US President Donald Trump has said he has a “lot of respect” for Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, on the eve of their talks at the White House.

Asked by the BBC if he would apologise for recently calling him a “dictator”, he said he could not believe he had said this. He also called Zelensky “very brave”.

Trump was speaking after talks with UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer about ending the war between Ukraine and Russia.

He predicted a “very good meeting” with Zelensky on Friday, saying efforts to achieve peace were “moving along pretty rapidly”.

This week’s meetings come after the Trump administration shocked its Western partners by holding the first high-level US talks with Moscow since Russia invaded Ukraine just over three years ago.

America’s new president had appeared to blame Zelensky for the war and chided him for not starting peace talks earlier.

“You’ve been there for three years,” he had said last Tuesday. “You should have ended it… You should have never started it. You could have made a deal.”

But this Thursday, speaking after meeting Sir Keir, Trump told reporters asking about his forthcoming talks with Zelensky: “I think we’re going to have a very good meeting tomorrow morning. We’re going to get along really well.”

Asked by the BBC’s Chris Mason if he still thought Zelensky was a “dictator”, he replied: “Did I say that? I can’t believe I said that.”

Zelensky will be hoping to win some kind of security guarantees for his country that would underpin any peace deal that may be negotiated.

Asked about these on Thursday, Trump only said he was “open to many things” but he wanted to get Russia and Ukraine to agree a deal before deciding what measures might be put in place to enforce it.

On his visit on Friday, Zelensky is expected to sign a deal that will give the US access to Ukraine’s rare earth mineral resources.

Trump suggested that the presence of US mining concerns in Ukraine would act as a deterrent against future Russian attacks on Ukraine.

“It’s a backstop, you could say,” he said on Thursday. “I don’t think anybody’s going to play around if we’re there with a lot of workers and having to do with rare earths and other things which we need for our country.”

The British prime minister had said earlier that the UK was prepared to send troops to Ukraine after the war as part of a peacekeeping force but only if the US, Nato’s leading member, provided a “backstop”.

Asked if the US would aid British peacekeepers if they were attacked by Russia, Trump said: “The British have incredible soldiers, incredible military and they can take care of themselves. But if they need help, I’ll always be with the British, okay?”

Nato’s Article 5 holds that Nato members will come to the defence of an ally which comes under attack.

Praising Trump’s “personal commitment to bring peace” in Ukraine, Sir Keir said the UK was “ready to put boots on the ground and planes in the air to support a deal”.

“We’re focused now on bringing an enduring end to the barbaric war in Ukraine,” he said.

But, he added, it must not be a peace deal “that rewards the aggressor or that gives encouragement to regimes like Iran”.

Asked whether Vladimir Putin was trustworthy, the UK prime minister said his views on the Russian president were well-known.

Asked in turn why he seemed to trust Putin and Sir Keir did not, Trump said: “I know a lot of people that you would say no chance that they would ever deceive you, and they are the worst people in the world.

“I know others that you would guarantee they would deceive you, and you know what, they’re 100% honourable, so you never know what you’re getting.”

EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas, who had been due to meet US Secretary of State Marco Rubio in Washington before he cancelled the talks “due to scheduling issues”, told BBC News that Putin and Russia did “not want to have peace”.

“For any peace agreement to function, it needs the Europeans as well as Ukrainians on board,” she added.

Stopping off in the Irish Republic on Thursday en route to the US, Zelensky met the Taoiseach (Irish prime minister) Micheál Martin at Shannon Airport.

“We discussed the steps to end the war with guaranteed peace for Ukraine and the whole of Europe,” he said later.

Following the overthrow of Ukraine’s pro-Russian president in 2014, Moscow annexed the Black Sea peninsula of Crimea and backed pro-Russian separatists in bloody fighting in eastern Ukraine.

The conflict burst into all-out war when Russia invaded Ukraine on 24 February 2022.

It is estimated that hundreds of thousands of people, most of them soldiers, have been killed or injured, and millions of Ukrainian civilians have fled as refugees.

As well as Crimea, Russia now occupies parts of four other regions – Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson.

The Kremlin warned on Thursday that Russia would make no territorial concessions to Ukraine as part of a peace deal.

“All territories that have become subjects of the Russian Federation… are an integral part of our country, Russia,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters. “This is an absolutely indisputable fact and a non-negotiable fact.”

Separately, Russian and US officials met in the Turkish city of Istanbul for talks on rebuilding diplomatic ties.

The two nuclear superpowers expelled one another’s embassy staff when Trump’s predecessor, Joe Biden, was in the White House.

A trade deal between the US and UK could happen “very quickly”, President Donald Trump said at a joint press conference with Sir Keir Starmer.

Speaking during the prime minister’s visit to the White House, Trump envisaged “a real trade deal” which could see the UK avoid the kind of tariffs the president has been threatening on some of the US’s other trading partners.

The trip had been seen as a key moment in Sir Keir’s premiership as he sought to influence Trump’s decisions on topics including Ukraine, as well as trade.

Sir Keir kicked off his White House visit by presenting Trump with a letter from King Charles inviting him to an “unprecedented” second state visit to the UK.

Receiving the letter in front of cameras in the Oval Office, Trump said it would be a “great honour” and described the King as “a wonderful man”.

Sir Keir said the offer of a second state visit was “truly historic”. Traditionally US presidents have only been given one state visit.

Having confirmed he would be accepting the invite, Trump, along with Sir Keir took questions from reporters for 30 minutes.

The US president did most of the talking, setting out his stance on many subjects including the possibility of a Ukraine deal and the UK’s potential agreement with Mauritius over the Chagos Islands.

On the plane to the US, Sir Keir reiterated his willingness to send British troops to Ukraine as part of a peace deal.

However, he argued that, without US security guarantees, Russian President Vladimir Putin could re-invade Ukraine.

Asked if he would provide such assurances, Trump said a minerals agreement he plans to sign with Ukraine on Friday could provide a “backstop”.

He said “nobody will play around” if US workers were in the country, as part of the deal on minerals.

The US president was pressed on whether he stood by his accusation that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky was a “dictator”.

“Did I say that? I can’t believe I said that,” he said.

He later added he had “a lot of respect” for Zelensky, who he will host in Washington DC on Friday.

The UK’s planned agreement with Mauritius over the Chagos Islands was one potential source of tension between the UK and US leaders.

However, Trump appeared to back the UK’s approach saying he was “inclined to go along with it”.

The deal would see the UK cede sovereignty of the Indian Ocean archipelago, but maintain control over the island of Diego Garcia, which includes a US-UK military airbase, by leasing it back.

After taking questions in the Oval Office, the two leaders took part in talks and then held a formal press conference, during which Trump repeatedly spoke about a possible US-UK trade deal which could be agreed “very quickly”.

Referring to an economic, rather than a trade deal, Sir Keir said the UK and US would begin work on an agreement centred on the potential of artificial intelligence.

“Instead of over-regulating these new technologies, we’re seizing the opportunities they offer,” he said.

He said the UK and US had shaped the “great technological innovations of the last century” and now had the chance to do the same in the 21st Century.

“Artificial intelligence could cure cancer. That could be a moon shot for our age, and that’s how we’ll keep delivering for our people,” he said.

Trump has repeatedly threatened to impose tariffs – import taxes – on many of its allies, including 25% on goods made in the European Union.

He also ordered a 25% import tax on all steel and aluminium entering the US – which could hit the UK.

Asked if Sir Keir had tried to dissuade the president from ordering tariffs against the UK, Trump said: “He tried.”

“He was working hard I tell you that. He earned whatever the hell they pay him over there,” he said.

“I think there’s a very good chance that in the case of these two great, friendly countries, I think we could very well end up with a real trade deal where the tariffs wouldn’t be necessary. We’ll see.”

In a bid to convince the president against UK tariffs, Sir Keir said the US-UK trade relationship was “fair, balanced and reciprocal”.

Since leaving the European Union, successive British leaders have hoped to get a general free trade deal with the US.

In his first term as president, Trump said talks about a “very substantial” trade deal with the UK were under way.

However, negotiations stalled with disagreements over US agricultural exports and UK taxes on tech companies causing problems.

Oscar-winning actor Gene Hackman and his wife appeared to have been dead for “quite a while” when the couple and their dog were found on Wednesday afternoon at their home in the US state of New Mexico, police say.

Hackman, 95, was discovered in a side room near the kitchen of the house in Santa Fe, while his wife Betsy Arakawa, a 65-year-old classical pianist, was found in a bathroom.

Authorities reported no signs of injury but deemed the deaths “suspicious enough” to investigate and have not ruled out foul play. No cause of death was given.

In a wide-ranging career, Hackman won two Academy Awards for The French Connection and Unforgiven.

Three of Hackman’s children from a previous marriage confirmed the death of their father and Ms Arakawa in a statement to the BBC.

“He was loved and admired by millions around the world for his brilliant acting career, but to us he was always just Dad and Grandpa. We will miss him sorely and are devastated by the loss,” Elizabeth, Leslie and Annie Hackman said.

Warning: This story contains details some readers may find upsetting

The Santa Fe County Sheriff’s office confirmed the deaths.

“On 26 February, 2025, at approximately 1:45pm, Santa Fe County Sheriff’s deputies were dispatched to an address on Old Sunset Trail in Hyde Park where Gene Hackman, his wife Betsy Arakawa, and a dog were found deceased,” the office said.

In a news conference on Thursday afternoon, Sheriff Adan Mendoza said: “It sounds like they had been deceased for quite a while, and I don’t want to guess in reference to how long that was.”

He added: “There was no immediate sign of foul play. Haven’t ruled that out yet.

“This is an investigation, so we’re keeping everything on the table.”

• Gene Hackman obituary: One of Hollywood’s greatest ‘tough guys’
• Prince of Wales leads tributes to ‘genius’ Gene Hackman

A sheriff’s detective who responded to the scene said that they believed the couple had been dead for some time because of Ms Arakawa’s “decomposition” and “mummification” in the hands and feet.

“The male decedent also showed obvious signs of death, similar and consistent with the female decedent,” said the search warrant.

Near Ms Arakawa’s head was a portable heater, which the detective determined could have been brought down in the event that she abruptly fell to the ground.

Authorities say they have requested carbon monoxide and toxicology tests for both Hackman and his wife, and that a cause of death has not yet been determined as they await the results of the autopsy.

A prescription bottle and scattered pills were on the bathroom countertop close to her body. The couple’s German Shepherd dog was found dead in a bathroom closet near to Ms Arakawa.

Hackman was discovered wearing grey tracksuit bottoms, a blue long-sleeve T-shirt and brown slippers. Sunglasses and a walking cane were next to the body.

The detective suspected that the actor had fallen suddenly.

The circumstances of their death were “suspicious enough in nature to require a thorough search and investigation”, said the search warrant, because the person who called emergency services found the front door of the property open.

But the detective observed no sign of forced entry into the home. Nothing appeared out of place inside. Neither was there any indication that belongings had been rummaged through, or that any items had been removed.

Two other, healthy dogs were discovered roaming the property – one inside and one outside.

The couple’s 2,300 sq ft ranch-style home, part of a gated community, was valued at around $1m, according to tax records.

The local utility responded and found no sign of a gas leak in the area. The fire department detected no indication of a carbon monoxide leak or poisoning, according to the search warrant.

The detective spoke at the scene to two maintenance workers, one of whom had called the emergency services.

The two workers said they sometimes conducted routine work at property, but rarely ever saw the couple.

They indicated that they communicated with them by phone and text, primarily with Ms Arakawa.

The two workers said they last had contact with the couple two weeks beforehand.

A recording of the 911 call obtained by the BBC shows the emotional caller telling a dispatcher how he found the two bodies.

“No, they’re not moving,” he says in the audio. “Just send somebody out here really quick.”

The person, who made the call while standing outside the property and peering in through a window, is heard saying “damn” repeatedly.

Hackman met Ms Arakawa when she was working part-time at a California gym in the mid-1980s, the New York Times has previously reported.

He won the best actor Oscar for his role as Jimmy “Popeye” Doyle in William Friedkin’s 1971 thriller The French Connection, and another for best supporting actor for playing Little Bill Daggett in Clint Eastwood’s Western film Unforgiven in 1992.

A relative latecomer to Hollywood, Hackman’s breathrough came in his thirties, when he was nominated for an Oscar for portraying Buck Barrow in 1967’s Bonnie and Clyde – opposite Warren Beatty and Faye Dunaway – and again for I Never Sang for My Father in 1970.

Both films saw him recognised in the supporting actor category. He was also nominated for best leading actor in 1988 for playing the FBI agent in Mississippi Burning.

He played more than 100 roles during his career, including supervillain Lex Luthor in the Christopher Reeve-starring Superman movies in the 1970s and 1980s.

Hackman featured opposite many other Hollywood heavyweights including Al Pacino in 1973’s Scarecrow and Gene Wilder in 1974’s Young Frankenstein.

His last big-screen appearance came as Monroe Cole in Welcome to Mooseport in 2004, after which he stepped back from Hollywood for a quieter life in New Mexico.

British-American influencers Andrew and Tristan Tate – who are facing trial in Romania on charges including human trafficking – have arrived in the US after Romanian prosecutors lifted a two-year travel ban.

Andrew, 38, and his brother Tristan, 36, have strongly denied the allegations against them. The two departed Bucharest on a private jet early on Thursday and arrived in Florida hours later, with Andrew telling reporters they are “misunderstood”.

Romanian prosecutors stressed the case against them had not been dropped and that they remain “under judicial control” – meaning they have to regularly report to authorities and are expected to return to Romania.

However their exit has sparked concerns that prosecutors felt political pressure from the Trump administration. The US president said he knew nothing about the Tate brothers being released from Romania.

The Tate brothers are accused of human trafficking and forming an organised group to sexually exploit women in Romania. Andrew Tate is also accused of rape.

In the US they also face a civil case from a woman who alleges the brothers coerced her into sex work, and then defamed her after she gave evidence to Romanian authorities.

The brothers also face separate charges in the UK of rape and human trafficking. They deny all the allegations against them.

Upon arrival, Andrew Tate told reporters: “We live in a democratic society where it’s innocent until proven guilty and I think my brother and I are largely misunderstood.”

“There’s a lot of opinions about us, a lot of things that got around about us on the internet,” he said, adding that they are “yet to be convicted of any crime in our lives ever”.

The brothers declined to answer questions about their release and Trump’s role in them being allowed into the US.

A lawyer for the Tate brothers, Joseph McBride, said they will return to Romania at the end of March to meet the prosecutor before returning to the US.

“They feel secure in America for several reasons, the primary one being that Donald Trump is the president. As a result, they are excited to call America their home again,” Mr McBride said in a statement.

Speaking in the White House after their plane landed, Trump said he knew nothing about the Tate brothers being released from Romania.

Asked if his administration pressured the Romanian government to release them, he said: “I know nothing about that. I don’t know, you’re saying he’s on a plane right now?”

UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer, who was sitting next to Trump in the White House, said: “There’s an English element here, so obviously it’s important justice is done, and human trafficking is obviously, to my mind, a security risk.”

On Thursday, the brothers arrived at Fort Lauderdale in Florida around 11:00 local time (16:00 GMT) and were seen disembarking the aircraft.

Their arrival follows comments made by Trump administration figures earlier this month.

The Tates have regularly posted messages in support of Trump, and Tristan Tate has said his brother’s role in persuading “millions of young men” to back him “cannot be overlooked”.

Romania’s Foreign Minister has also told Romanian TV that Trump’s envoy for special missions had raised the brothers during a conversation at the Munich Security Conference in Germany a fortnight ago.

Emil Hurezeanu said his discussion with Richard Grenell had been informal and he did not consider the approach “a form of pressure”. Grenell told the Financial Times his support for the brothers was evident from his “publicly available tweets”.

However, women who have brought sexual abuse allegations against the Tate brothers said last week they were “extremely concerned” by reports that US officials had asked Romania to relax travel restrictions for the men.

Andrew Tate is a self-described misogynist who has attracted millions of followers online, despite being previously banned from social media platforms for expressing his views.

He and his brother were first arrested in Romania in December 2022, with Andrew accused of rape and human trafficking and Tristan suspected of human trafficking.

They both denied the charges and spent several months under house arrest. A year later, in August 2024, they faced new allegations including sex with a minor and trafficking underage persons, all of which they deny.

A former kickboxer who had appeared on UK TV show Big Brother, Andrew had moved from the UK to Romania several years ago. However police in Bedfordshire are still seeking his extradition on separate and unrelated allegations of rape and human trafficking, as well as tax evasion.

In the UK, four British women have filed a civil case against Andrew Tate in the UK High Court, alleging that he raped and coercively controlled them. Tate denies all the allegations against him.

Those plaintiffs said it was clear he would not face criminal prosecution in Romania and appealed to UK authorities to take action.

“We are in disbelief and feel re-traumatised by the news that the Romanian authorities have given into pressure from the Trump administration to allow Andrew Tate to travel around Europe and to the US,” the women said in a statement.

Elena Lasconi, who is running for the Romanian presidency in May’s elections, six months after they were controversially cancelled, has called for the immediate resignation of the head of Romania’s organised crime investigations directorate DIICOT, which made the decision to let the brothers leave.

“I am outraged!” she wrote on social media, “as a woman, a human being and a Romanian.” Lasconi said prosecutors should explain publicly whether their decision had come as a result of external pressure.

Prosecutors from DIICOT have emphasised that the judicial conditions for the brothers have not changed.

Any violation of those obligations made in bad faith “may lead to the replacement of judicial control with a higher measure of deprivation of liberty”, it said in a statement in Romanian.

Following a successful court appeal on Wednesday, the brothers also had multiple assets returned to them which had originally been seized by authorities – including six properties, six cars, and frozen bank accounts.

This comes after court limitations were “modified in order to allow the brothers to travel to the USA,” the statement from the Tates’ representative said.

The Tates are understood to be required to return to Bucharest at the end of March to satisfy the prosecutors’ terms, however it is too early to say whether they will comply with them.

Romania is both a member of the European Union and a key Nato member state on the Western alliance’s eastern flank. It has an extradition treaty with the US.

Senior Trump figures have also had the government in Bucharest in their sights over the court ruling that annulled last December’s presidential election. Romanian intelligence services said far-right candidate Calin Georgescu had been supported by a flurry of TikTok accounts engineered by Russia.

Georgescu was indicted on Wednesday for attempted “incitement to acts against the constitutional order”. He has denied any wrongdoing and has previously called the election annulment a “formalised coup d’etat”. Prosecutors are still investigating the allegations of election fraud.

When Japanese journalist Shiori Ito decided to speak up about her rape allegations, she knew she was standing in the face of a society that preferred silence.

“I’m scared…but all I want to do is to talk about the truth”, Shiori says in the opening scene of her Oscar-nominated documentary Black Box Diaries.

Shiori became the face of Japan’s MeToo movement after she accused a prominent journalist Noriyuki Yamaguchi of rape.

Her acclaimed directorial debut, based on her memoir of the same name, is a retelling of her quest for justice after authorities found the evidence insufficient to pursue criminal charges.

But there is one country where it is yet to play: Japan, where it has run into huge controversy. Her former lawyers have accused her of including audio and video footage she did not have permission to use, which, they say, has violated trust and put her sources at risk. Shiori defends what she did as necessary for “public good”.

It’s a startling turn in a story that gripped Japan when it first broke -the then 28-year-old Shiori ignored her family’s request to remain silent. And after her public accusation did not result in a criminal case, she filed a civil lawsuit against Yamaguchi and won $30,000 (£22,917) in damages.

Shiori told the BBC making the film involved “reliving her trauma”: “It took me four years [to make the film] because emotionally I was struggling.”

She was an intern at Reuters news agency in 2015, when she says Yamaguchi invited her to discuss a job opportunity. He was the Washington bureau chief for a major Japanese media firm, Tokyo Broadcasting System.

Shiori claims she was raped following a dinner in Tokyo with Yamaguchi, who has always denied the allegations.

CCTV footage of an intoxicated Shiori being dragged from a taxi and into a hotel is part of the more than 400 hours of footage she edited for the documentary.

The editing process, she says, was “really challenging. It was like hardcore exposure therapy.”

When the film was released, the CCTV footage became a source of friction as Shiori’s team of ex-lawyers, who helped her win her lawsuit, slammed the documentary.

They claimed it was unauthorised use of CCTV footage – and that she had violated a pledge not to use it outside of court proceedings. .

Last week, her former lawyers – led by Yoko Nishihiro – held another press conference, saying her use of the footage posed challenges for other sexual assault cases.

“If the fact that the evidence from the trial has been made public is known, we will be unable to obtain cooperation in future cases,” Ms Nishihiro said.

Ms Nishihiro claimed that Shiori had also used unauthorised recordings, saying she only found this out at a screening of the film last July.

This included audio of a police detective who eventually acted as a whistleblower about the investigation process – as well as a video of a taxi driver who provided testimony about the night of the alleged rape. Both of them, the lawyers argued, were identifiable and neither had given their consent to be featured in the film.

“I’ve been trying so hard to protect her for eight-and-half years, and I feel like I’ve been completely torn apart,” Ms Nishihiro said.

“I want her to explain and be held accountable.”

Shiori had earlier acknowledged that she did not have the hotel’s permission to use the CCTV but argued that this was “the only visual evidence” she had of the night she was sexually assaulted.

She added that including audio of the police detective was necessary because of “the cover up of the investigation”, adding that she was releasing the video “for the public good”.

“We are standing in different points of view,” she said of the fallout with her former lawyers.

“For me, [it’s for the] public good. For them, it’s ‘do not break any rules’.”

There has been no official explanation as to why the film has not yet been distributed. Shiori has said that “Japan is still not ready to talk about [it]”, but its unclear how much of it is also due to legal hurdles.

In her latest statement last week, Shiori apologised and said she would re-edit parts of the documentary to make sure individuals would not be identified, adding that a redacted version would be screened moving forward.

“There are moments I wish I didn’t have to put in [the documentary]. There are moments I’m not proud of but I wanted to put all of it and to show we are also human,” she told the BBC. “No-one is perfect.”

In the nine years since the assault, Shiori’s fight against Japan’s justice system has been well-chronicled in the media – and is something she says she wanted to detail in her documentary.

She was met with a wave of backlash when she went public in 2017, receiving hate mail and online abuse.

“People were telling me you’re not crying enough… you’re not wearing proper clothes… you’re too strong.”

Some criticised the way she was dressed at the press conference where she first accused Yamaguchi – they said her shirt had been buttoned too low down. Shiori said she left Japan for a few months, fearing for her safety.

Shiori’s case was followed by other high-profile cases. In 2023, former soldier Rina Gonoi also went public with her story, accusing three ex-soldiers of sexually assaulting her. This was the year Japan passed landmark laws to redefine rape from “forcible sexual intercourse” to “non-consensual sexual intercourse” and raised the age of consent from 13 to 16.

Gonoi eventually won her case but Shiori says it is proof that speaking up against sexual violence comes at a price, adding: “Is it worth going through this as a survivor seeking justice? It shouldn’t be this way. You have to sacrifice a lot.”

For now it’s unclear if her film will ever be screened in Japan, but she says that its homecoming would be her ultimate prize.

“This is my love letter to Japan. I really wish one day I can screen my film, and my family can also watch it,” she added.

“That’s what I really hope for… more than winning an Oscar.”

Donald Trump said he planned to hit goods from China with a new 10% tariff, the latest salvo in the US president’s steadily escalating trade fights.

Imports from China already face taxes at the border of at least 10%, after a Trump tariff order that went into effect earlier this month.

Trump also said on Thursday he intended to move forward with threatened 25% tariffs on imports from Canada and Mexico, which are set to come into effect on 4 March.

His comments came as officials from Mexico and Canada were in Washington for discussions aimed at heading off that plan.

Trump had announced the plans for 25% tariffs on Mexico and Canada for 4 February unless the two nations increased border security.

He paused the measures for a month at the last minute after the two countries agreed to increase border funding and talk more about how to combat drug trafficking.

On social media on Thursday, Trump wrote that he did not think enough action had been taken to address the flow of fentanyl to the US.

“Drugs are still pouring into our Country from Mexico and Canada at very high and unacceptable levels,” he wrote, adding that “a large percentage” of the drugs were made in China.

Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum, at a press conference from the country’s National Palace, said in response: “As we know, [Trump] has his way of communicating.”

She added: “I hope we can reach an agreement and on 4 March we can announce something else.”

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau also said his country was working hard to reach a deal, warning tariffs from the US would prompt an “immediate and extremely strong response”.

Trump’s threats against Mexico and Canada have raised widespread alarm, as the North American economy is closely connected after decades of operating under a free trade agreement.

Leaders of the two countries have previously said they would impose retaliatory tariffs on the United States if the White House went ahead with its plans.

Tariffs are a tax collected by the government and paid for by the business bringing the goods into the country.

China, Mexico and Canada are America’s top three trade partners, together accounting for more than 40% of imports into the US last year.

Economists have warned tariffs on goods from the three countries could lead to higher prices in the US on everything from iPhones to avocados.

Trump’s call for an additional 10% levy on goods from China – which he said would also go into effect on Tuesday – had not been previously announced, though during his presidential campaign he backed border taxes on Chinese products of as much as 60%.

Liu Pengyu, spokesperson for the Chinese Embassy, said his country was already working with the US to address the concerns about fentanyl, and had made “visual progress” in areas such as information exchange, case cooperation and online advertisement cleanup.

“Reducing domestic drug demand and strengthening law enforcement cooperation are the fundamental solutions,” he said in a statement, which warned that Trump’s tariff moves were “bound to affect and undermine future counternarcotics cooperation between the two sides”.

“The unilateral tariffs imposed by the US will not solve its own problems, nor will it benefit the two sides or the world.”

Trump’s comments, which called for drug flow to stop or be “severely limited”, seemed to set the stage for Mexico and Canada to negotiate, said trade expert Christine McDaniel, a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Washington University.

On Thursday, as tariff talks intensified, two imprisoned alleged leaders of the violent Zetas cartel long sought by the US – Miguel Angel Trevino Morales and his brother Oscar – were extradited.

Mexican media said they were part of a larger group of drug lords sent from Mexico to the US – a major step in terms of US-Mexico security relations.

Ms McDaniel said Trump’s demands of China were less clear, raising the likelihood that those measures will come into effect.

Trump’s initial round of tariffs on China was eclipsed by his threats against Canada and Mexico. But the potential for further duties raises questions about how businesses will respond.

Ms McDaniel said she expected the hit to be felt more in China.

“It’s not costless for the US, but so far it seems more costly for China,” she said.

The impact of tariffs, if they go into effect, is expected to be felt more in the Canadian and Mexican economies, which count on the US as a key export market.

But analysts have warned that the threat of the levies, even if they are never imposed, is still likely to have a chilling effect on investment, including in the US.

China has already responded to the first round of tariffs from the US with its own tariffs on US products, including coal and agricultural machinery.

Trump has dismissed fears about damage to the American economy.

The Cook Islands may be small but the ambitions of its leader are mighty.

A range of deals Prime Minister Mark Brown signed with China without consulting the public or New Zealand – an ally to which the Cooks is closely tied – has caused increasing irritation and concern.

The agreements are the first of their kind with a country that is not a traditional ally. They cover infrastructure, ship-building, tourism, agriculture, technology, education and, perhaps crucially, deep-sea mineral exploration.

Brown says his decisions will be based on the “long-term interests” of the Cook Islands, which are remote, resource-rich and vulnerable to climate change.

Not everyone agrees with him. The new, wide-ranging deals with Beijing have led to protests on Rarotonga – the largest Cook Island – and a vote of no confidence against Brown in parliament, which he survived earlier this week. They have also worried Australia, another powerful ally.

New Zealand said it was “blindsided” by the China deals, but Brown believes his country is independent and does not need to consult Wellington on issues he says are of no concern to them.

He has, nevertheless, tried to reassure Australia and New Zealand that the deals with China don’t replace their relationships. But the apparent snub comes at a time when the West’s grip on the Pacific seems to be loosening.

The rise of China in the Pacific isn’t new. Whether it’s bagging a security deal in the Solomon Islands or providing medical services in Tonga, China’s presence in the region has been growing. And the US and its allies have made a consistent effort to counter that.

But now there is a new dynamic at play as the Trump administration upends relationships with allies such as Ukraine and appears increasingly unpredictable.

The Cook Islands has had what’s known as a “free association” relationship with New Zealand, a former coloniser, since the 1960s – meaning Wellington helps on issues like defence and foreign affairs, and that Cook Islanders hold New Zealand citizenship.

The two countries are very close. There are around 15,000 Cook Islanders living in the Pacific island nation, but as many as 100,000 live in New Zealand and Australia. Culturally, Cook Island Māori – who make up the majority of the population – are also closely related to, but distinct from, New Zealand Māori.

The deals with China aren’t the only sign that Brown wants to pull away from New Zealand which have caused concern. He recently abandoned a proposal to introduce a Cook Islands passport following a public outcry.

“[The relationship with NZ] connects us politically and connects us to our brothers and sisters of Aotearoa [the Māori word for New Zealand] – they left our shores to sail to Aotearoa. We need to remember that,” said Cook Islander Jackie Tuara at a recent demonstration against Brown’s deals with China.

In a nation that is not used to huge displays of protest, several hundred people gathered outside parliament in Rarotonga, holding up placards that read: “Stay connected with NZ”. Others waved their New Zealand passports.

“Let us stand in partnership with countries that have the same democratic principles as we are a democratic nation, are we not?” Ms Tuara said. “We don’t want to see our land and our oceans sold to the highest bidder. Those resources are for us – for our children, for their future.”

But for all those who are opposed to Brown’s recent moves away from New Zealand, there are plenty of Cook Islanders who back him.

China specialist Philipp Ivanov, in apparent agreement with the prime minister, says that “the Pacific island nations have their own agency, their own motivations and their own capabilities”.

He believes that the recent developments in the Cook Islands are “all part of that little great game that’s going on between Australia and China and New Zealand in the Pacific. It’s a whack-a-mole kind of game.”

While the US has long been a dominant force in security and military in the region, China has tried to strengthen its ties with the small but strategic Pacific Island nations through aid, infrastructure and security deals.

In response, the likes of the US and the UK have beefed up their diplomatic presence across the region. Australia too has made it clear it will redouble its support. But it’s unclear to what extent US President Donald Trump will continue his predecessor’s commitments in the region to counter China – and Beijing is taking advantage of that.

Last week, planes flying between New Zealand and Australia were diverted after China conducted military exercises involving live fire. Both Australia and New Zealand had been trailing the three Chinese warships that were making their way down the eastern coast of Australia in what experts say is an escalation and unexpected show of power.

“It’s a pretty efficient way of testing the diplomatic response in both the Australia-China and New Zealand-China bilateral relationship, and what the US is prepared to say in defence [of its allies],” says defence analyst Euan Graham, from the Australian Strategic Policy Institute.

“It’s also making the point that in the numbers game, China will always be ahead of smaller countries with smaller navies and Australia’s navy is at a historic low.”

China’s ambassador to Australia, Xiao Qian, told national broadcaster ABC that Beijing’s actions had been appropriate and he won’t apologise for it.

Australia’s Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has been keen to emphasise that no international laws were broken and that the drills were carried out in international waters. Indeed, many have pointed out that Australia and its allies often sail warships through the South China Sea.

“I’d see it as China wanting to capitalise on the chaotic effect that Trump is having right now,” says Mihai Sora, director of the Pacific Islands programme at Australia’s Lowy Institute. “China is taking advantage of that moment to [say], look Australia, you are actually alone. Where is the United States in all of this?”

Australia’s Foreign Minister Penny Wong freely admits “we are in a permanent state of contest in our region, that is the reality”.

In speaking out about the warships last week, Australia’s government was trying to reassure the public about China’s intentions, while also wanting to tell Australians that it’s all in hand. That is not a coincidence as Australia heads towards a federal election in the coming months.

“[Opposition leader Peter] Dutton comes from this national security and home affairs background, so the government doesn’t want to give him any air to criticise Labor,” Philipp Ivanov says. “Being weak on China would be disastrous for them, given what’s going on in the US and given our own elections.”

But it also brings into focus the dilemma this part of the world faces.

“Canberra will be contesting every single move that Beijing tries to make … and it reflects the fact that Canberra and Beijing have diverging strategic interests,” says James Laurenceson, the director of Australia-China Relations Institute at the University of Technology Sydney.

But, he adds, they also have “enormous commonalities” – China is Australia’s largest trading partner – and New Zealand’s – for instance.

“So you’ve got to be able to ride both these horses at the same time.”

It’s not an easy relationship – it never has been. The bigger surprise is that of the US, a traditional ally.

Although many in the Trump administration still describe China as a grave threat, US allies are unsure what to expect from the Washington-Beijing relationship.

And now, as Trump threatens steel and aluminium tariffs and a withdrawal of foreign assistance, Australia feels more isolated than ever. The recent activity of China’s warships in the Tasman Sea serves to highlight that isolation.

“I wouldn’t think of them as military acts, so much as political acts using military hardware,” Mr Ivanov says.

“I think the political act is to say, look, we can do this anytime we want. You can’t do anything about it, and the United States is not doing anything about it, because they’re busy tearing down the global system.”

Five years after deadly religious riots engulfed India’s capital Delhi, there is no legal closure in sight for the people involved.

A BBC Hindi analysis has found that more than 80% of the cases related to the violence where courts gave decisions have resulted in acquittals or discharges.

More than 50 people, mostly Muslims, were killed after clashes broke out between Hindus and Muslims over a controversial citizenship law in February 2020. The violence – the deadliest the city had seen in decades – stretched on for days, with hundreds of homes and shops set on fire by violent mobs.

The BBC had earlier reported on incidents of police brutality and complicity during the riots. The police have denied any wrongdoing and in their investigation, alleged that the violence was “pre-planned” as a part of a larger conspiracy to “threaten India’s unity” by the people who were protesting against the law.

They registered 758 cases in connection with the investigation and arrested more than 2,000 people. This included 18 student leaders and activists who were arrested in a case that came to be known as the “main conspiracy case”. They were charged under a draconian anti-terror law that makes it nearly impossible to get bail. Only six of them have been released in five years, and some like activist Umar Khalid are still in jail, waiting for a trial to begin.

BBC Hindi examined the status of all the 758 cases filed in relation to the riots and analysed the 126 cases in which the Karkardooma court in Delhi had given decisions.

More than 80% of these 126 cases resulted in acquittals or discharges as witnesses turned hostile, or did not support the prosecution’s case. Only 20 of these cases saw convictions.

Under Indian law, an accused is discharged when a court closes a case without a trial because there isn’t sufficient evidence to go ahead. An acquittal is when the court finds the accused not guilty after a full trial.

In 62 of the 758 cases that were filed on charges related to murder, there was only one conviction and four acquittals, data accessed by the BBC through India’s Right to Information law shows.

A detailed analysis of the 126 orders also showed that in dozens of cases, the court came down heavily on the Delhi police for lapses in investigations. In some cases, it criticised the police for filing “predetermined chargesheets” that “falsely implicated” the accused.

In most of the 126 cases, police officials were presented as witnesses to the events. But for various reasons, the court did not find their testimonies credible.

Judges have pointed out inconsistencies in the police statements, delays in identification of the accused by the police and, in some instances, cast doubts over whether policemen were even present when the violence broke out.

In two orders, the judge said that he could not “restrain” himself from saying that when history looked back at the riots, the “failure of the investigating agency to conduct a proper investigation” would “torment the sentinels of democracy”. The court was hearing cases filed against three men on charges of arson and looting – but concluded they had been arrested without any “real or effective investigation”.

The Delhi police did not respond to the BBC’s request for comment. In a report filed last April, the police had told the court that all investigations were carried out in a “credible, fair and impartial” way.

Testimonies from some of the accused and even the court’s own observations, however, raise questions about the investigation.

Shadab Alam, who spent 80 days in jail, says he can never forget the terror of the riots.

He had taken shelter on the rooftop terrace of a medicine store where he worked with a few others.

Just hours earlier, the police had arrived at the shop and asked them to shut it because of ongoing arson.

“Suddenly, they [the police] came again and took a few of us into their van,” he told the BBC.

When he asked the police why he was being taken, he said, they accused him of participating in rioting.

“They asked us our names and beat us up. Almost all of us arrested were Muslims,” Mr Alam said. He added that he submitted his medical report before the court that confirmed three injuries.

In its official report, the police charged Mr Alam and 10 other Muslims of burning down a shop. But the court discharged all of them even before the trial could begin.

In its observations, the court criticised the police investigation saying that the witness’s statements could have been “artificially prepared”, and that “in all probabilities” the shop was burnt by a “mob of persons from the Hindu community”.

It said the police did not pursue the case in that direction, despite being present when the incident happened.

Mr Alam had to wait four years for the case to be officially closed.

“All this happened during Covid-19 pandemic. There was a lockdown. We were in a state of frenzy,” said Dilshad Ali, Alam’s father.

“In the end, nothing was proved. But we had to spend so much time and money to prove our innocence.”

He said the family wanted monetary compensation for their losses. “If the police made a false case against my son, then action should be taken against them,” he added.

In another case, the court acquitted Sandip Bhati, who was accused of dragging and beating a Muslim man during the riots.

The police had submitted two videos to show Mr Bhati was the culprit. But in court, his lawyer said that the police had submitted an incomplete clip to frame his client.

In the full video, which the BBC has verified, Mr Bhati is seen saving the Muslim man instead of beating him up.

In its order in January, the court ruled that the police “manipulated” the video to “frame” Mr Bhati instead of tracing the “actual culprits”.

It also asked the commissioner of Delhi police to take appropriate action against the investigating officer in the case. The police did not respond to BBC Hindi’s question on whether this had been done.

Mr Bhati, who spent four months in prison, refused to comment, saying he did not wish to discuss his “ordeal”.

With so many acquittals, former Supreme Court judge Madan Lokur said, the prosecution and police “should sit down to introspect what they have achieved in five years”.

He also said that “accountability needs to be fixed on the prosecution as well if the arrest is found to be illegal or unnecessary”.

“If the prosecution puts someone in jail because they have the power to do so or because they want to do so, they should not be allowed to get away with it if the incarceration is found to be illegal or unnecessary,” he added.

Even as some cases fall apart in courts, many of those arrested are still languishing in jail awaiting a trial.

Gulfisha Fatima, a 33-year-old PhD aspirant, is among 12 activists who are still in jail on charges of being “conspirators” of the riots.

Her family said three other police cases were lodged against her and she got bail in all of them. But she continues to face incarceration in a fourth case under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) – the stringent anti-terror law that sets exceptionally challenging conditions for bail.

“Since she’s gone to jail, with every hearing we hope she will finally come out,” her father Syed Tasneef Hussain told the BBC.

In Ms Fatima’s case, after months of hearing the bail plea, the judge from the Delhi High Court got transferred in 2023, and now the entire case is being heard again.

“Sometimes I wonder if I’ll be able to see her or if I’ll die before that,” Mr Hussain said.

At least 40 Uyghurs have been deported to China,Thai authorities have confirmed, despite warnings from rights groups they could face possible torture and even death.

The group is thought to have been flown back to China’s Xinjiang region on Thursday, after being held for 10 years in a Bangkok detention centre.

China has been accused of committing crimes against humanity and possibly genocide against the Uyghur population and other mostly Muslim ethnic groups in the north-western region of Xinjiang. Beijing denies all of the allegations.

It is the first time Thailand has deported Uyghurs since 2015.

The deportation has been shrouded in secrecy after serious concerns were raised by the United States and United Nations.

Thai media reported that several trucks, some with windows blocked with sheets of black plastic, left Bangkok’s main immigration detention centre in the early hours of Thursday morning.

Hours later, tracker Flightrader24 showed an unscheduled China Southern Airlines flight leaving Bangkok, eventually arriving in Xinjiang. It was not immediately clear how many people had been deported.

The Thai government later said it had decided to send the 40 Uyghurs back to China because it was not right that they had been held for more than a decade, but that no other third country had stepped forward offering to take them. That includes Turkey, which has given Uyghurs asylum in the past.

Eight Uyghurs remain in Thailand, including five who are serving jail terms for crimes they committed while in detention.

The government also said that Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra was given assurances that the Uyghurs would be looked after if returned to China during her recent visit to the country.

She did not initially confirm any deportations had taken place when asked by reporters on Thursday.

“In any country in the world actions must adhere to the principles of law, international processes, and human rights,” Shinawatra said.

Beijing said that 40 Chinese illegal immigrants were repatriated from Thailand, but refused to confirm that the group were Uyghurs.

“The repatriation was carried out in accordance with the laws of China and Thailand, international law and international practice,” the foreign ministry said.

Chinese state media said the group had been “bewitched” by criminal organisations and were stranded in Thailand after illegally leaving the country.

• China deportation looms for Uyghurs held in Thailand
• Who are the Uyghurs?

The returned group is made up of more than 300 Uyghurs who were detained at the Thai border in 2014 after fleeing repression in Xinjiang.

Many were sent to Turkey, while others were deported back to China in 2015 – prompting a storm of protest from governments and human rights groups.

“What is the Thai government doing?” asked opposition lawmaker Kannavee Suebsang on social media on Thursday.

“There must not be Uyghur deportation to face persecution. They were jailed for 11 years. We violated their human rights for too long.”

The detention centre where the Uyghurs – who had been charged with no crime, apart from entering Thailand without a visa – were kept was known to be unsanitary and overcrowded. Five Uyghurs died in custody.

In a statement on Thursday, Human Rights Watch said the group now face a high risk of torture, enforced disappearance and long-term imprisonment.

“Thailand’s transfer of Uyghur detainees to China constitutes a blatant violation of Thailand’s obligations under domestic and international laws,” said the organisation’s Asia director, Elaine Pearson.

“Until yesterday [Wednesday], senior Thai officials had made multiple public assurances that these men would not be transferred, including to allies and UN officials.”

Phil Robertson, director of the Asia Human Rights and Labour Advocates (AHRLA) group, said that the deportations “totally destroyed” the “charade” that the current Thai government was different to the previous one “when it comes to transnational repression and cooperating with authoritarian neighbours”.

Amnesty International described the deportations as “unimaginably cruel”.

On Thursday, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio condemned Thailand for the deportation and urged “all governments in countries where Uyghurs seek protection not to forcibly return ethnic Uyghurs to China.”

He accused China of having “committed genocide and crimes against humanity targeting predominantly Muslim Uyghurs and other members of ethnic and religious minority groups in Xinjiang” in a statement published online.

The UN said it “deeply regrets” the deportations, a phrase echoed by the EU.

Meanwhile, UK Foreign Secretary David Lammy said the UK disagrees “in the strongest terms” with Thailand’s decision.

There are about 12 million Uyghurs, mostly Muslim, living in Xinjiang, which is officially known as the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR).

The Uyghurs speak their own language, which is similar to Turkish, and see themselves as culturally and ethnically close to Central Asian nations. They make up less than half of the Xinjiang population.

Recent decades have seen a mass migration of Han Chinese (China’s ethnic majority) into Xinjiang, allegedly orchestrated by the state to dilute the minority population there.

China has also been accused of targeting Muslim religious figures and banning religious practices in the region, as well as destroying mosques and tombs.

Israel’s military has published its first official account of the mistakes that led to its failures during Hamas’s 7 October 2023 attack, which triggered the Gaza war.

The report concludes that the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) “failed in its mission to protect Israeli civilians”.

The 19-page report contains much that is already known about what led to catastrophic loss of about 1,200 lives when approximately 5,000 gunmen from Hamas and other Palestinian groups stormed into Israel, also taking 251 hostages in the process.

There are no dramatic revelations, but it is still sobering to see the military’s conclusions about how it misjudged Hamas’s intentions and underestimated its capabilities laid out in black and white.

The report says the military regarded Gaza as a secondary security threat, with priority given to Iran and Hezbollah. Its policy towards Gaza, it says, was “paradoxical: Hamas was illegitimate, yet there was no effort to develop an alternative”.

The military had chosen a “conflict management” approach to dealing with Gaza, it says. And had assumed that Hamas was “neither interested [in] nor preparing for a large-scale war” – a perception reinforced by Hamas’s own deception tactics.

Evidence from 2018 onwards suggesting that Hamas – which is proscribed as a terrorist group by Israel, the US, UK and other countries – was indeed developing an ambitious plan was interpreted as “unrealistic or unfeasible”, reflecting “Hamas’s long-term aspirations rather than an actionable threat”.

The report says that in the months leading up to the war, the Military Intelligence Directorate began to develop a new assessment, suggesting that Hamas’s plan was not merely a vision but “a concrete framework for operational planning”.

However, this emerging assessment was not brought to the attention of senior officials in military intelligence.

The report identifies a broad streak of complacency within the military about Hamas’s intentions and how to deal with the threat it posed.

“There was no deep discussion of the question: What if we are wrong?” the report says.

Over time, “a significant and continuous gap between the intelligence assessments of Hamas and reality” had developed.

The report also highlights what it says was “a decline in deep familiarity with the enemy’s different worldview, including its culture, religion, language and history”.

It calls for deep reform of the intelligence directorate’s culture, “fostering intellectual openness, scepticism, listening, learning, debate, and constructive disagreement”.

It says the desire to protect highly valuable intelligence sources contributed to the military’s failure to raise the alert level immediately before 7 October.

The Gaza Division, it says, “was effectively defeated for several hours” on 7 October, significantly impairing its ability to understand what was going on and respond effectively.

It says the Air Force responded quickly, but that “there was significant difficulty distinguishing between IDF troops, civilians and terrorists”.

The report also says that in some incidents, wounded soldiers were evacuated before civilians.

After presenting the findings to commanders on Monday, the IDF’s outgoing chief of staff, Lt Gen Herzi Halevi, said he took full responsibility for the failures.

“I embrace my responsibility. It is mine. I was the commander of the army on 7 October and I have my responsibility and I have all of your responsibility. I see that as mine too. And I see that in every command of mine that went wrong, there is also a part of me,” he said in a video.

Last month, the general announced his resignation over the failures and called for a commission of inquiry to carry out a broader investigation that would help prevent another attack.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has not acknowledged any responsibility for what happened on 7 October, has said such a state inquiry should wait until the end of the war.

His critics accuse Mr Netanyahu of being unwilling to admit any personal fault.

Israel responded to the 7 October attack by launching an air and ground campaign in Gaza, during which at least 48,365 people have been killed, according to the territory’s Hamas-run health ministry.

Pop star Katy Perry will blast off into space as part of an upcoming all-women flight on Blue Origin’s New Shepherd rocket.

The Firework singer will be joined by Blue Origin owner Jeff Bezos’s fiancee Lauren Sanchez, CBS presenter Gayle King, former Nasa rocket scientist Aisha Bowe, civil rights activist Amanda Nguyen, and film producer Kerianne Flynn.

Blue Origin said this is the first all-women space flight to take place since the Soviet Union’s Valentina Tereshkova’s solo mission in 1963.

There is no specific date for the launch, but Blue Origin said it would take place this spring.

Katy Perry is scheduled to be on her Lifetimes Tour from 23 April until 11 November, so this trip is expected to take place before that.

“If you had told me I’d be part of the first all-female crew in space, I would have believed you. Nothing was beyond my imagination as a child,” Perry said in a statement cited by Newsweek.

• Why Katy Perry’s comeback has gone so wrong

The NS-31 mission will be the 11th human spaceflight for the New Shepherd rocket and the 31st in its history. So far, the programme has launched 52 people into space.

A trip on the New Shepard typically lasts about 11 minutes, according to Blue Origin. It is fully autonomous – which means there are no pilots – and takes the passengers past the Karman line, internationally recognised as the edge of space.

Blue Origin credited Lauren Sanchez for bringing the mission together, saying in its press release that she is “honored to lead a team of explorers on a mission that will challenge their perspectives of Earth, empower them to share their own stories, and create lasting impact that will inspire generations to come”.

Sanchez first announced her plan to fly with an all-women crew on a Blue Origin rocket in 2023 in an interview with Vogue, saying they were “paving the way for women”.

This is the latest group of celebrities to embark on a flight to space.

Bezos himself flew on the company’s first manned mission in 2021. Good Morning America’s co-host Michael Strahan and Star Trek actor William Shatner have also been blasted into space on one of Bezos’s rockets.

Richard Branson, the founder of Virgin Galactic, made a trip aboard his company’s VSS Unity spacecraft in July 2021. SpaceX founder Elon Musk, however, is yet to make a trip.

The US Attorney General has accused federal investigators of withholding thousands of documents related to sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, and asked the FBI to release all the information by Friday morning without any omissions.

In a public letter, Attorney General Pam Bondi asked FBI director Kash Patel to also investigate why thousands of documents related to Epstein probe were withheld by the agency.

Bondi released the “first phase” of newly declassified files on Thursday, but it contained no major new allegations about Epstein nor revelations about his associates.

Epstein was arrested in July 2019 on charges of sex trafficking and died by suicide while awaiting trial.

The attorney general demanded all information related to the disgraced financier be turned over by 08:00 EST (13:00 GMT) on Friday “regardless of how it was obtained”.

“Late yesterday, l learned from a source that the FBI Field Office in New York was in possession of thousands of pages of documents related to the investigation and indictment of Epstein,” she wrote in the letter. “Despite my repeated requests, the FBI never disclosed the existence of the files.”

Additionally, Bondi directed FBI director Patel to conduct an immediate investigation into why her order to the FBI was not followed.

“You will deliver to me a comprehensive report of your findings and proposed personnel action within 14 days,” she said.

In a post on X, Patel said the agency was “entering a new era—one that will be defined by integrity, accountability, and the unwavering pursuit of justice”.

“There will be no cover-ups, no missing documents, and no stone left unturned,” he wrote.

The declassified files largely contain documents that have been previously leaked but never released in a formal capacity by the US government, according to a statement released by the justice department.

The 10 files include a series of flight logs from Epstein’s private jet, plus a partly-redacted “contacts list”.

While running for the White House, President Donald Trump had promised to release the “Epstein list”, a rumoured document that some believe may link high-profile individuals to sex crimes.

Bondi was also urged by Republican lawmakers to disclose all information about the disgraced financier.

On Thursday afternoon, the White House first handed over the initial batch of 200 files – in binders that read “The Epstein Files: Phase I” – to conservative influencers.

The influencers included political commentator Rogan O’Handley, known as DC Draino, as well as Libs of TikTok creator Chaya Raichik, US media reported.

But the limited information in the latest batch of files disappointed some Republicans, including Representative Anna Paulina Luna, who leads a House Republican task force on government transparency.

“I nor the task force were given or reviewed the Epstein documents being released today,” Luna posted on X. “This is not what we or the American people asked for and a complete disappointment.”

Conservative commentator Glenn Beck wrote: “The Epstein files are a total joke. Who is subverting POTUS?”

Most of the “Epstein docs” over the past several years have come out of civil litigation between one of Epstein’s accusers, Virginia Giuffre, and his former girlfriend Ghislaine Maxwell.

The 66-year-old had pleaded guilty to soliciting prostitution from a minor in 2008.

Ghislaine Maxwell lost her appeal last year against her own sex trafficking conviction for helping Epstein sexually abuse young girls.

Andrew and Tristan Tate, the controversial British-American social media influencers accused of rape, human trafficking and money laundering, have been freed from travel restrictions in Romania after several high-level White House officials took an interest in their case.

It’s unclear what, if any, role Donald Trump’s administration may have played in their release, but one of Trump’s top envoys is said to have raised the case with Romania’s Foreign Minister Emil Hurezeanu at a security conference in Munich earlier this month.

Andrew Tate rose to fame after appearing on the UK reality show Big Brother, and later making a series of extreme and controversial statements about women and politics on social media.

The pair ran a webcam business and were charged with human trafficking and rape along with two Romanian female suspects in June 2023.

They also face separate, unrelated allegations of rape and human trafficking in the UK, and civil suits in the US and UK. They deny all the allegations, which their US lawyer calls “defamatory and unequivocally false”.

On Thursday the brothers arrived in Florida after previously being banned from leaving Romania while the case against them is pending.

Lawyers for the pair say they will return to Bucharest for court hearings.

When asked about the Tates at the White House on Thursday, President Trump said: “I know nothing about that.”

But the brothers have been the subject of recent high-level discussions between the US and Romania.

Romanian officials say US counterparts brought up the brothers’ case with the Romanian government earlier this month, a story first reported by the Financial Times.

And Trump special envoy Richard Grenell raised the issue again at a security conference in Munich.

Hurezeanu said the Tates were mentioned during that conversation, but denied being pressured to release the pair.

• Why are the Tate brothers in the US?
• US must not interfere in Tate’s case, say alleged victims

The Tate brothers are Trump supporters and also have ties to figures in his administration.

One of Tate’s lawyers now works as White House liaison to the US justice department.

Paul Ingrassia was part of a team representing the Tate brothers in a defamation lawsuit they filed in Florida against several of their alleged victims.

Ingrassia also acted as Tate’s publicist and says he got the influencer onto a show hosted by Tucker Carlson, the former Fox News host.

He has praised Tate in online posts. In one dating from July 2023, he called Tate “an extraordinary human being” who was offering “a dying West some hope for renewal”.

Ingrassia did not respond to a request for comment on Thursday.

The Tates have also been talked about by several people in Trump’s orbit, including Donald Trump Jr and Elon Musk.

Trump Jr once called Tate’s detention in Romania “absolute insanity”.

Musk reinstated Andrew Tate’s account, which had been banned on X, and suggested, perhaps in jest, that Tate would make a good UK prime minister.

Joseph McBride, a lawyer representing the Tates in a defamation case they have filed against several of their accusers in Florida, said in a statement: “They feel secure in America for several reasons, the primary one being that Donald Trump is the president.”

The statement alleged that the Tates and others are victims of “weaponised legal systems” and “politically motivated prosecutions”.

McBride did not respond to questions on whether White House officials played any role in the removal of travel restrictions against the Tate brothers.

Trump and his advisers know the political power of the manosphere – a popular and very online subculture that attracts fans of mixed martial arts fighting, video games, cryptocurrencies and other stereotypically male pursuits.

It’s a sprawling scene that includes men who reject the company of women entirely, a “pick-up artist” scene filled with tips on how to find casual hookups, and plenty of mainstream podcasts and YouTube channels filled with bro-type humour.

The president’s advisers targeted the same audiences during last year’s election campaign, when Trump, JD Vance and others in his orbit went on podcasts and did interviews with new media outlets.

The views of the Tate brothers lie at one of the manosphere’s extreme edges. Andrew Tate himself has made no secret of his self-described misogynist – women-hating – and sexist views.

On podcasts and online clips he talks about how women are property, how men shouldn’t allow girlfriends to go out without them or talk to other men.

In extremely graphic language, he’s described violence against women and talked about how sexual assault victims bear responsibility for rape.

Tate and his brother at the same time sell a glamorous lifestyle of expensive properties, cigars and luxury cars that includes self-improvement messages directed at young men – an image that garnered him a large audience before he was booted off most mainstream social media platforms.

He told the BBC in a 2023 interview: “I preach hard work, discipline. I’m an athlete, I preach anti-drugs, I preach religion, I preach no alcohol, I preach no knife crime. Every single problem with modern society I’m against.”

Like many other extreme influencers, in the face of criticism he often claims his posts are satire or jokes, mocking his detractors as his messages spread further, propelled by online outrage.

• ‘He’s just a bro’: Trump’s attempts to woo the ‘manosphere’

The pair’s supporters were thrilled with his release and eager to proclaim their innocence, despite the outstanding charges against them.

Four British women who have filed a civil lawsuit against Andrew Tate meanwhile issued a statement calling on UK authorities to “take action”, saying they were “in disbelief and feel re-traumatised by the news”.

And support for the Tates is far from universal among Trump supporters and American conservatives, many of whom moved to immediately distance themselves from the brothers.

Ron DeSantis, the governor of Florida, where Tates landed on Thursday, said of their activities: “Florida is not a place where you’re welcome with that type of conduct.”

The state’s attorney general later said he would open a preliminary inquiry into the Tates and said Florida has “zero tolerance for human trafficking and violence against women”.

In the conservative Washington Examiner, podcaster Brady Leonard wrote: “Tate’s obnoxious, misogynistic brand is toxic to everyone besides electorally insignificant corners of social media.”

Matt Lewis, a US conservative political commentator who has been critical of Trump in the past, said advocating on behalf of Tate “fits in with the ethos of the Maga world right now, which is: ‘let’s be tough guys'”.

“But I also think it speaks to a legitimate problem, which we have seen in the last couple decades, a problem with men…where there’s an epidemic of loneliness, a sense the world is passing them by, a sense that modernity has made it harder to be successful as a husband and a father. I think that’s had some real psychic effects,” he said.

“There’s a pretty good contingency of Trump’s supporters who are probably going to welcome this guy and probably even see him as a victim of persecution.”

“I swear to God I need help,” said the man quietly on the other end of the line.

The Ethiopian, who calls himself Mike, said he is being held with 450 others in a building inside Myanmar, along the country’s border with Thailand.

They are among the thousands of people who have been freed from the notorious scam compounds that have thrived on the border for years, in what appears to be the toughest action so far against the industry along the Thai-Myanmar border.

But many of them are now stranded in Myanmar in makeshift camps because the process of assessing them and arranging flights back to their own countries is so slow.

The armed militia groups who are holding them have a very limited capacity to support so many people – more than 7,000. One of them has said they have stopped freeing people from the compounds because they are not being moved to Thailand fast enough.

The BBC understands that conditions in the camps are unsanitary, food barely sufficient, and many of the freed workers, like Mike, are in poor health. He is suffering from panic attacks, after working for a year in a scam centre where he was routinely beaten.

He told us they got two very basic meals a day, there were only two toilets for 450 people, who he said were now relieving themselves wherever they could.

Mike described being invited a year ago to take up what he was promised would be a good job, in Thailand, requiring only good English language and typing skills.

Instead he found himself subjected to a brutal regime, forced to work long hours every day to meet the target for defrauding people online set by his Chinese bosses.

“It was the worst experience of my life. Of course I was beaten. But believe me I have seen a lot worse done to other people.”

Mike is one of an estimated 100,000 people who are believed to have been lured to work in the scam operations along the Thai-Myanmar border, most of them run by Chinese fraud and gambling operatives who have taken advantage of the lawlessness in this part of Myanmar.

Despite horrifying accounts of abuse from those who escaped in the past, thousands still come from parts of the world where good jobs are scarce, enticed by promises of good money.

China, where many of the scam victims come from, has acted to shut down scam operations along its own border with Myanmar, but until this year neither China nor Thailand had done much about the Thai-Myanmar border.

Ariyan, a young man from Bangladesh, has come back to Thailand to try to help 17 friends who are still there. He said he made a promise to himself to do this after his own gruelling escape from one of the most notorious scam centres last October.

He showed us a brief, shaky video of the compound, still under construction in a remote, forested valley, where he was held, and remembers the terrible treatment he and his friends suffered at the hands of their Chinese boss.

“They gave us a target every week, $5,000. If not, they gave us two electric shocks. Or they put us in a dark room, with no windows. But if we earned a lot of money, they were very happy with us.”

Ariyan had to approach men in the Middle East and lure them into transferring funds to fictitious investments. Using AI, the scammers made him appear on the screen to be an attractive young woman, altering his voice as well.

He says he hated doing it. He remembers one man who was willing to sell his wife’s jewellery to fund the fraudulent investment, and wishing he could warn him. But he said the bosses monitored all their calls.

The release of the scam workers started more than two weeks ago after Thailand, under pressure from China and some of its own politicians, cut power and telecommunications links to the compounds on the border.

It limited banking access to the scam bosses and issued arrest warrants for some of the militia leaders who had been protecting the business.

That hit the business, but it also hit the ordinary Karen people who live nearby even harder, putting pressure on the militia commanders to show willingness in ending the abuses in the scam centres. They began helping those trying to escape, and completely evacuating some compounds.

The camp Mike is housed in is now being guarded by the Democratic Karen Benevolent Army, DKBA, a breakaway insurgent faction of the ethnic Karen community.

Until recently, it was protecting the many scam compounds which have sprung up in its territory. You can see them easily as you drive along the Moei River which divides the two countries – unlikely expanses of new buildings over in war-torn Karen State contrasting with the rural landscape on the Thai side of the border.

Thailand insists it is moving as fast as it can to process the former scam workers and get them home.

A group of 260 freed workers were brought over the Moei River on a raft earlier this month. And around 621 Chinese nationals were flown straight back to China with a police escort on chartered planes. Otherwise, the movement of freed workers to Thailand seems to have stalled.

The problem is that they are from many different countries, some of which are doing little to help get their people home. Around 130 of the first 260 who came over are from Ethiopia, which does not have an embassy in Bangkok.

The BBC has been told that some other African countries will only fly their people home if someone else pays. Most of the freed workers have nothing; even their passports were withheld by the compound bosses.

Thailand fears bringing over thousands of people it will then have to look after indefinitely. It also wants to screen them to find out which are genuine victims of human trafficking and which may have committed criminal acts, but does not have the capacity to do this with such a large group of people.

Different ministries and agencies, including the army, are involved in managing this problem, and have to agree who does what. It does not help that several senior police and immigration officers have been transferred over their alleged involvement in the scam business.

“If this issue is not resolved, then we will not stop working on it – we must work seriously,” said Thai Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra on Tuesday in Bangkok. But she was referring to the wider problem of the scam business, not the growing humanitarian crisis among the freed workers.

“Unfortunately, it seems we’re in a bit of a standstill,” says Judah Tana, an Australian who runs an NGO which has for years been helping the victims of trafficking in the scam centres.

“We are hearing distressing information about the lack of sanitation and toilets. Many of the 260 who already came were screened for TB and tested positive. We are hearing from those who are still inside that people are coughing up blood. They are very happy that they have been liberated from the scam compounds, but our worry is that we’re not engaging fast enough.”

Thailand now seems ready to bring over one group of 94 Indonesians, as their embassy has been pushing for their release for several days and has booked flights to Indonesia for them.

But that still leaves more than 7,000 still inside Myanmar, unsure what will now happen to them.

Mike told me he and many others with him feared that if they are not allowed to cross into Thailand soon, the DKBA may hand them back to the scam bosses, where they could face punishment for trying to leave.

On Wednesday night his panic attacks and breathing were so bad, he said, they took him to hospital.

“I just want to go home,” he said over the phone. “I just want to go back to my country. That is all I am asking.”

Pamela Anderson has had her fair share of ups and down over her career.

So that might explain why she’s so stoic about missing out on an Oscar nomination for her role in The Last Showgirl.

“The win is the work,” the Canadian actress told BBC News.

“You couldn’t have told me I’d be here a decade ago, so this is very exciting for me, to even be in the conversation.”

Anderson, 57, did manage to score nominations at the Golden Globes and Screen Actors Guild Awards for her part in Gia Coppola’s film about a fading Las Vegas dancer.

But she is not in the running for the Academy Awards, which take place this Sunday in Los Angeles.

“I just wish everybody well,” she said.

“I think anybody, any actor, realises that all of this is about having another chance to be able to perform and share your talent with the world.”

Anderson rose to prominence on the 1990s TV series Baywatch.

The lifeguard drama became the most-watched television show in the world at the time, and it’s still the role she’s best known for.

But in the three decades since she first ran along the California beaches, fans and critics have become acquainted with different parts of Anderson’s life story including Playboy covers, a leaked sex tape and many marriages.

In 2022, Hulu series Pam & Tommy told the story of how Anderson and now ex-husband Tommy Lee’s sex tape was stolen and illegally distributed in the mid-90s.

Anderson later criticised the series in an interview with Variety, describing it as “shocking” and calling for the people behind it to apologise to her.

• Pam & Tommy: Lily James ‘a triumph’ as Pamela Anderson

Now, she’s starring in a new film which is also about second chances.

In The Last Showgirl, the lead character Shelly, played by Anderson, must plan for her future after her show abruptly closes.

Plenty of critics have drawn parallels with Anderson’s own life in the spotlight, and she doesn’t dispute this.

“I think that’s what drew me to the project, that it was so relatable on so many levels,” Anderson said of the film.

She added that its central theme, of struggling to make your career work as a woman in later middle age, was something “many generations of women” had faced.

In the film, Shelly is portrayed as having a strained relationship with her daughter Hannah.

Shelly’s career as a showgirl means she often works late, causing her to miss important moments like bedtime with Hannah.

That, too, is something that Anderson says she can relate to.

• Pamela Anderson memoir bares soul on fame and heartbreak

She shares two sons, Brandon Thomas, 28, and Dylan Jagger, 27, with her ex-husband, Mötley Crüe drummer Tommy Lee.

She said that for all working mums, there’s “no proper way” to be a parent while also following your dreams and pursuing your career.

“So this movie is, I think, in a very vulnerable space.

“And it was an interesting role to play with all her imperfections and selfishness and selflessness. And it was a lot of layers and nuances to the character that I could really relate to.”

The Last Showgirl has received a mixed reception from critics, though most have praised Anderson’s performance.

The New York Times called it “sensitive and beguiling” and described Anderson as “dazzling”. But the Guardian awarded it just one star, calling it “a big disappointment” (although a later review bumped that up to three stars).

Many have also described the role as Anderson’s “comeback”. She doesn’t reject the term, but says she prefers to see it as “a new chapter”.

“I’ve always been fascinated with the craft of acting,” she said. “[But] my personal life kind of took me off course, and I raised two beautiful boys.”

She’s not the only actress to be back in the spotlight this season.

Demi Moore is nominated for best actress at the Oscars for her role in The Substance, a body horror which has revitalised her career.

“I’m really happy for Demi,” Anderson said. “I think she’s earned her place. And you have to earn it. You have to fight for it.”

With so many strong female protagonists in this year’s films, I’m curious what Anderson now thinks of Baywatch.

The show has long been criticised for its portrayal of its female characters, who, many argued, were sexualised and denied meaningful plot lines.

“I didn’t see it like that at all. I thought it was quite innocent and wholesome and, and fun to watch,” she said.

“I always felt like I was surrounded by such incredible people, lifeguards that were also firemen or firewomen. It was really, really, empowering.”

Anderson has always been seen to embody a look that rose to prominence in the 90s – skinny, blonde, and enhanced by plastic surgery.

But in recent years, she has been sporting a “no-makeup” look, choosing instead to embrace her natural appearance.

“My beauty routine is rest. And so that’s more important to me these days,” she told me.

She said it’s not that she’s against makeup, but more that she thinks “there’s a time and a place” for it.

“This chapter, for me, has been about self-acceptance and finding out who I am. What are my original thoughts? What do I have to give?” she said.

“I know I have a lot more to give in this world, in this industry too, and I feel like even I have to remember who I am to start with and then hopefully, play characters in films and not in my personal life.”

In a crowded control centre, surrounded by dozens of TV screens, the Taliban’s police force proudly shows off its newly-acquired network of 90,000 CCTV cameras – used to watch over the day-to-day lives of millions of people.

“We monitor the entire city of Kabul from here,” says Khalid Zadran, a spokesperson for the Taliban police chief, pointing to one of the screens.

The authorities say such surveillance will help fight crime, but critics fear it will be used to clamp down on dissent and to monitor the strict morality code enforced by the Islamist Taliban government under their interpretation of Sharia law.

The BBC are the first international journalists allowed to see the system in action.

Inside the control room, police officers sit in rows watching the live streams from thousands of cameras, keeping tabs on the lives of the six million people who live in Kabul.

From car licence plates to facial expressions, everything is monitored.

“In certain neighbourhoods, when we notice groups of people and suspect they might be involved in drug use, criminal activities, or something suspicious, we quickly reach out to the local police,” says Zadran.

“They arrive swiftly to investigate the nature of the gathering.”

Under the previous government, Kabul was threatened daily with attacks from the Taliban and so-called Islamic State militants, as well as high profile kidnappings and car-jackings. When the Taliban retook power in 2021, they promised to crack down on crime.

The dramatic increase in the number of surveillance cameras in the capital is a sign of growing sophistication in the way the Taliban enforce law and order. Before their return, just 850 cameras were in place in the capital, according to a spokesman for the security forces that were driven from power.

However, in the past three years, the Taliban authorities have also introduced a range of draconian measures limiting people’s rights and freedoms, especially those of women. The Taliban government has not been formally recognised by any other country.

The surveillance system the BBC is shown in Kabul features the option to track people by facial recognition. On the corner of one screen images pop up with each face categorised by age range, gender, and whether or not they have a beard or a face mask.

“On clear days, we can zoom in on individuals [who are] kilometres away,” says Zadran, highlighting a camera positioned up high that focuses on a busy traffic junction.

The Taliban even monitor their own personnel. At a checkpoint, as soldiers popped open the trunk of a car for inspection, the operators focused their lenses, zooming in to scrutinise the contents within.

The interior ministry says the cameras have “significantly contributed to enhancing safety, curbing crime rates, and swiftly apprehending offenders”. It adds the introduction of CCTV and motorcycle controls have led to a 30% decrease in crime rates between 2023 and 2024 but it is not possible to independently verify these figures.

However, rights groups are concerned about who is being monitored and for how long.

Amnesty International say installing cameras “under the guise of ‘national security’ sets a template for the Taliban to continue their draconian policies that violate fundamental rights of people in Afghanistan – especially women in public spaces”.

By law women are not allowed to be heard outside their houses, although in practice this is not being strictly enforced. Teenage girls are prevented from accessing secondary and higher education. Women are barred from many forms of employment. In December, women training as midwives and nurses told the BBC they had been ordered not to return to classes.

While women continue to be visible on the streets of cities like Kabul, they are required to wear a face covering.

Fariba*, a young graduate who lives with her parents in Kabul, has been unable to find work since the Taliban came to power. She tells the BBC there is “significant concern that surveillance cameras may be used to monitor women’s hijabs [veils]”.

The Taliban say only the city police have access to the CCTV system and the Propagation of Virtue and Prevention of Vice Ministry – the Taliban’s morality police – does not use it.

But Fariba is concerned the cameras will further endanger those opposed to Taliban rule.

“Many individuals, especially ex-military members, human rights advocates and protesting women, struggle to move freely and often live in secrecy,” she says.

“There is significant concern that surveillance cameras will be used to monitor women’s hijabs too,” she says.

Human Rights Watch, meanwhile, says Afghanistan does not have the data protection laws in place to regulate how the collected CCTV footage is held and used.

The police say the data is kept only for three months, while, according to the interior ministry, the cameras do not pose a threat to privacy as they “are operated from a special and completely confidential room by a specific and professional person in charge”.

The cameras appear to be Chinese-made. The control room monitors and branding on the feeds the BBC saw carried the name Dahua, a Chinese government-linked company. Earlier reports that the Taliban were in talks with China’s Huawei Technologies to buy cameras were denied by the company. Taliban officials refused to answer BBC questions about where they sourced the equipment.

Some of the cost of installing the new network is falling on ordinary Afghans who are being monitored by the system.

In a house in central Kabul the BBC spoke to Shella*, who was asked to pay for some of the cameras installed on the streets near her home.

“They demanded thousands of afghanis from every household,” she says. It’s a large amount in a country where those women who have jobs may earn only around 5,000 afghanis ($68; £54) a month.

The humanitarian situation in Kabul, and in Afghanistan in general, remains precarious after years of war. The country’s economy is in crisis, but international aid funding has been largely stopped since the Taliban came back to power.

According to the United Nations, 30 million people are in need of aid.

“If families refused to pay [for the cameras], they were threatened with water and power cuts within three days,” Shella adds. “We had to take loans to cover the costs.

“People are starving – what good are these cameras to them?”

The Taliban say that if people do not want to contribute, they can put in an official complaint.

“Participation was voluntary, and donations were in the hundreds, not thousands,” Khalid Zadran, the Taliban police spokesperson, insists.

Despite the assurances, rights campaigners both inside and outside Afghanistan continue to have concerns over how such a powerful surveillance system will be used.

Jaber, a vegetable seller in Kabul, says the cameras represent another way in which Afghans are made to feel powerless.

“We are treated like trash, denied the opportunity to earn a living, and the authorities regard us as worthless,” he told the BBC.

“We can do nothing.”

*

This week saw Germany electing a new chancellor, planets lining up in the sky and Hollywood’s Gene Hackman dying at 95.

But how much attention did you pay to what else has been going on in the world over the past seven days?

Quiz compiled by George Sandeman and Grace Dean.

Fancy some more? Try last week’s quiz or have a go at something from the archives.

Support for Ukraine has become a key issue since Donald Trump returned to the White House.

President Trump has made a number of claims about how much the United States has spent compared to European countries.

But some of his claims are questionable – with no evidence to back them up.

President Trump has made this claim on a number of occasions – including when he hosted France’s President Macron in the White House this week.

Short answer: Figures suggest the actual spend is much lower.

BBC Verify can find no evidence to back up the claim. There are different calculations on US spending in or related to Ukraine – and they produce a much lower figure.

The Kiel Institute is a German-based think tank tracking support going into Ukraine. It calculated that the United States spent $119.7bn (£94.3bn) on aid between January 2022 and December 2024.

Others have reached a higher figure – but with a broader definition of what counts as spending on Ukraine.

The US Department of Defense has provided a figure looking at all spending on Operation Atlantic Resolve – a response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

It says $182.8bn has been “appropriated” – a figure that covers US military training in Europe and replenishment of US defence stocks.

Either way, both figures are considerably lower than claimed by the president.

We asked the White House about the basis for the $350bn claim. So far, it hasn’t provided an explanation.

President Trump has claimed: “We’ve spent more than $300bn and Europe has spent about $100bn – that’s a big difference”

Short answer: Figures suggest Europe has spent more when all aid is included and, as above, we can’t find any evidence for the $300bn figure.

The United States is, by some margin, the largest single donor to Ukraine. But Europe combined has spent more money than the United States, according to the Kiel Institute.

The figure includes aid directly from the European Union, but also from bilateral deals from European countries, both inside and outside the EU. It includes military, financial and humanitarian aid.

They calculate that between 24 January 2022 and the end of 2024, Europe as a whole spent $138.7bn on Ukraine. In the same period, the United States spent $119.7bn, according to their figures.

NATO secretary general Mark Rutte made a similar argument, adding Canada into his calculation.

Mr Rutte said February 2025: “In 2024, NATO Allies provided over 50 billion euros in security assistance to Ukraine – nearly 60% of this coming from Europe and Canada.”

We asked for NATO’s figures, but they said they were classified.

This is a claim President Trump made when he hosted President Macron. It prompted President Macron to disagree, saying both Europe and the US had given a mixture of grants and loans.

Short answer: The EU has provided loans, but also grants.

President Macron is correct, according to Kiel figures. But they suggest President Trump also has a point; the US has sent more grants, while the EU sent more loans.

However, again, there are different figures out there.

The European Union says EU countries have provided around $145bn in aid so far and that just 35% of that has been loans. Like the United States Department of Defence, the EU has used a broader definition of what counts as aid to Ukraine.

EU loans will have been on generous terms – so Ukraine will be repaying less interest than it would normally. In some cases, Ukraine isn’t expected to pay anything, with repayments coming from revenues from frozen Russian assets.

What we can say is that aid to Ukraine has been a mixture of loans and grants.

The UK is one of the biggest individual state donors to Ukraine.

The only countries to have spent more are the United States and Germany, according to Kiel data.

But the UK contributions are much smaller than the United States.

That raises a question for the UK and other European countries; if the United States withdraws a large part of its funding to Ukraine, can other states make up the difference?

That would require a significant increase in their contributions.

What do you want BBC Verify to investigate?

Oscar-winning actor Gene Hackman and his wife appeared to have been dead for “quite a while” when the couple and their dog were found on Wednesday afternoon at their home in the US state of New Mexico, police say.

Hackman, 95, was discovered in a side room near the kitchen of the house in Santa Fe, while his wife Betsy Arakawa, a 65-year-old classical pianist, was found in a bathroom.

Authorities reported no signs of injury but deemed the deaths “suspicious enough” to investigate and have not ruled out foul play. No cause of death was given.

In a wide-ranging career, Hackman won two Academy Awards for The French Connection and Unforgiven.

Three of Hackman’s children from a previous marriage confirmed the death of their father and Ms Arakawa in a statement to the BBC.

“He was loved and admired by millions around the world for his brilliant acting career, but to us he was always just Dad and Grandpa. We will miss him sorely and are devastated by the loss,” Elizabeth, Leslie and Annie Hackman said.

Warning: This story contains details some readers may find upsetting

The Santa Fe County Sheriff’s office confirmed the deaths.

“On 26 February, 2025, at approximately 1:45pm, Santa Fe County Sheriff’s deputies were dispatched to an address on Old Sunset Trail in Hyde Park where Gene Hackman, his wife Betsy Arakawa, and a dog were found deceased,” the office said.

In a news conference on Thursday afternoon, Sheriff Adan Mendoza said: “It sounds like they had been deceased for quite a while, and I don’t want to guess in reference to how long that was.”

He added: “There was no immediate sign of foul play. Haven’t ruled that out yet.

“This is an investigation, so we’re keeping everything on the table.”

• Gene Hackman obituary: One of Hollywood’s greatest ‘tough guys’
• Prince of Wales leads tributes to ‘genius’ Gene Hackman

A sheriff’s detective who responded to the scene said that they believed the couple had been dead for some time because of Ms Arakawa’s “decomposition” and “mummification” in the hands and feet.

“The male decedent also showed obvious signs of death, similar and consistent with the female decedent,” said the search warrant.

Near Ms Arakawa’s head was a portable heater, which the detective determined could have been brought down in the event that she abruptly fell to the ground.

Authorities say they have requested carbon monoxide and toxicology tests for both Hackman and his wife, and that a cause of death has not yet been determined as they await the results of the autopsy.

A prescription bottle and scattered pills were on the bathroom countertop close to her body. The couple’s German Shepherd dog was found dead in a bathroom closet near to Ms Arakawa.

Hackman was discovered wearing grey tracksuit bottoms, a blue long-sleeve T-shirt and brown slippers. Sunglasses and a walking cane were next to the body.

The detective suspected that the actor had fallen suddenly.

The circumstances of their death were “suspicious enough in nature to require a thorough search and investigation”, said the search warrant, because the person who called emergency services found the front door of the property open.

But the detective observed no sign of forced entry into the home. Nothing appeared out of place inside. Neither was there any indication that belongings had been rummaged through, or that any items had been removed.

Two other, healthy dogs were discovered roaming the property – one inside and one outside.

The couple’s 2,300 sq ft ranch-style home, part of a gated community, was valued at around $1m, according to tax records.

The local utility responded and found no sign of a gas leak in the area. The fire department detected no indication of a carbon monoxide leak or poisoning, according to the search warrant.

The detective spoke at the scene to two maintenance workers, one of whom had called the emergency services.

The two workers said they sometimes conducted routine work at property, but rarely ever saw the couple.

They indicated that they communicated with them by phone and text, primarily with Ms Arakawa.

The two workers said they last had contact with the couple two weeks beforehand.

A recording of the 911 call obtained by the BBC shows the emotional caller telling a dispatcher how he found the two bodies.

“No, they’re not moving,” he says in the audio. “Just send somebody out here really quick.”

The person, who made the call while standing outside the property and peering in through a window, is heard saying “damn” repeatedly.

Hackman met Ms Arakawa when she was working part-time at a California gym in the mid-1980s, the New York Times has previously reported.

He won the best actor Oscar for his role as Jimmy “Popeye” Doyle in William Friedkin’s 1971 thriller The French Connection, and another for best supporting actor for playing Little Bill Daggett in Clint Eastwood’s Western film Unforgiven in 1992.

A relative latecomer to Hollywood, Hackman’s breathrough came in his thirties, when he was nominated for an Oscar for portraying Buck Barrow in 1967’s Bonnie and Clyde – opposite Warren Beatty and Faye Dunaway – and again for I Never Sang for My Father in 1970.

Both films saw him recognised in the supporting actor category. He was also nominated for best leading actor in 1988 for playing the FBI agent in Mississippi Burning.

He played more than 100 roles during his career, including supervillain Lex Luthor in the Christopher Reeve-starring Superman movies in the 1970s and 1980s.

Hackman featured opposite many other Hollywood heavyweights including Al Pacino in 1973’s Scarecrow and Gene Wilder in 1974’s Young Frankenstein.

His last big-screen appearance came as Monroe Cole in Welcome to Mooseport in 2004, after which he stepped back from Hollywood for a quieter life in New Mexico.

US President Donald Trump has said he has a “lot of respect” for Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, on the eve of their talks at the White House.

Asked by the BBC if he would apologise for recently calling him a “dictator”, he said he could not believe he had said this. He also called Zelensky “very brave”.

Trump was speaking after talks with UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer about ending the war between Ukraine and Russia.

He predicted a “very good meeting” with Zelensky on Friday, saying efforts to achieve peace were “moving along pretty rapidly”.

This week’s meetings come after the Trump administration shocked its Western partners by holding the first high-level US talks with Moscow since Russia invaded Ukraine just over three years ago.

America’s new president had appeared to blame Zelensky for the war and chided him for not starting peace talks earlier.

“You’ve been there for three years,” he had said last Tuesday. “You should have ended it… You should have never started it. You could have made a deal.”

But this Thursday, speaking after meeting Sir Keir, Trump told reporters asking about his forthcoming talks with Zelensky: “I think we’re going to have a very good meeting tomorrow morning. We’re going to get along really well.”

Asked by the BBC’s Chris Mason if he still thought Zelensky was a “dictator”, he replied: “Did I say that? I can’t believe I said that.”

Zelensky will be hoping to win some kind of security guarantees for his country that would underpin any peace deal that may be negotiated.

Asked about these on Thursday, Trump only said he was “open to many things” but he wanted to get Russia and Ukraine to agree a deal before deciding what measures might be put in place to enforce it.

On his visit on Friday, Zelensky is expected to sign a deal that will give the US access to Ukraine’s rare earth mineral resources.

Trump suggested that the presence of US mining concerns in Ukraine would act as a deterrent against future Russian attacks on Ukraine.

“It’s a backstop, you could say,” he said on Thursday. “I don’t think anybody’s going to play around if we’re there with a lot of workers and having to do with rare earths and other things which we need for our country.”

The British prime minister had said earlier that the UK was prepared to send troops to Ukraine after the war as part of a peacekeeping force but only if the US, Nato’s leading member, provided a “backstop”.

Asked if the US would aid British peacekeepers if they were attacked by Russia, Trump said: “The British have incredible soldiers, incredible military and they can take care of themselves. But if they need help, I’ll always be with the British, okay?”

Nato’s Article 5 holds that Nato members will come to the defence of an ally which comes under attack.

Praising Trump’s “personal commitment to bring peace” in Ukraine, Sir Keir said the UK was “ready to put boots on the ground and planes in the air to support a deal”.

“We’re focused now on bringing an enduring end to the barbaric war in Ukraine,” he said.

But, he added, it must not be a peace deal “that rewards the aggressor or that gives encouragement to regimes like Iran”.

Asked whether Vladimir Putin was trustworthy, the UK prime minister said his views on the Russian president were well-known.

Asked in turn why he seemed to trust Putin and Sir Keir did not, Trump said: “I know a lot of people that you would say no chance that they would ever deceive you, and they are the worst people in the world.

“I know others that you would guarantee they would deceive you, and you know what, they’re 100% honourable, so you never know what you’re getting.”

EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas, who had been due to meet US Secretary of State Marco Rubio in Washington before he cancelled the talks “due to scheduling issues”, told BBC News that Putin and Russia did “not want to have peace”.

“For any peace agreement to function, it needs the Europeans as well as Ukrainians on board,” she added.

Stopping off in the Irish Republic on Thursday en route to the US, Zelensky met the Taoiseach (Irish prime minister) Micheál Martin at Shannon Airport.

“We discussed the steps to end the war with guaranteed peace for Ukraine and the whole of Europe,” he said later.

Following the overthrow of Ukraine’s pro-Russian president in 2014, Moscow annexed the Black Sea peninsula of Crimea and backed pro-Russian separatists in bloody fighting in eastern Ukraine.

The conflict burst into all-out war when Russia invaded Ukraine on 24 February 2022.

It is estimated that hundreds of thousands of people, most of them soldiers, have been killed or injured, and millions of Ukrainian civilians have fled as refugees.

As well as Crimea, Russia now occupies parts of four other regions – Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson.

The Kremlin warned on Thursday that Russia would make no territorial concessions to Ukraine as part of a peace deal.

“All territories that have become subjects of the Russian Federation… are an integral part of our country, Russia,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters. “This is an absolutely indisputable fact and a non-negotiable fact.”

Separately, Russian and US officials met in the Turkish city of Istanbul for talks on rebuilding diplomatic ties.

The two nuclear superpowers expelled one another’s embassy staff when Trump’s predecessor, Joe Biden, was in the White House.

A trade deal between the US and UK could happen “very quickly”, President Donald Trump said at a joint press conference with Sir Keir Starmer.

Speaking during the prime minister’s visit to the White House, Trump envisaged “a real trade deal” which could see the UK avoid the kind of tariffs the president has been threatening on some of the US’s other trading partners.

The trip had been seen as a key moment in Sir Keir’s premiership as he sought to influence Trump’s decisions on topics including Ukraine, as well as trade.

Sir Keir kicked off his White House visit by presenting Trump with a letter from King Charles inviting him to an “unprecedented” second state visit to the UK.

Receiving the letter in front of cameras in the Oval Office, Trump said it would be a “great honour” and described the King as “a wonderful man”.

Sir Keir said the offer of a second state visit was “truly historic”. Traditionally US presidents have only been given one state visit.

Having confirmed he would be accepting the invite, Trump, along with Sir Keir took questions from reporters for 30 minutes.

The US president did most of the talking, setting out his stance on many subjects including the possibility of a Ukraine deal and the UK’s potential agreement with Mauritius over the Chagos Islands.

On the plane to the US, Sir Keir reiterated his willingness to send British troops to Ukraine as part of a peace deal.

However, he argued that, without US security guarantees, Russian President Vladimir Putin could re-invade Ukraine.

Asked if he would provide such assurances, Trump said a minerals agreement he plans to sign with Ukraine on Friday could provide a “backstop”.

He said “nobody will play around” if US workers were in the country, as part of the deal on minerals.

The US president was pressed on whether he stood by his accusation that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky was a “dictator”.

“Did I say that? I can’t believe I said that,” he said.

He later added he had “a lot of respect” for Zelensky, who he will host in Washington DC on Friday.

The UK’s planned agreement with Mauritius over the Chagos Islands was one potential source of tension between the UK and US leaders.

However, Trump appeared to back the UK’s approach saying he was “inclined to go along with it”.

The deal would see the UK cede sovereignty of the Indian Ocean archipelago, but maintain control over the island of Diego Garcia, which includes a US-UK military airbase, by leasing it back.

After taking questions in the Oval Office, the two leaders took part in talks and then held a formal press conference, during which Trump repeatedly spoke about a possible US-UK trade deal which could be agreed “very quickly”.

Referring to an economic, rather than a trade deal, Sir Keir said the UK and US would begin work on an agreement centred on the potential of artificial intelligence.

“Instead of over-regulating these new technologies, we’re seizing the opportunities they offer,” he said.

He said the UK and US had shaped the “great technological innovations of the last century” and now had the chance to do the same in the 21st Century.

“Artificial intelligence could cure cancer. That could be a moon shot for our age, and that’s how we’ll keep delivering for our people,” he said.

Trump has repeatedly threatened to impose tariffs – import taxes – on many of its allies, including 25% on goods made in the European Union.

He also ordered a 25% import tax on all steel and aluminium entering the US – which could hit the UK.

Asked if Sir Keir had tried to dissuade the president from ordering tariffs against the UK, Trump said: “He tried.”

“He was working hard I tell you that. He earned whatever the hell they pay him over there,” he said.

“I think there’s a very good chance that in the case of these two great, friendly countries, I think we could very well end up with a real trade deal where the tariffs wouldn’t be necessary. We’ll see.”

In a bid to convince the president against UK tariffs, Sir Keir said the US-UK trade relationship was “fair, balanced and reciprocal”.

Since leaving the European Union, successive British leaders have hoped to get a general free trade deal with the US.

In his first term as president, Trump said talks about a “very substantial” trade deal with the UK were under way.

However, negotiations stalled with disagreements over US agricultural exports and UK taxes on tech companies causing problems.

The Cook Islands may be small but the ambitions of its leader are mighty.

A range of deals Prime Minister Mark Brown signed with China without consulting the public or New Zealand – an ally to which the Cooks is closely tied – has caused increasing irritation and concern.

The agreements are the first of their kind with a country that is not a traditional ally. They cover infrastructure, ship-building, tourism, agriculture, technology, education and, perhaps crucially, deep-sea mineral exploration.

Brown says his decisions will be based on the “long-term interests” of the Cook Islands, which are remote, resource-rich and vulnerable to climate change.

Not everyone agrees with him. The new, wide-ranging deals with Beijing have led to protests on Rarotonga – the largest Cook Island – and a vote of no confidence against Brown in parliament, which he survived earlier this week. They have also worried Australia, another powerful ally.

New Zealand said it was “blindsided” by the China deals, but Brown believes his country is independent and does not need to consult Wellington on issues he says are of no concern to them.

He has, nevertheless, tried to reassure Australia and New Zealand that the deals with China don’t replace their relationships. But the apparent snub comes at a time when the West’s grip on the Pacific seems to be loosening.

The rise of China in the Pacific isn’t new. Whether it’s bagging a security deal in the Solomon Islands or providing medical services in Tonga, China’s presence in the region has been growing. And the US and its allies have made a consistent effort to counter that.

But now there is a new dynamic at play as the Trump administration upends relationships with allies such as Ukraine and appears increasingly unpredictable.

The Cook Islands has had what’s known as a “free association” relationship with New Zealand, a former coloniser, since the 1960s – meaning Wellington helps on issues like defence and foreign affairs, and that Cook Islanders hold New Zealand citizenship.

The two countries are very close. There are around 15,000 Cook Islanders living in the Pacific island nation, but as many as 100,000 live in New Zealand and Australia. Culturally, Cook Island Māori – who make up the majority of the population – are also closely related to, but distinct from, New Zealand Māori.

The deals with China aren’t the only sign that Brown wants to pull away from New Zealand which have caused concern. He recently abandoned a proposal to introduce a Cook Islands passport following a public outcry.

“[The relationship with NZ] connects us politically and connects us to our brothers and sisters of Aotearoa [the Māori word for New Zealand] – they left our shores to sail to Aotearoa. We need to remember that,” said Cook Islander Jackie Tuara at a recent demonstration against Brown’s deals with China.

In a nation that is not used to huge displays of protest, several hundred people gathered outside parliament in Rarotonga, holding up placards that read: “Stay connected with NZ”. Others waved their New Zealand passports.

“Let us stand in partnership with countries that have the same democratic principles as we are a democratic nation, are we not?” Ms Tuara said. “We don’t want to see our land and our oceans sold to the highest bidder. Those resources are for us – for our children, for their future.”

But for all those who are opposed to Brown’s recent moves away from New Zealand, there are plenty of Cook Islanders who back him.

China specialist Philipp Ivanov, in apparent agreement with the prime minister, says that “the Pacific island nations have their own agency, their own motivations and their own capabilities”.

He believes that the recent developments in the Cook Islands are “all part of that little great game that’s going on between Australia and China and New Zealand in the Pacific. It’s a whack-a-mole kind of game.”

While the US has long been a dominant force in security and military in the region, China has tried to strengthen its ties with the small but strategic Pacific Island nations through aid, infrastructure and security deals.

In response, the likes of the US and the UK have beefed up their diplomatic presence across the region. Australia too has made it clear it will redouble its support. But it’s unclear to what extent US President Donald Trump will continue his predecessor’s commitments in the region to counter China – and Beijing is taking advantage of that.

Last week, planes flying between New Zealand and Australia were diverted after China conducted military exercises involving live fire. Both Australia and New Zealand had been trailing the three Chinese warships that were making their way down the eastern coast of Australia in what experts say is an escalation and unexpected show of power.

“It’s a pretty efficient way of testing the diplomatic response in both the Australia-China and New Zealand-China bilateral relationship, and what the US is prepared to say in defence [of its allies],” says defence analyst Euan Graham, from the Australian Strategic Policy Institute.

“It’s also making the point that in the numbers game, China will always be ahead of smaller countries with smaller navies and Australia’s navy is at a historic low.”

China’s ambassador to Australia, Xiao Qian, told national broadcaster ABC that Beijing’s actions had been appropriate and he won’t apologise for it.

Australia’s Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has been keen to emphasise that no international laws were broken and that the drills were carried out in international waters. Indeed, many have pointed out that Australia and its allies often sail warships through the South China Sea.

“I’d see it as China wanting to capitalise on the chaotic effect that Trump is having right now,” says Mihai Sora, director of the Pacific Islands programme at Australia’s Lowy Institute. “China is taking advantage of that moment to [say], look Australia, you are actually alone. Where is the United States in all of this?”

Australia’s Foreign Minister Penny Wong freely admits “we are in a permanent state of contest in our region, that is the reality”.

In speaking out about the warships last week, Australia’s government was trying to reassure the public about China’s intentions, while also wanting to tell Australians that it’s all in hand. That is not a coincidence as Australia heads towards a federal election in the coming months.

“[Opposition leader Peter] Dutton comes from this national security and home affairs background, so the government doesn’t want to give him any air to criticise Labor,” Philipp Ivanov says. “Being weak on China would be disastrous for them, given what’s going on in the US and given our own elections.”

But it also brings into focus the dilemma this part of the world faces.

“Canberra will be contesting every single move that Beijing tries to make … and it reflects the fact that Canberra and Beijing have diverging strategic interests,” says James Laurenceson, the director of Australia-China Relations Institute at the University of Technology Sydney.

But, he adds, they also have “enormous commonalities” – China is Australia’s largest trading partner – and New Zealand’s – for instance.

“So you’ve got to be able to ride both these horses at the same time.”

It’s not an easy relationship – it never has been. The bigger surprise is that of the US, a traditional ally.

Although many in the Trump administration still describe China as a grave threat, US allies are unsure what to expect from the Washington-Beijing relationship.

And now, as Trump threatens steel and aluminium tariffs and a withdrawal of foreign assistance, Australia feels more isolated than ever. The recent activity of China’s warships in the Tasman Sea serves to highlight that isolation.

“I wouldn’t think of them as military acts, so much as political acts using military hardware,” Mr Ivanov says.

“I think the political act is to say, look, we can do this anytime we want. You can’t do anything about it, and the United States is not doing anything about it, because they’re busy tearing down the global system.”

When Japanese journalist Shiori Ito decided to speak up about her rape allegations, she knew she was standing in the face of a society that preferred silence.

“I’m scared…but all I want to do is to talk about the truth”, Shiori says in the opening scene of her Oscar-nominated documentary Black Box Diaries.

Shiori became the face of Japan’s MeToo movement after she accused a prominent journalist Noriyuki Yamaguchi of rape.

Her acclaimed directorial debut, based on her memoir of the same name, is a retelling of her quest for justice after authorities found the evidence insufficient to pursue criminal charges.

But there is one country where it is yet to play: Japan, where it has run into huge controversy. Her former lawyers have accused her of including audio and video footage she did not have permission to use, which, they say, has violated trust and put her sources at risk. Shiori defends what she did as necessary for “public good”.

It’s a startling turn in a story that gripped Japan when it first broke -the then 28-year-old Shiori ignored her family’s request to remain silent. And after her public accusation did not result in a criminal case, she filed a civil lawsuit against Yamaguchi and won $30,000 (£22,917) in damages.

Shiori told the BBC making the film involved “reliving her trauma”: “It took me four years [to make the film] because emotionally I was struggling.”

She was an intern at Reuters news agency in 2015, when she says Yamaguchi invited her to discuss a job opportunity. He was the Washington bureau chief for a major Japanese media firm, Tokyo Broadcasting System.

Shiori claims she was raped following a dinner in Tokyo with Yamaguchi, who has always denied the allegations.

CCTV footage of an intoxicated Shiori being dragged from a taxi and into a hotel is part of the more than 400 hours of footage she edited for the documentary.

The editing process, she says, was “really challenging. It was like hardcore exposure therapy.”

When the film was released, the CCTV footage became a source of friction as Shiori’s team of ex-lawyers, who helped her win her lawsuit, slammed the documentary.

They claimed it was unauthorised use of CCTV footage – and that she had violated a pledge not to use it outside of court proceedings. .

Last week, her former lawyers – led by Yoko Nishihiro – held another press conference, saying her use of the footage posed challenges for other sexual assault cases.

“If the fact that the evidence from the trial has been made public is known, we will be unable to obtain cooperation in future cases,” Ms Nishihiro said.

Ms Nishihiro claimed that Shiori had also used unauthorised recordings, saying she only found this out at a screening of the film last July.

This included audio of a police detective who eventually acted as a whistleblower about the investigation process – as well as a video of a taxi driver who provided testimony about the night of the alleged rape. Both of them, the lawyers argued, were identifiable and neither had given their consent to be featured in the film.

“I’ve been trying so hard to protect her for eight-and-half years, and I feel like I’ve been completely torn apart,” Ms Nishihiro said.

“I want her to explain and be held accountable.”

Shiori had earlier acknowledged that she did not have the hotel’s permission to use the CCTV but argued that this was “the only visual evidence” she had of the night she was sexually assaulted.

She added that including audio of the police detective was necessary because of “the cover up of the investigation”, adding that she was releasing the video “for the public good”.

“We are standing in different points of view,” she said of the fallout with her former lawyers.

“For me, [it’s for the] public good. For them, it’s ‘do not break any rules’.”

There has been no official explanation as to why the film has not yet been distributed. Shiori has said that “Japan is still not ready to talk about [it]”, but its unclear how much of it is also due to legal hurdles.

In her latest statement last week, Shiori apologised and said she would re-edit parts of the documentary to make sure individuals would not be identified, adding that a redacted version would be screened moving forward.

“There are moments I wish I didn’t have to put in [the documentary]. There are moments I’m not proud of but I wanted to put all of it and to show we are also human,” she told the BBC. “No-one is perfect.”

In the nine years since the assault, Shiori’s fight against Japan’s justice system has been well-chronicled in the media – and is something she says she wanted to detail in her documentary.

She was met with a wave of backlash when she went public in 2017, receiving hate mail and online abuse.

“People were telling me you’re not crying enough… you’re not wearing proper clothes… you’re too strong.”

Some criticised the way she was dressed at the press conference where she first accused Yamaguchi – they said her shirt had been buttoned too low down. Shiori said she left Japan for a few months, fearing for her safety.

Shiori’s case was followed by other high-profile cases. In 2023, former soldier Rina Gonoi also went public with her story, accusing three ex-soldiers of sexually assaulting her. This was the year Japan passed landmark laws to redefine rape from “forcible sexual intercourse” to “non-consensual sexual intercourse” and raised the age of consent from 13 to 16.

Gonoi eventually won her case but Shiori says it is proof that speaking up against sexual violence comes at a price, adding: “Is it worth going through this as a survivor seeking justice? It shouldn’t be this way. You have to sacrifice a lot.”

For now it’s unclear if her film will ever be screened in Japan, but she says that its homecoming would be her ultimate prize.

“This is my love letter to Japan. I really wish one day I can screen my film, and my family can also watch it,” she added.

“That’s what I really hope for… more than winning an Oscar.”

In Donald Trump’s White House, the vibes really matter. The personal relationships he develops with other leaders can affect how those nations are treated.

So it was vital for British Prime Minister Keir Starmer to not only master the details of their discussions on Thursday but also to build a rapport with the US president.

The invitation from King Charles clearly set the right tone. Trump looked truly flattered that he would become the first person to enjoy a second state visit to the UK.

“And that’s a great honour, because it’s never happened before,” the US president said at the start of their joint news conference. “I really do call it an honour, but it’s not for me, it’s for our country. It’s respect for our country.”

But the very diplomatic language deployed by Sir Keir over the war in Ukraine – like praising Trump for creating the conditions in which a ceasefire is being discussed – could not disguise significant disagreements over what a peace deal may end up looking like.

While Trump says he feels he can trust Russian President Vladimir Putin to stick to any deal, Sir Keir talked of the need to make sure that any truce endures and does not favour the aggressor.

The prime minister’s message about increasing defence spending in the UK was clearly very welcome – but he did not walk away with any commitment from the US to participate in ongoing security guarantees for Ukraine once a peace deal has been signed.

• Key takeaways from Starmer’s White House visit
• UK-US trade deal could mean tariffs ‘not necessary’ – Trump
• King invites Trump for ‘unprecedented’ second state visit

The two men first met in the Oval Office just before lunch. But the friendly body language and warm atmosphere of that moment did not seem quite so pronounced when they emerged after lengthy talks about three hours later.

“You are a very tough negotiator… I’m not sure I like that, but okay,” Trump told Sir Keir as they appeared before reporters after their meeting. And he did not seem to be entirely joking.

On the prospect of trade tariffs being imposed on UK exports to the US, the prime minister did seem to have made some progress.

Trump said Sir Keir had worked hard and “earned whatever they pay him over there” in making the case for a trade deal between the two countries instead. That would count as a significant victory for Britain, though any proposed deal would inevitably require lengthy and detailed negotiations.

Before this meeting it was unclear how the Labour leader’s serious and sober demeanour would go down with the bombastic American president.

But carefully worded praise and flattery set the tone for the PM’s first visit to the White House, with Sir Keir saying next to his US counterpart that “the UK has a true friend in the Oval Office”.

And he was speaking Trump’s language when he highlighted how the two countries were ranked one and two in the world as investment destinations, and for golfers too.

Trump responded enthusiastically to the promise of a new chapter in an historic partnership. “What a beautiful accent,” he quipped when the prime minister finished his remarks. “I’d have been president 20 years ago if I had that accent.”

There also appeared to be genuine respect toward the president over the issues on which the two leaders see eye to eye. On other significant matters, they seemed to have agreed to disagree. Which is probably as much as Sir Keir could hope for.

Tomorrow it is Volodymyr Zelensky’s turn in the Oval Office. A week after Trump called him a dictator, he distanced himself from that description – and his opinion of the Ukrainian president seemed to have softened.

“I think we’re going to have a very good meeting tomorrow morning. We’re going to get along really well.”

Donald Trump said he planned to hit goods from China with a new 10% tariff, the latest salvo in the US president’s steadily escalating trade fights.

Imports from China already face taxes at the border of at least 10%, after a Trump tariff order that went into effect earlier this month.

Trump also said on Thursday he intended to move forward with threatened 25% tariffs on imports from Canada and Mexico, which are set to come into effect on 4 March.

His comments came as officials from Mexico and Canada were in Washington for discussions aimed at heading off that plan.

Trump had announced the plans for 25% tariffs on Mexico and Canada for 4 February unless the two nations increased border security.

He paused the measures for a month at the last minute after the two countries agreed to increase border funding and talk more about how to combat drug trafficking.

On social media on Thursday, Trump wrote that he did not think enough action had been taken to address the flow of fentanyl to the US.

“Drugs are still pouring into our Country from Mexico and Canada at very high and unacceptable levels,” he wrote, adding that “a large percentage” of the drugs were made in China.

Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum, at a press conference from the country’s National Palace, said in response: “As we know, [Trump] has his way of communicating.”

She added: “I hope we can reach an agreement and on 4 March we can announce something else.”

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau also said his country was working hard to reach a deal, warning tariffs from the US would prompt an “immediate and extremely strong response”.

Trump’s threats against Mexico and Canada have raised widespread alarm, as the North American economy is closely connected after decades of operating under a free trade agreement.

Leaders of the two countries have previously said they would impose retaliatory tariffs on the United States if the White House went ahead with its plans.

Tariffs are a tax collected by the government and paid for by the business bringing the goods into the country.

China, Mexico and Canada are America’s top three trade partners, together accounting for more than 40% of imports into the US last year.

Economists have warned tariffs on goods from the three countries could lead to higher prices in the US on everything from iPhones to avocados.

Trump’s call for an additional 10% levy on goods from China – which he said would also go into effect on Tuesday – had not been previously announced, though during his presidential campaign he backed border taxes on Chinese products of as much as 60%.

Liu Pengyu, spokesperson for the Chinese Embassy, said his country was already working with the US to address the concerns about fentanyl, and had made “visual progress” in areas such as information exchange, case cooperation and online advertisement cleanup.

“Reducing domestic drug demand and strengthening law enforcement cooperation are the fundamental solutions,” he said in a statement, which warned that Trump’s tariff moves were “bound to affect and undermine future counternarcotics cooperation between the two sides”.

“The unilateral tariffs imposed by the US will not solve its own problems, nor will it benefit the two sides or the world.”

Trump’s comments, which called for drug flow to stop or be “severely limited”, seemed to set the stage for Mexico and Canada to negotiate, said trade expert Christine McDaniel, a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Washington University.

On Thursday, as tariff talks intensified, two imprisoned alleged leaders of the violent Zetas cartel long sought by the US – Miguel Angel Trevino Morales and his brother Oscar – were extradited.

Mexican media said they were part of a larger group of drug lords sent from Mexico to the US – a major step in terms of US-Mexico security relations.

Ms McDaniel said Trump’s demands of China were less clear, raising the likelihood that those measures will come into effect.

Trump’s initial round of tariffs on China was eclipsed by his threats against Canada and Mexico. But the potential for further duties raises questions about how businesses will respond.

Ms McDaniel said she expected the hit to be felt more in China.

“It’s not costless for the US, but so far it seems more costly for China,” she said.

The impact of tariffs, if they go into effect, is expected to be felt more in the Canadian and Mexican economies, which count on the US as a key export market.

But analysts have warned that the threat of the levies, even if they are never imposed, is still likely to have a chilling effect on investment, including in the US.

China has already responded to the first round of tariffs from the US with its own tariffs on US products, including coal and agricultural machinery.

Trump has dismissed fears about damage to the American economy.

British-American influencers Andrew and Tristan Tate – who are facing trial in Romania on charges including human trafficking – have arrived in the US after Romanian prosecutors lifted a two-year travel ban.

Andrew, 38, and his brother Tristan, 36, have strongly denied the allegations against them. The two departed Bucharest on a private jet early on Thursday and arrived in Florida hours later, with Andrew telling reporters they are “misunderstood”.

Romanian prosecutors stressed the case against them had not been dropped and that they remain “under judicial control” – meaning they have to regularly report to authorities and are expected to return to Romania.

However their exit has sparked concerns that prosecutors felt political pressure from the Trump administration. The US president said he knew nothing about the Tate brothers being released from Romania.

The Tate brothers are accused of human trafficking and forming an organised group to sexually exploit women in Romania. Andrew Tate is also accused of rape.

In the US they also face a civil case from a woman who alleges the brothers coerced her into sex work, and then defamed her after she gave evidence to Romanian authorities.

The brothers also face separate charges in the UK of rape and human trafficking. They deny all the allegations against them.

Upon arrival, Andrew Tate told reporters: “We live in a democratic society where it’s innocent until proven guilty and I think my brother and I are largely misunderstood.”

“There’s a lot of opinions about us, a lot of things that got around about us on the internet,” he said, adding that they are “yet to be convicted of any crime in our lives ever”.

The brothers declined to answer questions about their release and Trump’s role in them being allowed into the US.

A lawyer for the Tate brothers, Joseph McBride, said they will return to Romania at the end of March to meet the prosecutor before returning to the US.

“They feel secure in America for several reasons, the primary one being that Donald Trump is the president. As a result, they are excited to call America their home again,” Mr McBride said in a statement.

Speaking in the White House after their plane landed, Trump said he knew nothing about the Tate brothers being released from Romania.

Asked if his administration pressured the Romanian government to release them, he said: “I know nothing about that. I don’t know, you’re saying he’s on a plane right now?”

UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer, who was sitting next to Trump in the White House, said: “There’s an English element here, so obviously it’s important justice is done, and human trafficking is obviously, to my mind, a security risk.”

On Thursday, the brothers arrived at Fort Lauderdale in Florida around 11:00 local time (16:00 GMT) and were seen disembarking the aircraft.

Their arrival follows comments made by Trump administration figures earlier this month.

The Tates have regularly posted messages in support of Trump, and Tristan Tate has said his brother’s role in persuading “millions of young men” to back him “cannot be overlooked”.

Romania’s Foreign Minister has also told Romanian TV that Trump’s envoy for special missions had raised the brothers during a conversation at the Munich Security Conference in Germany a fortnight ago.

Emil Hurezeanu said his discussion with Richard Grenell had been informal and he did not consider the approach “a form of pressure”. Grenell told the Financial Times his support for the brothers was evident from his “publicly available tweets”.

However, women who have brought sexual abuse allegations against the Tate brothers said last week they were “extremely concerned” by reports that US officials had asked Romania to relax travel restrictions for the men.

Andrew Tate is a self-described misogynist who has attracted millions of followers online, despite being previously banned from social media platforms for expressing his views.

He and his brother were first arrested in Romania in December 2022, with Andrew accused of rape and human trafficking and Tristan suspected of human trafficking.

They both denied the charges and spent several months under house arrest. A year later, in August 2024, they faced new allegations including sex with a minor and trafficking underage persons, all of which they deny.

A former kickboxer who had appeared on UK TV show Big Brother, Andrew had moved from the UK to Romania several years ago. However police in Bedfordshire are still seeking his extradition on separate and unrelated allegations of rape and human trafficking, as well as tax evasion.

In the UK, four British women have filed a civil case against Andrew Tate in the UK High Court, alleging that he raped and coercively controlled them. Tate denies all the allegations against him.

Those plaintiffs said it was clear he would not face criminal prosecution in Romania and appealed to UK authorities to take action.

“We are in disbelief and feel re-traumatised by the news that the Romanian authorities have given into pressure from the Trump administration to allow Andrew Tate to travel around Europe and to the US,” the women said in a statement.

Elena Lasconi, who is running for the Romanian presidency in May’s elections, six months after they were controversially cancelled, has called for the immediate resignation of the head of Romania’s organised crime investigations directorate DIICOT, which made the decision to let the brothers leave.

“I am outraged!” she wrote on social media, “as a woman, a human being and a Romanian.” Lasconi said prosecutors should explain publicly whether their decision had come as a result of external pressure.

Prosecutors from DIICOT have emphasised that the judicial conditions for the brothers have not changed.

Any violation of those obligations made in bad faith “may lead to the replacement of judicial control with a higher measure of deprivation of liberty”, it said in a statement in Romanian.

Following a successful court appeal on Wednesday, the brothers also had multiple assets returned to them which had originally been seized by authorities – including six properties, six cars, and frozen bank accounts.

This comes after court limitations were “modified in order to allow the brothers to travel to the USA,” the statement from the Tates’ representative said.

The Tates are understood to be required to return to Bucharest at the end of March to satisfy the prosecutors’ terms, however it is too early to say whether they will comply with them.

Romania is both a member of the European Union and a key Nato member state on the Western alliance’s eastern flank. It has an extradition treaty with the US.

Senior Trump figures have also had the government in Bucharest in their sights over the court ruling that annulled last December’s presidential election. Romanian intelligence services said far-right candidate Calin Georgescu had been supported by a flurry of TikTok accounts engineered by Russia.

Georgescu was indicted on Wednesday for attempted “incitement to acts against the constitutional order”. He has denied any wrongdoing and has previously called the election annulment a “formalised coup d’etat”. Prosecutors are still investigating the allegations of election fraud.

Listen to Sue read this article

In a busy, terraced house in Bradford, three sisters are animatedly chatting. It’s a big day at their home: a beautician sits on their sofa, styling their hair and makeup. The room is warm with fun and laughter. It feels like a scene from a Jane Austen novel: three women in their late 20s, each of them bursting with personality, swapping stories.

And like most Austen novels, the conversation often turns to marriage.

The sisters are preparing for a family wedding at the weekend – where the bride and groom are first cousins. Many people might find this unusual, but in their family and in some parts of Bradford, it’s fairly common.

Ayesha, who at 29 is the oldest of the three sisters, also married her first cousin in 2017. She has two children with her husband and their marriage is happy, she says. It felt perfectly normal at the time to marry her cousin. Their mother, a Pakistani migrant, assumed it was what all three of her daughters would do.

But 26-year-old Salina, the youngest of the three, tells us she broke the mould by having what they call a “love” marriage, choosing a partner from outside the family. Salina tells us she is outgoing and ambitious; marrying a cousin simply did not appeal to her. Then there’s Mallika, who at 27 is the middle of the three. She’s still single and has already decided not to marry within her family.

“I said to my mum that I wouldn’t judge my sisters but I wasn’t going to do it,” Mallika tells us. She says having an education has created opportunities for her. “Before, even if you had an education, you wouldn’t be expected to carry on with it. You would be thinking of marriage. Now the mindset is so different.”

In the UK and across Europe, cousin marriage is coming under increased scrutiny – particularly from doctors, who warn that children of first cousins are more likely to experience an array of health problems.

And there’s now some new, potentially worrying data from Bradford to add into that mix.

Researchers at the city’s university are entering their 18th year of the Born in Bradford study. It’s one of the biggest medical trials of its kind: between 2007 and 2010, researchers recruited more than 13,000 babies in the city and then followed them closely from childhood into adolescence and now into early adulthood. More than one in six children in the study have parents who are first cousins, mostly from Bradford’s Pakistani community, making it among the world’s most valuable studies of the health impacts of cousin marriage.

And in data published in the last few months – and analysed in an upcoming episode of BBC Radio 4’s Born in Bradford series – the researchers found that first cousin-parentage may have wider consequences than previously thought.

The most obvious way that a pair of blood-related parents might increase health risks for a child is through a recessive disorder, like cystic fibrosis or sickle cell disease. According to the classic theory of genetics laid out by the biologist Gregor Mendel, if both parents carry a recessive gene then there’s a one in four chance that their child will inherit the condition. And when parents are cousins, they’re more likely to both be carriers. A child of first cousins carries a 6% chance of inheriting a recessive disorder, compared to 3% for the general population.

But the Bradford study took a much broader view – and sheds fresh light. The researchers weren’t just looking at whether a child had been diagnosed with a specific recessive disorder. Instead they studied dozens of data points, observing everything from the children’s speech and language development to their frequency of healthcare to their performance at school. Then they used a mathematical model to try to eliminate the impacts of poverty and parental education – so they could focus squarely on the impact on “consanguinity”, the scientific word for having parents who are related.

They found that even after factors like poverty were controlled for, a child of first cousins in Bradford had an 11% probability of being diagnosed with a speech and language problem, versus 7% for children whose parents are not related.

They also found a child of first cousins has a 54% chance of reaching a “good stage of development” (a government assessment given to all five year-olds in England), versus 64% for children whose parents are not related.

We get further insight into their poorer health through the number of visits to the GP. Children of first cousins have a third more primary care appointments than children whose parents are not related – an average of four instead of three a year.

What is notable is that even once you account for the children in that group who already have a diagnosed recessive disorder, the figures suggest consanguinity may be affecting even those children who don’t have a diagnosable recessive disorder.

Neil Small, emeritus professor at the University of Bradford and the author of the study, says that even if all of the children with recessive disorders visited their GP more than average, “this does not explain the much wider distribution of excess health care usage in the consanguineous children”.

The study, he says, is “exciting because it gives the opportunity for a much more accurate development of a response, targeting interventions and treatments”.

It is, of course, just one study, and the population of Bradford is not representative of the whole of the UK.

Nevertheless, it adds to a growing concern among scientists that has caught the attention of lawmakers across Europe. Two Scandinavian countries have now moved to outlaw cousin marriage entirely. In Norway, the practice became illegal last year; in Sweden, a ban will come into effect next year.

In the UK, the Conservative MP Richard Holden has introduced a private members’ bill to outlaw the practice, adding it to the list of illegal marriages (alongside parents, child, siblings, and grandparents). But the Labour government says there are “no plans” to impose a ban. At present, the UK is still following the policy of “genetic counselling”, in which first cousin-couples are educated about the risks of having children, and encouraged to get extra screening in pregnancy.

But amid concern about child health and strains on the NHS, some academics are asking whether a beefed-up approach to counselling is needed, with more funding and laser-focused intervention. And there are those who think it’s time to follow the Scandinavian example and impose something bound to be difficult and controversial: an outright ban on cousin marriage.

For most in the UK, the prospect of marrying a cousin is largely alien. But it wasn’t always so unusual. The father of evolution Charles Darwin married his first cousin, Emma Wedgwood. Their son, the Victorian scientist Sir George Darwin, went on to estimate that cousin marriages accounted for almost one in 20 aristocratic unions in 19th Century Britain. One of them was Queen Victoria, who married her first cousin, Prince Albert. The novel Wuthering Heights is full of fictional examples.

By the 20th Century the proportion of marriages between cousins had declined to about 1%. But it remains a relatively common practice among some South Asian minorities. In three inner-city Bradford wards, almost half (46%) of mothers from the Pakistani community were married to a first or second cousin, according to the most recent Born in Bradford data published two years ago.

For those who want to ban the practice, the public health argument is compelling. When announcing his private members’ bill in December, Richard Holden highlighted the higher risk of birth defects. Later, on Talk TV, he pointed to data showing that infant mortality rates are higher for children born to cousin parents, with more heart, brain, and kidney problems due to recessive disorders. He also explained that health effects can be “compounded” when the practice persists through generations.

This risk to child health is one of the reasons Patrick Nash, a researcher and co-founder at the Pharos Foundation research institute, wants to see cousin marriage banned. In a paper published in the Oxford Journal of Law and Religion last year, Nash wrote that a ban would result in “immediate” health improvements, especially in communities where the practice is common. He said: “Banning cousin marriage would improve public health drastically and have no negative health implications of its own.”

On the ground in Bradford, it’s a more mixed picture. Prof Sam Oddie, a consultant neonatologist and researcher at Bradford Teaching Hospitals, has worked in the city for more than two decades. Over the years he has observed lots of severe genetic disorders. “I’ve seen fatal skin conditions, fatal brain conditions, fatal muscle conditions”. He says it was “immediately clear” these conditions were occurring more in Bradford than elsewhere.

He remembers some tragic examples: families who lost several children, one after the other, to the same genetic disorder. “That’s very upsetting and very difficult for the family to get their heads around.”

But crucially, Prof Oddie thinks the main risk to genetic health in Bradford is not cousin marriage, but a similar issue known as endogamy, in which people marry members of their close community. In a tight-knit ethnic group, people are more likely to share common ancestors and genes – whether or not they are first cousins, he says.

Endogamy is not unique to Pakistani communities in the UK. It is an issue too in the UK’s Jewish community and globally among the Amish and also French Canadians.

“It’s often the case that the exact familial tie can’t be traced, but the gene occurs more commonly within a certain group, and for that reason, both parents carry the affected gene,” Prof Oddie says. “It’s an oversimplification to say that cousin marriage is the root of all excess recessive disorders in Bradford or in Pakistani communities. Endogamy is an important feature.”

Rather than a ban, he stresses the power of education – or what he calls “genetic literacy”. It’s a phrase that crops up again and again from the people we speak to. For many years there’s been a campaign in Bradford to inform people in the Pakistani community about their genetic risks. Couples are given specialist advice at their GP; at pregnancy classes, information is shared with expectant mothers.

And in Bradford at least, some are taking the message on board. Back at the sisters’ house, all three women we interview say that ideas around cousin marriage are slowly changing, in part due to an increased awareness of health risks. They live in the deprived, post-industrial Manningham area of the city. There’s a distinct feeling of neighbourliness here. All of the front doors open directly onto the street, which is full of children playing. Occasionally the sounds of their laughter drift inside.

“It has to be something that happens gradually – it’s slow, you can’t rush it,” says Salina, the sister who chose to have a love marriage. “My mum was very young when she came [to the UK from Pakistan]. She had certain views but those changed because she loves us. I just explained to her, ‘Mum, how does it benefit you to push cousin marriage?’.”

Mallika, her older sister, agrees. “It’s also to do with social media and being exposed to different people,” she says. “You have new connections… contact with people outside our parents’ eyes.”

Even Ayesha, the oldest sister who is in a cousin marriage, said she doesn’t imagine either of her two children will marry their cousins.

At the time she married her cousin, she says, “I didn’t know any different. My parents were strong in their culture. As the generations move on, the culture is disappearing a bit.”

She was aware of the genetic risks when she had her two children. Neither of them have a genetic illness.

“We did take that on board,” she says, on the topic of genetic health. “But I always feel like if it’s going to happen, it’s going to happen. If the child is going to be born with a disability then it will happen if you are married to a cousin or not.”

Indeed, in Bradford at least, the practice is in decline. The share of new mothers from across the Born in Bradford study who were first cousins with the father of their baby fell from 39% in the late 2000s to 27% in the late 2010s.

This is no coincidence, according to Professor John Wright, chief investigator on the Born in Bradford project. He points out that it is only recently that his team published evidence around the risks of cousin marriage in the UK.

“When we talked to the families 10 years ago it was very clear that people weren’t aware of the risks but like all parents they want to do their best for their children. They want to have healthy children,” he says.

“Education is the starting point and we’ve shown in Born in Bradford how powerful that is.”

Aside from health concerns, there’s another reason some people want to see cousin marriage banned: its impact on social cohesion. This is what’s largely driving the debate in Scandinavia. In Norway, where cousin marriage was banned last year, lawmakers said the practice was linked to forced marriage, with some South Asian immigrant women coerced into unions with relatives.

They also looked at the link with so-called “honour” violence, according to Tonje Egedius, a journalist who covered the story for a Norwegian newspaper.

“[Police] claim that cousin marriage makes it easier for perpetrators to maintain honour in families,” she says, “and that marrying within the family is a contributing cause of honour-related violence and abuse”.

Jasmina Holten, a senior Norwegian police officer, said in an interview with Norwegian broadcaster NRK last year that some women coerced into cousin marriage found themselves trapped, with financial dependence on relatives. In those cases, divorce often means ostracism. A ban on cousin marriage could break down that abusive chain, she said.

Likewise, Sweden’s justice secretary Gunnar Strömmer said his own country’s ban on cousin marriage will liberate women from “oppressive standards of honour”.

This cultural argument is becoming increasingly prominent. Proponents of a ban broadly see cousin marriage as an instrument of segregation, siphoning people off from the rest of society. Nash, from the Pharos Foundation, says that a ban on cousin marriage would help reduce ethnic segregation in places like Bradford.

Others are sceptical of the idea that you can force people to integrate through the sharp stick of legislation. They say that even if a ban goes ahead, some couples would continue to marry their cousins through illegal, unregistered unions – and that women in those marriages may feel they no longer have the protection of the state if the relationship goes sour.

Nazir Afzal, former Chief Crown Prosecutor for the North West of England, tells us that “thoughtful legislation” would “offer protections” to people coerced into cousin marriage. “[But] we must respect cultural diversity and personal choice,” he says. “Cousin marriage is an important cultural practice in many parts of the world, and legislation should be sensitive to the social and familial values that underlie it.”

More broadly, he suggests governments may want to think about boosting education and genetic screening for couples entering cousin marriage – rather than imposing “blanket bans”.

For some, the idea of an outright ban raises the ugly image of certain minorities being targeted over others. Karma Nirvana, a charity that works to end honour-based abuse, described the backbench attempt to ban cousin marriage as “a tool of political point-scoring, inciting hate and driving a wedge between communities”.

Richard Holden’s bill is awaiting its second reading in the House of Commons. Without government support it has never been likely to pass but its very existence and events in Scandinavia have resulted in cousin marriage being talked about far beyond the communities where it is prevalent.

Of course, for those Britons in a cousin marriage, life goes on much as before.

Back at the Bradford house, the beautician is putting her finishing touches to the hair of the three sisters, ahead of their big wedding at the weekend. Ayesha, the sister who is in a cousin marriage, is reflective and thoughtful about her own near decade-long relationship. “There are difficulties – we’ve been through lots together, we have sacrificed a lot,” she says about her husband. “But we are happy together.”

“I think even with love marriages you’re going to have problems. They’ll just be different ones.”

UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has met US President Donald Trump during his first visit to the White House.

Here are some of the key moments as the pair took questions from reporters before and after the talks.

Sir Keir did not turn up to the meeting empty-handed.

Part way through their opening remarks, the prime minister reached inside his jacket pocket and pulled out an official letter from King Charles III – an invitation for a second state visit.

Trump appeared to be genuinely taken back for a few seconds, asking: “Am I supposed to read it right now?”

After taking a minute to read the letter, Trump said he accepted the invite and that it would be an “honour” to visit the “fantastic” country.

He added that King Charles was a “beautiful man, a wonderful man”.

During Trump’s first term as president, he met King Charles’s mother, the late Queen Elizabeth II, during a three-day state visit in 2019.

Sir Keir said Thursday’s invitation to host Trump once more for a second full state visit was “unprecedented”.

While cordial, the initial meeting in the Oval Office between Sir Keir and Trump left no doubt that the US president hoped to be firmly in charge.

The meeting was a pattern we’ve now seen six times with foreign leaders at the Trump White House, including with French President Emmanuel Macron earlier this week: Trump taking control of the room and using the opportunity to get his own messages, both domestic and international, across to the reporters there.

• Analysis: Starmer charms Trump, but any deals will have to wait

During their half-hour session, Trump leaned forward and slightly towards Sir Keir – wearing a nearly identical, but slightly different coloured tie to Trump’s – dominating the conversation and taking charge of calling on reporters.

A joint afternoon news conference later began with a slightly more diplomatic and matter-of-fact tone, with both Trump and Sir Keir standing at their respective lecterns and going to considerable lengths to lavish praise on the other.

Trump joked he would have been president 20 years ago with Sir Keir’s “beautiful” accent.

At one point, Sir Keir was asked about Trump’s controversial call to make Canada – a member of the Commonwealth – the 51st state of the US.

“I think you’re trying to find a divide that doesn’t exist,” Sir Keir replied.

Trump interjected quickly with the words “that’s enough” before moving on – again taking control of the room as he stood next to a visibly surprised Sir Keir.

To put it gently, Sir Keir and Trump are from different schools of politics – both in their style and substance.

But asked to name their similarities Trump said: “He loves his country, and so do I.”

What else do they share? Trump said “we like each other, frankly, and we like each other’s country”.

But the “common thread” between the two men was that “we love our country”, Trump said.

Sir Keir had a number of tricky topics to raise with Trump – from trade to US security guarantees for Ukraine – and at the beginning of their news conference he called his counterpart “a very tough negotiator”.

Asked if the prime minister had convinced him not to impose trade tariffs on the UK, Trump said “he tried”, adding: “He was working hard, I’ll tell you that. He earned whatever the hell they pay him over there.”

But he has said there was “a very good chance” of a trade deal “where tariffs wouldn’t be necessary”.

Such a deal, Trump said, could be made “pretty quickly”.

Sir Keir spoke of a “new economic deal with advanced technology at its core”.

Trump said he was “inclined to go along with” the UK’s Chagos Islands deal.

The UK is in talks with Mauritius about handing over the territory but continuing to lease one of the islands, Diego Garcia, which contains a UK-US military airbase.

The agreement has been mired in uncertainty after Trump’s re-election as US president, given several US Republicans have argued it could deliver a potential security boost to China.

But during the meeting, Trump said he had a “feeling” the deal was going to “work out very well”.

Last week, Trump made headlines by calling Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky a “dictator” in a social media post, echoing Russian claims about Kyiv’s cancelled elections.

An election was scheduled for May 2024, but it was suspended because Ukraine has been under martial law since Russia began its full-scale invasion.

Asked by the BBC’s Chris Mason about his use of the word “dictator”, Trump replied: “Did I say that? I can’t believe I would say that.”

In the news conference later, Trump also appeared to have softened his attitude to Zelensky, praising him as “very brave” and saying the pair got on “really well”.

Talking about the potential for a peace deal between Ukraine and Russia, Trump said “progress towards peace” would continue when Zelensky visits the White House on Friday. The two are expected to sign a major minerals deal.

At the Munich Security Conference last week, US Vice President JD Vance attacked the UK and other European democracies, warning that “free speech is in retreat.”

Asked about the comments, Trump called on his deputy to defend himself. Vance argued “there have been infringements on free speech that actually affect not just the British” but also “American technology companies and by extension, American citizens”.

That led to Sir Keir cutting in, saying “we’ve had free speech for a very, very long time in the United Kingdom – and it will last for a very, very long time”.

He rejected Vance’s claim, saying “in relation to free speech in the UK, I’m very proud of our history there”.

Gene Hackman’s daughters and granddaughter say they are “devastated” and will “miss him sorely”, as they led tributes to the movie star who has died aged 95.

Hackman was found dead along with his wife Betsy Arakawa and their dog at his home in New Mexico, US. No cause of death was given, but police said the situation was “suspicious enough” to merit investigation.

In a statement, daughters Elizabeth and Leslie, and granddaughter Annie said: “He was loved and admired by millions around the world for his brilliant acting career, but to us he was always just dad and grandpa.”

Morgan Freeman who co-starred with Hackman in the 1992 movie Unforgiven – for which Hackman won an Oscar – described the actor as “incredibly gifted” while the movie’s director Clint Eastwood said he was “extremely saddened” by the news.

Ralph Fiennes – nominated for an Oscar this year for Conclave – paid tribute to the late actor with a black and white portrait of a smiling Hackman, simply titled Gene Hackman 1930-2025.

Viola Davis called Hackman “one of the greats” while Tom Hanks posted on Instagram that: “There has never been a ‘Gene Hackman Type.’ There has only been Gene Hackman.”

The Prince of Wales also issued a statement saying he was “so sad to hear the news”.

“Hackman was a true genius of film who brought each and every character to life with power, authenticity and star quality,” added Prince William, who is also president of Bafta.

• Gene Hackman and wife Betsy Arakawa found dead at their home
• Obituary: One of Hollywood’s greatest ‘tough guys’

Hackman’s 1978 Superman co-star Valerie Perrine labelled him “a genius”, while the Guardian’s film critic said his death “marks the end” of the era of American new wave cinema.

The Godfather director Francis Ford Coppola, who worked with Hackman on the 1974 mystery thriller The Conversation, called Hackman “a great artist”.

In a statement posted on Instagram, Coppola said: “Gene Hackman a great actor, inspiring and magnificent in his work and complexity.

“I mourn his loss, and celebrate his existence and contribution.”

Hackman, who won two Oscars for his work on The French Connection and Clint Eastwood’s Western Unforgiven, played more than 100 roles across his career.

They included supervillain Lex Luthor in the Christopher Reeve-starring Superman movies in the 1970s and 1980s.

Perrine, who acted opposite Hackman as his character’s on-screen girlfriend Eve Teschmacher, described the late actor as “a genius” and one of the “greatest to grace the silver screen”.

She posted on X: “His performances are legendary. His talent will be missed. Goodbye my sweet Lex Till we meet again.”

Hackman appeared alongside Hollywood heavyweights including Al Pacino in 1973’s Scarecrow, Gene Wilder in 1974’s Young Frankenstein and Warren Beatty and Diane Keaton in 1981’s Reds.

He also starred in the hit movies Runaway Jury and Wes Anderson’s The Royal Tenenbaums.

The British Academy of Film and Television, said it was “saddened” to hear of Hackman’s death, describing him as a “much-celebrated” actor with an “illustrious” career.

Spanish actor Antonio Banderas described it as being “a very sad day for the cinema’s family”.

Hank Azaria, the actor best known for voicing characters in The Simpsons, said “it was an honour and an education working with Gene Hackman” on 1996’s The Birdcage.

“Mike Nichols said of his genius character acting: ‘He always brought just enough of a different part of the real gene to each role he played.’ Sending all my love to his family and friends.

Star Trek actor George Takei posted: “We have lost one of the true giants of the screen.

“Gene Hackman could play anyone, and you could feel a whole life behind it,” he wrote.

“He could be everyone and no-one, a towering presence or an everyday Joe. That’s how powerful an actor he was. He will be missed, but his work will live on forever.”

Slumdog Millionaire star Anil Kapoor also called Hackman a “genius” performer. “A true legend whose legacy will live on,” he wrote.

As well as his Oscar wins, Hackman also collected two Baftas, four Golden Globes and a Screen Actors Guild Award.

The Guardian’s film critic Pete Bradshaw wrote that Hackman’s death “marks the end of one of the greatest periods of US cinema: the American new wave.”

“Hackman was the gold standard for this era, ever since Warren Beatty gave him his big break with the role of Buck Barrow in Arthur Penn’s Bonnie and Clyde (1967),” said Bradshaw.

“He was the character actor who was really a star; in fact the star of every scene he was in – that tough, wised-up, intelligent but unhandsome face perpetually on the verge of coolly unconcerned derision, or creased in a heartbreakingly fatherly, pained smile.”

Adding: “He wasn’t gorgeous like [Robert] Redford or dangerously sexy like [Jack] Nicholson, or even puckish like [Dustin] Hoffman; Hackman was normal, but his normality was steroidally supercharged.”

The critic branded his performance “as the reckless, racist cop”, ‘Jimmy ‘Popeye’ Doyle, in William Friedkin’s 1971 film The French Connection as “unmissable”.

US President Donald Trump says he will revoke a license which allowed Venezuela to export some of its oil to the US despite sanctions.

The move is a major blow to the Venezuelan government as the license provided it, through joint ventures between the state-run oil company and US oil giant Chevron, with a crucial income in dollars.

Trump said he was revoking the licence – which gave Chevron permission to operate in Venezuela – because the government of Nicolás Maduro had failed to meet “electoral conditions” and had not transported “violent criminals” deported from the US at a quick enough pace.

Venezuela called the decision “damaging” and said it could increase migration to the US.

Trump made the announcement on Truth Social, writing that he was “hereby reversing the concessions that Crooked Joe Biden gave to Nicolás Maduro, of Venezuela, on the oil transaction agreement, dated November 26, 2022”.

He did not clarify which concessions he was referring to, but the only licence related to Venezuela granted that day was the one issued by the US treasury authorising Chevron to “resume limited natural resource extraction operations in Venezuela”.

The licence allowed Chevron to operate joint ventures with Venezuela’s state-controlled oil company PDVSA, but barred the US company from paying “any taxes or royalties to the Government of Venezuela”.

Chevron’s spokesman Bill Turenne said in a statement on Wednesday that “Chevron conducts its business in Venezuela in compliance with all laws and regulations, including the sanctions framework provided by US government”.

In a recent interview with the Financial Times newspaper, Chevron Chief Executive Mike Wirth argued that if Chevron was forced to pull out of Venezuela, it would allow companies from China and Russia to increase their presence and influence there.

He also warned that Venezuela’s economy could suffer more if Chevron left the country, which could drive further migration to the US.

The Venezuelan opposition, on the other hand, has in the past argued for the licence to be revoked, arguing that it provides the Maduro government with “a financial lifeline”.

The licence was granted in 2022 by the Biden Administration in an attempt to entice the Maduro government to allow free and fair elections.

It remained in place even after Venezuela’s government-aligned electoral council declared Maduro the winner of the presidential election in July 2024 – a result which has been refuted by the opposition and by a number of countries, including the US, which have recognised Maduro’s rival as the legitimate winner instead.

President Trump’s announcement came less than a month after his envoy, Richard Grenell, met with Nicolás Maduro in Caracas.

During his visit, Grenell secured the release of six US citizens who had been held in Venezuela, as well as a deal under which the Maduro government sent planes to the US to fetch deported Venezuelans.

In his Truth Social post, Trump said “the regime has not been transporting the violent criminals that they sent into our Country (the Good Ole’ U.S.A.) back to Venezuela at the rapid pace that they had agreed to”.

He added he was “therefore ordering that the ineffective and unmet Biden ‘Concession Agreement’ be terminated” as of 1 March.

Venezuelan Vice-President Delcy Rodríguez warned that US sanctions had in the past led to an increase of Venezuelans migrating to the US and that this was likely to happen again.

Stopping undocumented migration has been one of Trump’s main priorities since taking office.

The announcement had a swift effect on oil prices, which rose more than 1% on Thursday.

Five months after the far-right Freedom Party won Austria’s general election, a three-way coalition looks set to exclude it from power.

The conservative People’s Party (ÖVP), the Social Democrats (SPÖ), and the liberal Neos say they have successfully completed negotiations to form a new administration – a record 151 days since the election was held in September.

The leader of the Eurosceptic, Russia-friendly Freedom Party (FPÖ), Herbert Kickl, called the tie-up a coalition of “losers” and called for a snap election.

Thursday’s announcement follows the longest period of coalition negotiations in Austria’s recent history, after two previous attempts to form a government failed.

The three-party government, which would be the first since the late 1940s, is due to take office next week, if all the parties approve the deal. The biggest hurdle is a vote at a Neos party meeting on Sunday, where a two-thirds majority is needed.

The new chancellor will be Christian Stocker of the ÖVP.

As he presented the new government programme with the leader of the SPÖ, Andreas Babler, and the Neos, Beate Meinl-Reisinger, Stocker said the negotiations had been “perhaps the most difficult in the history of our country”.

But he said they had achieved “a breakthrough” that wasn’t “a minimal compromise”.

The three parties set out plans to avoid facing a European Union procedure for running an excess budget deficit, with measures including an increased levy on banks.

The programme also includes tougher asylum measures, including a temporary stop for family reunifications.

Stocker said there would be “an integration year for refugees” from day one of their arrival in Austria.

The three parties also said they reserved the right to impose an asylum freeze, if numbers of applications increased. They are also planning a headscarf ban for girls under 15.

The programme also emphasised that the government was “committed to a strong and better European Union”.

In a post on social media, Kickl said: “I don’t think this has ever happened before: a so-called ‘government programme’ before a government has even been formed.”

Despite the FPÖ’s unprecedented victory, topping the polls for the first time, Austria’s President Alexander Van der Bellen first gave the ÖVP the mandate to form a government.

At the time, the leaders of all of the other parties ruled out making an alliance with Herbert Kickl.

However, the ÖVP’s first attempt to forge a coalition with the Social Democrats and Neos failed at the beginning of January.

On 6 January, Van der Bellen gave Kickl the mandate to form a government.

But a few weeks later, the Freedom Party’s talks with the conservatives also broke down, partly due to disputes over minister posts.

Political analyst Thomas Hofer told the BBC that there had been “no base of trust” between the two parties.

The ÖVP, the Social Democrats and Neos then started a second round of negotiations, which culminated in an agreement.

Thomas Hofer says their new alliance faces challenges.

“This is of course an emergency cabinet. It had to be built quickly and one can see that looking at the programme, The main message is that they are not Herbert Kickl, but that message will not last very long. They will have to negotiate more along the way.”

Hofer says the parties “even have to guarantee inner party stability”, and that their popularity could grow if they tackle “the massive problems ahead, but those problems are also a chance for the FPÖ”, which he said had flourished in opposition.

According to opinion polls, a new election would see further gains for the Freedom Party.

In a crowded control centre, surrounded by dozens of TV screens, the Taliban’s police force proudly shows off its newly-acquired network of 90,000 CCTV cameras – used to watch over the day-to-day lives of millions of people.

“We monitor the entire city of Kabul from here,” says Khalid Zadran, a spokesperson for the Taliban police chief, pointing to one of the screens.

The authorities say such surveillance will help fight crime, but critics fear it will be used to clamp down on dissent and to monitor the strict morality code enforced by the Islamist Taliban government under their interpretation of Sharia law.

The BBC are the first international journalists allowed to see the system in action.

Inside the control room, police officers sit in rows watching the live streams from thousands of cameras, keeping tabs on the lives of the six million people who live in Kabul.

From car licence plates to facial expressions, everything is monitored.

“In certain neighbourhoods, when we notice groups of people and suspect they might be involved in drug use, criminal activities, or something suspicious, we quickly reach out to the local police,” says Zadran.

“They arrive swiftly to investigate the nature of the gathering.”

Under the previous government, Kabul was threatened daily with attacks from the Taliban and so-called Islamic State militants, as well as high profile kidnappings and car-jackings. When the Taliban retook power in 2021, they promised to crack down on crime.

The dramatic increase in the number of surveillance cameras in the capital is a sign of growing sophistication in the way the Taliban enforce law and order. Before their return, just 850 cameras were in place in the capital, according to a spokesman for the security forces that were driven from power.

However, in the past three years, the Taliban authorities have also introduced a range of draconian measures limiting people’s rights and freedoms, especially those of women. The Taliban government has not been formally recognised by any other country.

The surveillance system the BBC is shown in Kabul features the option to track people by facial recognition. On the corner of one screen images pop up with each face categorised by age range, gender, and whether or not they have a beard or a face mask.

“On clear days, we can zoom in on individuals [who are] kilometres away,” says Zadran, highlighting a camera positioned up high that focuses on a busy traffic junction.

The Taliban even monitor their own personnel. At a checkpoint, as soldiers popped open the trunk of a car for inspection, the operators focused their lenses, zooming in to scrutinise the contents within.

The interior ministry says the cameras have “significantly contributed to enhancing safety, curbing crime rates, and swiftly apprehending offenders”. It adds the introduction of CCTV and motorcycle controls have led to a 30% decrease in crime rates between 2023 and 2024 but it is not possible to independently verify these figures.

However, rights groups are concerned about who is being monitored and for how long.

Amnesty International say installing cameras “under the guise of ‘national security’ sets a template for the Taliban to continue their draconian policies that violate fundamental rights of people in Afghanistan – especially women in public spaces”.

By law women are not allowed to be heard outside their houses, although in practice this is not being strictly enforced. Teenage girls are prevented from accessing secondary and higher education. Women are barred from many forms of employment. In December, women training as midwives and nurses told the BBC they had been ordered not to return to classes.

While women continue to be visible on the streets of cities like Kabul, they are required to wear a face covering.

Fariba*, a young graduate who lives with her parents in Kabul, has been unable to find work since the Taliban came to power. She tells the BBC there is “significant concern that surveillance cameras may be used to monitor women’s hijabs [veils]”.

The Taliban say only the city police have access to the CCTV system and the Propagation of Virtue and Prevention of Vice Ministry – the Taliban’s morality police – does not use it.

But Fariba is concerned the cameras will further endanger those opposed to Taliban rule.

“Many individuals, especially ex-military members, human rights advocates and protesting women, struggle to move freely and often live in secrecy,” she says.

“There is significant concern that surveillance cameras will be used to monitor women’s hijabs too,” she says.

Human Rights Watch, meanwhile, says Afghanistan does not have the data protection laws in place to regulate how the collected CCTV footage is held and used.

The police say the data is kept only for three months, while, according to the interior ministry, the cameras do not pose a threat to privacy as they “are operated from a special and completely confidential room by a specific and professional person in charge”.

The cameras appear to be Chinese-made. The control room monitors and branding on the feeds the BBC saw carried the name Dahua, a Chinese government-linked company. Earlier reports that the Taliban were in talks with China’s Huawei Technologies to buy cameras were denied by the company. Taliban officials refused to answer BBC questions about where they sourced the equipment.

Some of the cost of installing the new network is falling on ordinary Afghans who are being monitored by the system.

In a house in central Kabul the BBC spoke to Shella*, who was asked to pay for some of the cameras installed on the streets near her home.

“They demanded thousands of afghanis from every household,” she says. It’s a large amount in a country where those women who have jobs may earn only around 5,000 afghanis ($68; £54) a month.

The humanitarian situation in Kabul, and in Afghanistan in general, remains precarious after years of war. The country’s economy is in crisis, but international aid funding has been largely stopped since the Taliban came back to power.

According to the United Nations, 30 million people are in need of aid.

“If families refused to pay [for the cameras], they were threatened with water and power cuts within three days,” Shella adds. “We had to take loans to cover the costs.

“People are starving – what good are these cameras to them?”

The Taliban say that if people do not want to contribute, they can put in an official complaint.

“Participation was voluntary, and donations were in the hundreds, not thousands,” Khalid Zadran, the Taliban police spokesperson, insists.

Despite the assurances, rights campaigners both inside and outside Afghanistan continue to have concerns over how such a powerful surveillance system will be used.

Jaber, a vegetable seller in Kabul, says the cameras represent another way in which Afghans are made to feel powerless.

“We are treated like trash, denied the opportunity to earn a living, and the authorities regard us as worthless,” he told the BBC.

“We can do nothing.”

*

The BBC has apologised and admitted “serious flaws” in the making of a documentary about children’s lives in Gaza.

The documentary, Gaza: How to Survive a War Zone, was pulled from iPlayer last week after it emerged its 13-year-old narrator was the son of a Hamas official.

It said it has “no plans to broadcast the programme again in its current form or return it to iPlayer”.

Hoyo Films, the production company that made the documentary for the BBC, said it felt it was “important to hear from voices that haven’t been represented onscreen throughout the war with dignity and respect”.

The company added it was “cooperating fully” with the BBC to “help understand where mistakes have been made”.

The BBC removed the documentary after concerns were raised that it centred on a boy called Abdullah who is the son of Hamas’s deputy minister of agriculture. Hamas is proscribed as a terrorist organisation by the UK and others.

It also launched a review into the film, and the BBC’s Board met earlier on Thursday to discuss it.

In the statement, a BBC spokesperson said both the production company and the BBC had made “unacceptable” flaws and that it “takes full responsibility for these and the impact that these have had on the corporation’s reputation”.

It added the BBC had not been informed of the teenager’s family connection in advance by the film’s production company.

The spokesperson says: “During the production process, the independent production company was asked in writing a number of times by the BBC about any potential connections he and his family might have with Hamas.

“Since transmission, they have acknowledged that they knew that the boy’s father was a deputy agriculture minister in the Hamas government; they have also acknowledged that they never told the BBC this fact.

“It was then the BBC’s own failing that we did not uncover that fact and the documentary was aired.”

Hoyo Films have told the corporation that they paid the young boy’s mother “a limited sum of money” for narrating the film via his sister’s bank account, the BBC statement added.

It said Hoyo assured the BBC that no payments were made to any members of Hamas or its affiliates “either directly, in kind or as a gift”, and that it is seeking “additional assurance” around the programme’s budget.

In its statement, Hoyo added: “We feel this remains an important story to tell, and that our contributors – who have no say in the war – should have their voices heard”.

A full audit of the expenditure on the film will be undertaken by the BBC, and it will be asking for the relevant financial accounts of Hoyo Films so this can be carried out.

The BBC spokesperson said the incident had “damaged” the trust in the Corporation’s journalism – and “the processes and execution of this programme fell short of our expectations”.

They added the director-general of the BBC had asked for complaints to be expedited to the Executive Complaints Unit, “which is separate from BBC News”.

A separate statement from the BBC Board added: “The subject matter of the documentary was clearly a legitimate area to explore, but nothing is more important than trust and transparency in our journalism. While the Board appreciates that mistakes can be made, the mistakes here are significant and damaging to the BBC.”

Prime Minister Keir Starmer was asked about the film during a press conference with US President Donald Trump on Thursday, saying he had been “concerned” about it, adding that “the secretary of state has had a meeting with the BBC”.

Earlier this week, the BBC was criticised for pulling the programme by more than 500 media figures, including Gary Lineker, Anita Rani and Riz Ahmed.

A Succession-like feud has engulfed one of Singapore’s richest families as property tycoon Kwek Leng Beng accused his son of plotting a boardroom takeover.

Mr Kwek says he has filed court papers accusing his son Sherman of trying to take control of their real estate firm City Developments Limited (CDL). Sherman Kwek has denied the allegation.

Kwek Leng Beng, who is CDL’s executive chairman, is also seeking to fire his son, who is the chief executive.

CDL, Singapore’s biggest listed property developer, has halted trading in its shares on the financial hub’s stock exchange.

The feud has sparked comparisons with the HBO television series Succession, in which the fictional Roy family fight for control of the global media firm Waystar RoyCo.

“We intend to change the chief executive officer at the appropriate time,” Kwek Leng Beng said in a statement.

“As a father, firing my son was certainly not an easy decision.”

But the octogenarian added: “This is necessary to deal with this attempted coup at the board level and restore corporate integrity.”

If Sherman Kwek is removed as chief executive, his father said he plans to replace him on an interim basis with his cousin Kwek Eik Sheng.

The dispute centres on an email sent by CDL’s corporate secretary nominating two additional independent directors on the night of 28 January, the eve of the Lunar New Year – which marks the start of a major holiday in Singapore.

The row has attracted public attention in a part of the world in which battles over family businesses are not uncommon and have been known to end up in court.

After Wednesday’s court hearing, Kwek Leng Beng said the two new directors had agreed to not exercise any powers until further notice.

The company has said Sherman Kwek would remain in the role until the issue was resolved.

Sherman Kwek said he and the majority of CDL’s board were disappointed by what he described as extreme actions taken by his father “regarding this disagreement around the size and make-up of the CDL board.”

“To reiterate, this has never been about ousting our esteemed chairman. These steps to strengthen our board have purely been to ensure CDL has the highest standards of governance to which it has become known,” he said in a statement to the BBC.

Kwek Leng Beng, along with his father and brother, took control of then-loss-making CDL in 1971. He became the firm’s executive chairman after his father’s death in 1995.

It now has more than 160 hotel, residential and commercial properties around the world and forms part of a multi-billion dollar family empire.