit to Washington in a few days. This could be his chance to act as a bridge between Europe and the US.

The Paris meeting also offers an opportunity for the UK and other European leaders to further mend relations after the bitterness of Brexit.

Mark Leonard, head of the European Council on Foreign Relations, notes that Starmer could “demonstrate that Britain is a responsible stakeholder for European security … Something that will be noticed and translate into goodwill when it comes to negotiations on other issues”.

Issues like trade relations and law enforcement co-operation which the UK hopes to improve with the EU going forward.

Host nation France is feeling confident. President Macron has long advocated that Europe be less reliant on outside countries for supply chains, tech capabilities and very much so when it comes to defence. He made headlines a year ago by first mooting the idea of troops on the ground in Ukraine.

France is “fiercely proud” that its intelligence and security services are not intertwined with the US, unlike the UK, says Georgina Wright, deputy director for international studies at the Institut Montaigne. That makes it less complicated to untangle, now that Trump is in the White House, demanding that Europe take care of itself.

The US has sent a document to European allies consisting of six points and questions, such as which countries would be willing to deploy troops to Ukraine as part of a peace settlement, and which governments would be prepared to increase sanctions on Russia, including more strictly enforcing existing ones.

But Julianne Smith, until recently the US ambassador to Nato, says this kind of complicated diplomatic work normally takes weeks of meetings and can’t be organised by filled-in forms.

She adds that whatever Europe’s leaders achieve in Paris, if they use that to demand a seat at the negotiating table over Ukraine, their hand is weak.

“If Trump blinks and says no, does Europe refuse to help altogether? They can’t cut off their nose to spite their face.”

Essentially, if the US plans to turn away from Ukraine and from Europe more broadly in terms of security, they will have to significantly up their defence game anyway.

If Donald Trump isn’t watching, Vladimir Putin certainly is.

Singapore’s opposition leader Pritam Singh has been found guilty of lying under oath to a parliamentary committee.

A court imposed the maximum fine of S$7,000 ($5,223; £4,148) for each of two charges. Singh said that he would appeal against the conviction and sentence.

The charges relate to Singh’s handling of Raeesah Khan, a former lawmaker from his party, who lied to parliament in a separate case.

The verdict in this high-profile trial comes as Singapore is gearing up for its next general election, which must be held by November. Singh’s Workers’ Party holds nine out of 87 elected seats in parliament.

Under Singapore’s constitution, any MP can lose their seat or be barred from running for office for five years if they are fined at least S$10,000 or jailed for more than a year.

The election department has since clarified that the S$10,000 threshold only applies to a single offence, according to local media. This means Singh’s fines will not trigger disqualification.

“The question on most people’s minds is the consequences for the upcoming election,” Chong Ja-Ian, associate professor at the National University of Singapore, told the BBC.

Singh’s case could either be “played up” by state media or “fizzle out” of public attention, he said.

Singh told reporters outside the court on Monday that he intended to run in the upcoming election.

The verdict on Monday, which lasted more than two hours, was delivered to a packed courtroom. Members of the press who could not fit into the courtroom, including the BBC, viewed a livestream of the verdict from a separate room.

District Judge Luke Tan, who delivered the verdict, said several pieces of evidence showed that Singh “never wanted Ms Khan to clarify [her] lie” and had “direct and intimate involvement” in guiding Khan to continue her narrative.

Prosecutors sought the maximum fine of S$7,000 for each of Singh’s two charges, while the defence asked for S$4,000.

Singh, 48, maintained his innocence throughout the trial, arguing that he had wanted to give Khan time to deal with what was a sensitive issue.

Singh’s case has gripped the city-state, where a usually uneventful political scene – dominated by the ruling People’s Action Party – has in recent years seen a rare string of scandals.

The saga started in August 2021 when Khan claimed in parliament that she had witnessed the police misbehave towards a sexual assault victim. She later admitted that her anecdote was not true.

Khan was fined S$35,000 for lying and abusing her parliamentary privilege. She has since resigned from the party and parliament.

During a parliamentary committee investigation into the incident later that year, Khan testified that the party’s leaders, including Singh, had told her to “continue with the narrative” despite finding out that it was not true. This was prior to her eventual admission.

Singh denied this, but also said that he had given Khan “too much time to settle herself before closing this issue with her”.

The parliamentary committee concluded that Singh was not being truthful and referred the case to the public prosecutor.

Judge Tan said on Monday that Singh’s actions after learning of Khan’s lie were “strongly indicative that the accused did not want Ms Khan to clarify the untruth at some point”.

Singh’s Workers’ Party is the opposition party with the largest presence in parliament.

The party made significant gains during the 2020 election, increasing their number of seats from six to 10 – the biggest victory for the opposition since Singapore gained independence in 1965. Singh was named the opposition leader after the polls.

One of those seats has since been vacated by Khan.

OpenAI’s board of directors has officially rejected Elon Musk’s nearly $100bn offer for the maker of what is the world’s best-known artificial intelligence (AI) tool, ChatGPT.

But the unsolicited bid might not be a failure – at least as far as Musk is concerned, experts say.

That’s because the offer could still complicate CEO Sam Altman’s plans to transform OpenAI from a non-profit controlled entity to a for-profit company.

Musk is “basically trying to stymie OpenAI’s growth trajectory,” said University of Cambridge associate teaching professor Johnnie Penn in an interview with the BBC.

Last week, Musk and a consortium of investors including Hollywood superagent Ari Emanuel tabled a $97.4bn (£78.4bn) offer for all of OpenAI’s assets.

It was a huge sum – but less than the $157bn the firm was valued at in a funding round just four months ago, and much lower than the $300bn that some think it is worth now.

Complicating all of this is OpenAI’s unusual structure which involves a partnership between non-profit and for-profit arms.

Mr Altman is understood to want to change that, stripping it of its non-profit board.

That involves costs which Mr Musk is seemingly trying to inflate.

“What Musk is trying to do here is raise the perceived value of the non-profit arm of OpenAI, so that OpenAI has to pay more to get out of the obligations it has to its own non-profit,” said Dr Penn.

The value of its non-profit assets isn’t clear. With his bid, Musk was floating a price, according to Cornell University senior lecturer Lutz Finger, who is also the founder and CEO of AI startup R2Decide.

“By Musk putting a price tag on the non-profit part, he makes the split way more expensive for Altman to do,” Mr Finger told the BBC. “It’s very simple.”

Mr Musk justified his actions by saying he wants to return OpenAI – which he co-founded – to its non-profit roots and original mission of developing AI for the benefit of humanity.

Others, though, suggest he has somewhat less noble motives linked to his own AI company xAI and chatbot Grok, which have received a lacklustre response from the public.

“Musk has missed the AI train, somewhat. He’s behind, and he has made several attempts to catch up,” Mr Finger said.

Now, Mr Finger says, Mr Musk is trying to kneecap his most formidable competitor.

An already-tense relationship appeared to worsen further last week with Mr Altman taunting Mr Musk’s offer on X, and Mr Musk retorting by calling his onetime partner a “swindler”.

Mr Altman then hit back in an interview with Bloomberg, opining that Mr Musk is not “a happy person” and saying his decisions are made from a “position of insecurity”.

The tit-for-tat is also playing out in court, where US district judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers is considering Mr Musk’s request for an injunction that would block OpenAI from its planned conversion.

He claims that he will be irreparably harmed without her intervention.

“It is plausible that what Mr Musk is saying is true. We’ll find out. He’ll sit on the stand,” Gonzalez Rogers said during a hearing in earlier this month in Oakland, California.

According to OpenAI’s lawyers, Mr Musk’s recent bid contradicts his earlier claims that OpenAI’s assets cannot be transferred away for “private gain.”

“[O]ut of court, those constraints evidently do not apply, so long as Musk and his allies are the buyers,” their reply brief states.

Some observers say making a deal never appeared to be his goal.

“I think he’s just trying to create noise and news and consternation,” says Karl Freund, founder and principal analyst at Cambrian-AI.

But in addition to causing problems for his old rival, that strategy could inflict lasting damage on Mr Musk’s own reputation.

“He’s brilliant. He creates incredible companies that are doing incredible things. But his personal agenda is causing people to question his motives,” Mr Freund said.

Detained Ugandan opposition figure Kizza Besigye, on hunger strike for a week, has been returned to prison after being in a health clinic overnight, his allies have said.

The 68-year-old was rushed to a private medical facility in a prison ambulance as his his health was deteriorating, his lawyer Erias Lukwago wrote earlier on Facebook.

Besigye was charged in a military court with illegal possession of a firearm, threatening national security, as well as treachery, which carries the death sentence. He denies the accusations.

The news about his health came hours after a cabinet minister said he had visited Besigye in jail and urged him to resume eating while pledging to drop his military trial.

The veteran politician, who has run for president against long-serving leader Yoweri Museveni four times, has been in detention since he was dramatically abducted in Kenya in November and taken back to Uganda to face a military trial.

• How a Ugandan opposition leader disappeared in Kenya and ended up in military court

Last month, the Supreme Court ruled that trying civilians in military courts was unconstitutional.

The government had insisted Besigye’s military trial would go on and President Museveni dismissed the ruling as “a wrong decision”, vowing to challenge it.

But on Sunday, Information Minister Chris Baryomunsi said he had seen Besigye in prison “in the presence of his doctors” and had asked him to end the hunger strike “as the government fast-tracks the transfer of his case from a court martial to a civil court”.

Besigye’s wife, Winnie Byanyima, however said the visit was “highly suspicious”.

“As a government minister, you are not a concerned visitor – you are his captor,” Ms Byanyima, who is the director of the UN’s HIV/Aids programme, posted on X.

“We will hold you and your government fully accountable for any harm that comes to him,” she added.

On Sunday night, a lawmaker allied to the detained politician said Besigye had been taken to a clinic in a suburb of the Kampala “amidst very heavy security deployment”.

The MP, Francis Mwijukye, said Besigye was “being pushed in a wheel chair”.

Wafula Oguttu, a former leader of the opposition in parliament and a Besigye ally, said prison officers around the clinic told him they would take him back to jail after a series of tests had been conducted.

He told the BBC that he had not been allowed to enter the clinic.

One of Besigye’s political aides, Harold Kaija, said he was now back in prison.

Besigye went on hunger strike a week ago to protest against his continued detention by the military, with his trial yet to start.

He is a former ally of Museveni – who has been in power since 1986 – and was once his personal doctor.

Besigye has previously accused the authorities of political persecution. In recent years he has been less active in politics and did not contest the 2021 election.

Besigye appeared before a court on Friday – in a separate case – looking frail. The Ugandan medical doctors’ association has since called for his “immediate release” on health grounds.

• ‘We live in fear’ – forced expulsions taint Kenya’s safe haven image
• TikToker jailed for 32 months for insulting Uganda’s president
• Top designer vows to regrow dreadlocks cut after Uganda arrest
• How an ex-rebel has stayed in power for more than 30 years
• Who is Kizza Besigye?

South Korean actress Kim Sae-ron has been found dead in Seoul, police have said.

The 24-year-old was found in her home in the city’s Seongsu-dong district by a friend at around 16:55 (07:55 GMT) on Sunday.

Officers said no signs of foul play had been found and they were investigating the cause of death.

Kim began her career as a child actor and was seen as one of South Korea’s most promising young actresses.

Born in Seoul in 2000, she rose to prominence with her role in 2009 film A Brand New Life – which saw her appear at the Cannes Film Festival.

She went on to star in South Korea’s highest grossing film of 2010 The Man from Nowhere and 2012 thriller The Neighbour, for which she received award recognition.

Other notable roles include the 2014 film A Girl at My Door and television roles such as Mirror of the Witch in 2016.

The actress largely withdrew from the public eye in 2022 due to a drink driving incident, for which she was fined 20 million won (£11,000) in April 2023.

Kim’s last role was in Netflix’s 2023 Korean drama Bloodhounds. Variety reported that most of her role was edited out due to the driving incident.

A claim has been made by a UK ticket-holder for the Valentine’s Day’s £65m EuroMillions jackpot.

National Lottery operator Allwyn said the lucky ticket-holder came forward over the weekend to claim their prize of £65,341,620.50.

The operator added that Saturday’s £7.4 million Lotto jackpot had also been claimed by a single ticket-holder.

Andy Carter, senior winners’ adviser at Allwyn, said: “It’s been an astonishing weekend of millionaire-making, which promises to keep me and my team very busy.”

The EuroMillions winner matched all seven numbers on Friday’s draw – 04, 14, 31, 36 and 38 with Lucky Stars 03 and 10.

Fourteen UK players also netted £1 million each in Friday evening’s EuroMillions UK Millionaire Maker draw.

Mr Carter said on Monday that seven of those winners are still yet to claim their prize.

“We’re asking everyone to check their tickets and we’re very much looking forward to meeting all the lucky winners soon,” he added.

Friday’s ticket-holder is the second UK EuroMillions jackpot winner of 2025.

Earlier this month, one anonymous ticket-holder scooped a prize of more than £83.4m after it was left unclaimed for 13 days.

Winners must claim their prize within 180 days of the draw.

Successful players can decide whether they want to be named or remain anonymous upon claiming the prize.

The UK’s biggest EuroMillions jackpot, worth £195m, was claimed by an unnamed winner in July 2022.

That same year, a then record-breaking £184m was won by Joe and Jess Thwaite from Gloucester, with a Lucky Dip ticket for the draw on 10 May.

There are nine EuroMillions prizes yet to be claimed by UK ticket-holders, according to the National Lottery’s website, with the largest standing at £1m.

Israel’s prime minister has said he is working to make US President Donald Trump’s plan to remove and resettle Gaza’s population “a reality”.

Benjamin Netanyahu said he was co-operating with the US on a “common strategy” for the Palestinian territory after a meeting with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio in Jerusalem on Sunday.

The talks come after US President Donald Trump proposed a US takeover Gaza and removal of the two million Palestinians there to neighbouring countries.

The UN has warned that any forced displacement of civilians from occupied territory is strictly prohibited under international law and “tantamount to ethnic cleansing”.

• Trump’s mixed messaging on foreign policy leaves world guessing
• ‘We are tired of war’: Israelis and Gazans fear ceasefire collapse
• How 15 months of war has devastated Gaza

America’s top diplomat said President Trump’s plan may have “shocked and surprised” people, but it took “courage” to propose an alternative to “tired ideas” of the past.

Netanyahu said he and Rubio had discussed ways to implement Trump’s vision, adding that the US and Israel had a common position on Gaza.

The Israeli leader warned that the “gates of hell” would be opened if all Israeli hostages held by the armed group Hamas were not released.

“Hamas can not continue as a military or government force,” Rubio added. “And as long as it stands as a force that can govern or administer or a force that can threaten by use of violence, peace becomes impossible.”

The Israeli military launched a campaign to destroy Hamas in response to an unprecedented cross-border attack on 7 October 2023, in which about 1,200 people were killed and 251 were taken hostage.

The fighting has caused devastation in Gaza, where more than 48,200 people have been killed during the 16-month war, according to the territory’s Hamas-run health ministry.

Most of Gaza’s population has also been displaced multiple times, almost 70% of buildings are estimated to be damaged or destroyed, the healthcare, water, sanitation and hygiene systems have collapsed, and there are shortages of food, fuel, medicine and shelter.

Palestinian and Arab leaders have widely rejected Trump’s Gaza takeover plan, with the Palestinian Authority and Hamas emphasising that Palestinian land is “not for sale”.

Unlike previous US peace efforts in the region, the US top diplomat did not meet any Palestinian leaders to discuss the future of Gaza.

Speaking at a joint news conference on Sunday, Rubio and Netanyahu outlined areas of agreement, including a desire to eradicate Hamas’s governing capacity in the enclave, prevent Iran from gaining a nuclear weapon, and to monitor developments in post-Assad Syria.

Rubio went on to accuse Tehran of being “behind every act of violence, behind every destabilising activity, behind everything that threatens peace and stability” in the region.

Netanyahu also condemned what he called “lawfare” from the International Criminal Court (ICC), which he said “outrageously libelled” Israel.

He thanked the US administration for issuing sanctions against the ICC, which last year issued an arrest warrant for Netanyahu and his former defence minister over alleged war crimes in Gaza – which Israel denies – as well as a top Hamas commander.

Rubio is visiting Israel on his first tour of the Middle East as the US secretary of state. He is also due to meet Russian officials in Saudi Arabia in coming days for talks on the war in Ukraine – a meeting that neither Ukraine nor other European countries have been invited to.

His visit comes after a shipment of American-made heavy bombs arrived in Israel overnight.

Israel’s Defence Minister Israel Katz said his country had received a delivery of MK-84 bombs from the US late on Saturday, after Trump overturned a block on exporting the munitions placed by his predecessor, Joe Biden.

Biden initially shipped thousands of MK-84s to Israel after Hamas’s 7 October 2023 attack, but later declined to clear the bombs for export out of concern for their impact on Gaza. The powerful 2,000-pound bombs have a wide blast radius and can rip through concrete and metal, destroying entire buildings.

Katz said the shipment represented a “significant asset” for the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) and served as evidence of the “strong alliance between Israel and the United States”.

Meanwhile, Hamas said an Israeli air strike had killed three police officers near Rafah in southern Gaza on Sunday, which it called a “serious violation” of the ceasefire.

Israel said it had struck “several armed individuals” in southern Gaza.

The ceasefire came into force on 19 January and requires a complete pause in fighting for the first 42-day phase.

Fears had been high this week that the fragile ceasefire agreement could collapse after a dispute over a planned hostage release, which was nearly aborted but ultimately went ahead on Saturday.

Netanyahu’s office confirmed on Sunday that an Israeli negotiating team would travel to Cairo on Monday to discuss the second phase of the ceasefire.

South Korea has banned new downloads of China’s DeepSeek artificial intelligence (AI) chatbot, according to the country’s personal data protection watchdog.

The government agency said the AI model will become available again to South Korean users when “improvements and remedies” are made to ensure it complies with the country’s personal data protection laws.

In the week after it made global headlines, DeepSeek became hugely popular in South Korea leaping to the top of app stores with over a million weekly users.

But its rise in popularity also attracted scrutiny from countries around the world which have imposed restrictions on the app over privacy and national security concerns.

South Korea’s Personal Information Protection Commission said the DeepSeek app became unavailable on Apple’s App Store and Google Play on Saturday evening.

It came after several South Korean government agencies banned their employees from downloading the chatbot to their work devices.

South Korea’s acting president Choi Sang-mok has described Deepseek as a “shock”, that could impact the country’s industries, beyond AI.

Despite the suspension of new downloads, people who already have it on their phones will be able to continue using it or they may just access it via DeepSeek’s website.

China’s DeepSeek rocked the technology industry, the markets and America’s confidence in its AI leadership, when it released its latest app at the end of last month.

Its rapid rise as one of the world’s favourite AI chatbots sparked concerns in different jurisdictions.

Aside from South Korea, Taiwan and Australia have also banned it from all government devices.

The Australian government has insisted its ban is not due to the app’s Chinese origins, but because of the “unacceptable risk” it says it poses to national security.

Italy’s regulator, which briefly banned ChatGPT in 2023, has done the same with DeepSeek.

The company has been asked to address concerns over its privacy policy before it becomes available again on app stores.

Data protection authorities in France and Ireland have also posed questions to DeepSeek about how it handles citizens’ personal information – including whether it is stored on servers in China, as its privacy policy suggests.

It also says that, like other generative AI tools, it may collect information such as email addresses and dates of birth, and use input prompts to improve their product.

Meanwhile, lawmakers in the US have proposed a bill banning DeepSeek from federal devices, citing surveillance concerns.

At the state-government level, Texas, Virginia and New York, have already introduced such rules for their employees.

DeepSeek’s “large language model” (LLM) has reasoning capabilities that are comparable to US models such as OpenAI’s o1, but reportedly requires a fraction of the cost to train and run.

That has raised questions about the billions of dollars being invested into AI infrastructure in the US and elsewhere.