“China will fight to the bitter end of any trade war,” the foreign ministry spokesperson in Beijing declared, after China announced tit-for-tat tariffs on agricultural imports from the US.

This came within minutes of a new 10% US levy on Chinese imports that came into effect on Tuesday – which adds to existing tariffs both from Trump’s first term and those announced last month.

But China’s latest retaliatory measures are an opening swing, not a direct punch.

It shows some strength, and it has the potential to sting parts of the United States, but also leaves room to negotiate or escalate if necessary.

“We advise the US to put away it’s bullying face and return to the right track of dialogue and co-operation before it is too late,” foreign ministry spokesperson Lin Jian added.

This is the second round of tariffs the two countries have imposed on each other since February. But this time China is hitting Donald Trump where it has the potential to hurt – by targeting farmers, who are some of his core supporters.

Almost 78% of farming-dependent counties in the US endorsed Mr Trump in 2024.

China is one of their biggest customers for produce such as chicken, beef, pork and soybeans and now all those products will face a 10-15% tax which will come into effect on 10 March.

“The tariffs are broadly negative for US agricultural markets. It is going to have a bearish influence on prices. There are enough corn and soybean supplies in the world for China to make a switch, it is more of an issue for the US, because 30% of US soybeans still go to China,” Ole Houe, of Ikon commodities, told Reuters news agency.

Beijing may hope that this will apply some pressure on the Trump administration ahead of any potential negotiations.

The latest announcements raise the prospect of an all-out trade war between the world’s top two economies and in various ministry statements, China is making two things very clear.

Firstly, it is prepared to continue to fight.

“Pressure, coercion and threats are not the right way to deal with the Chinese side,” said Mr Lin.

But secondly, it is also willing to talk.

Beijing is not ramping up the rhetoric or the tariffs in the same way it did in 2018, during the last Trump administration. Back then it imposed a tariff of 25% on US soybeans.

“China’s tariffs impact a limited number of US products, and remain below the 20% level. This is by design. China’s government is signalling that they do not want to escalate, they want to de-escalate,” according to Even Pay, an analyst with Trivium China.

The prospect of talks was raised last month.

The White House said there would be a call between President Xi and Donald Trump. That never happened.

So will these talks take place and who will make the first move?

China is unlikely to want to go first. It will not want to be seen kowtowing to Washington.

And in contrast to Canada and Mexico, Beijing has not announced new measures to target the flow of fentanyl. It simply repeated past statements that fentanyl is a “US problem” and that China has the strictest drug policies in the world.

On Tuesday, the State Council released a White Paper entitled “Controlling Fentanyl-related substances – China’s contribution.”

It outlines the measures Beijing says it has already made to crack down on Fentanyl-related crimes and the precursor chemicals used to make the drug. It adds that it is “diligently fulfilling international drug control obligations”.

So, while China hasn’t picked up the phone to Washington, this document forms part of the country’s message which appears to be saying – we are already doing what we can on fentanyl.

Despite stating that China “will not yield”, these latest tariffs are bound to sting.

The cumulative 20% tax on all Chinese goods comes on top of a slew of tariffs Trump imposed in his first term on tens of billions of dollars of Chinese imports. And China’s population is already concerned about a sluggish economy.

Thousands of delegates are gathering in the capital this week to take part in an annual parliamentary session, most of which will focus on the economy.

House prices are still falling, and youth unemployment remains stubbornly high. A potential trade war with the US could prompt more money worries for businesses and consumers across the country at a time when the Communist Party wants people to spend to help the economy to grow.

But Beijing will also see an opportunity as Donald Trump sows uncertainty among his international allies.

It can partly place the blame for any further economic woes at Washington’s door and state that it’s the fault of the US for starting a trade war.

The state media outlet Xinhua has in recent days released a series of parodies poking fun at a United States that is prepared to tax its allies and neighbours. The skits portray Washington as a bully echoing the words coming from the leaders of Canada and Mexico.

At the same time, China’s Commerce Ministry has reiterated that it is prepared to work with other countries around the world to combat Mr Trump’s tariffs.

Beijing appears to be looking for potential allies in this trade war while also trying to cast Washington as a troublemaker who is prepared to target friends and foes alike.

All at a time when Donald Trump’s ‘America First’ doctrine has many in Europe and the UK wondering if the US-led world order is already in doubt.

The US vice-president has sparked a row with his comments about a potential peacekeeping force in Ukraine.

UK opposition politicians accused JD Vance of disrespecting British forces after he said a US stake in Ukraine’s economy was a “better security guarantee than 20,000 troops from some random country that hasn’t fought a war in 30 or 40 years”.

The UK and France have said they would be willing to put troops on the ground in Ukraine as part of a peace deal.

Vance has since insisted he did not “even mention the UK or France”, adding that both had “fought bravely alongside the US over the last 20 years, and beyond”.

However, he did not specify which country or countries he was referring to.

In a post on social media, Vance added: “But let’s be direct: there are many countries who are volunteering (privately or publicly) support who have neither the battlefield experience nor the military equipment to do anything meaningful.”

So far only the UK and France have publicly committed troops towards policing any potential peace deal in Ukraine, although Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has previously said a “number of countries” have agreed to.

Vance’s comments came as the US paused military aid to Ukraine, following an explosive spat between President Donald Trump and Volodymyr Zelensky in the Oval Office last week.

Zelensky left the White House before a proposed deal on sharing Ukrainian minerals with American companies could be signed.

Speaking about the proposal, Vance told Fox News: “The very best security guarantee is to give Americans economic upside in the future of Ukraine.

“That is a way better security guarantee than 20,000 troops from some random country that hasn’t fought a war in 30 or 40 years.”

Sir Keir has said US security guarantees – such as air cover – will be needed to deter Vladimir Putin from invading Ukraine again, if there is a deal to end the war.

However, Trump has so far refused to pledge this, instead arguing that US workers in Ukraine as part of a minerals deal could provide such assurances.

Earlier, Vance’s original comments had drawn criticism from UK opposition politicians.

Conservative shadow defence secretary James Cartlidge pointed out both the UK and France deployed forces alongside the US in Afghanistan, adding: “It’s deeply disrespectful to ignore such service and sacrifice.”

Asked about Vance’s comments later, Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch said the vice-president did not call Britain a “random country”.

“A lot of people are getting carried away. They’re saying loads of things and getting quite animated. Let’s keep cool heads,” she said.

Reform UK leader Nigel Farage said Vance was “wrong, wrong, wrong”, adding that the UK “stood by America” for 20 years in Afghanistan.

Liberal Democrat defence spokesperson Helen Maguire, a former captain in the Royal Military Police who served in Iraq, urged the UK’s ambassador to the US, Peter Mandelson, to call on Vance to apologise for the comments.

“JD Vance is erasing from history the hundreds of British troops who gave their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan,” she said.

“I saw first hand how American and British soldiers fought bravely together shoulder to shoulder. Six of my own regiment, the Royal Military Police, didn’t return home from Iraq. This is a sinister attempt to deny that reality.”

Conservative MP Ben Obese-Jecty, a former British Army officer who fought in Iraq and Afghanistan, said: “The disrespect shown by the new US vice-president to the sacrifices of our service personnel is unacceptable.”

Speaking after Vance posted on social media to defend his comments, Obese-Jecty told BBC Two’s Politics Live programme: “It’s difficult to see who he was talking about, if he wasn’t talking about Britain and France.”

He called on the vice-president to clarify which countries he was referring to, and to apologise, adding that Vance had caused “real offence”.

Downing Street refused to be drawn on whether the prime minister found the comments insulting or disrespectful, but said he was “full of admiration for all British troops who have served, for instance in Iraq and Afghanistan”.

The UK joined the US invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001, following the 9/11 attacks, with France also sending forces to the country.

More than 150,000 British personnel have served in Afghanistan over the last 20 years, with the final troops withdrawing in 2021.

The UK was also part of a US-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003, with British forces in the country peaking at 46,000.

Sign up for our Politics Essential newsletter to read top political analysis, gain insight from across the UK and stay up to speed with the big moments. It’ll be delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

A reconstruction plan to rival President Donald Trump’s idea for the US to “take over Gaza” and move out more than two million Palestinians is expected to be approved at an emergency summit in the Egyptian capital Cairo.

Egypt has produced another plan with a glossy brochure, 91 pages long and complete with some gleaming Emirati influenced designs, to counter the US scheme which shocked the Arab world and beyond.

Will a “Dubai on the Mediterranean” rise one day from the rubble of Gaza instead of the US’s “Riviera of the Middle East”?

What sets Cairo’s plan apart is that this blueprint is not just about property development; its banners are politics and the rights of Palestinians.

A leak of the draft statement obtained by the BBC underlines it is owned by Arab states and the Palestinians.

It will be “presented by Egypt, in full co-ordination with Palestine and Arab countries, based on studies conducted by the World Bank and the United Nations Development Programme regarding early recovery and reconstruction in Gaza as a comprehensive Arab plan”.

Most critically, it allows more than two million residents of Gaza to hold on to what is left of their lives, including their right to remain on land which generations of their families have called home.

President Trump continues to wonder aloud: “Why wouldn’t they want to move?” His description of Gaza as a “demolition site” underlines how, after almost 16 months of grievous war, the territory lies in utter ruin.

The UN says 90% of homes are damaged or destroyed. All the basics of a life worth living, from schools and hospitals to sewage systems and electricity lines, are shredded.

The leaked draft document does not explicitly refer to President Trump’s plan to “take over” the territory and move the Palestinians out, mainly to neighbouring countries. But it makes clear that moves like that will only trigger more disasters.

“Any malicious attempts to displace Palestinians or annex any part of occupied Palestinian territories would lead to new phases of conflict, undermine stability opportunities, expand conflict into other countries in the region, and pose a clear threat to peace foundations in the Middle East,” it warns.

Ever since the US president suddenly spoke of his plan, there has been huge pressure on Arab states not just to come up with an alternative plan but to prove it can work.

Property developers know presentation matters.

President Trump deepened the shock and anger around his ideas when he posted an AI-generated video of a golden Gaza on his Truth Social account last week.

It featured a shimmering statue of himself, his close ally Elon Musk enjoying snacks on the beach, and he and the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu sunning themselves, shirtless. All to a catchy tune with lines like “Trump Gaza is finally here”.

“They had President Trump in mind,” remarked one Western diplomat who attended a briefing about Egypt’s plan at the foreign ministry in Cairo. “It’s very glossy and very well-prepared.”

Cairo’s reconstruction plans, which the BBC has obtained, with their alluring images of leafy neighbourhoods and grand columned buildings, is said to have drawn on a wide range of expertise, from World Bank professionals on sustainability, to Dubai developers on hotels.

There are also lessons learned from other ravaged cities which rose from the ruins including Hiroshima, Beirut, and Berlin.

And the proposed designs are also influenced by Egypt’s own experience in developing its “New Cairo” – its grand megaproject which has seen a new administrative capital rising from the desert – at great expense.

Who will pay for Gaza’s build is a major issue. Egypt is proposing that an international conference be convened as soon as possible for the “recovery and reconstruction”.

Wealthy Gulf states appear willing to foot some of the colossal bill the UN estimates will be around $50bn (£39bn).

But no-one is ready to invest unless they are absolutely convinced buildings will not come crashing down in another war.

A fragile ceasefire which now seems to be on the brink of collapse will only amplify that hesitation.

“We will hold intensive talks with major donor countries once the plan is adopted,” Egypt’s Foreign Minister, Badr Abdelatty, said on Sunday, underlining a hope that capitals the world over will help come up with the cash.

Another sensitive aspect is who will run Gaza once this current confrontation ends.

A leak of the draft statement, backed up by sources who have also seen the document, say there is a proposal for a transitional arrangement, a committee of technocrats called a “Gaza Management Committee under the umbrella of the Palestinian government”.

Benjamin Netanyahu, who describes President Trump’s Gaza plan as “visionary”, has repeatedly ruled out any future role for Hamas, but also for the Palestinian Authority.

The draft document “urges the United Nations Security Council to deploy international peacekeeping forces that contribute to ensuring security for both Palestinians and Israelis in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.”

Getting approval from Arab leaders for this new plan may be the easy part.

Hamas, which is said to have accepted it will not play a role in running Gaza, still has military and political sway on the ground.

Some Arab states are known to be calling for its complete dismantling; others believe those decisions should be left up to the Palestinians. Hamas itself says disarming is a red line.

As for President Trump, he has said he won’t “force” his ideas on anyone but still insists his plan is the one “that really works”.

India faces a crucial choice in modernising its air force – but is a cutting-edge American fighter jet the answer?

During his Washington visit last month, Prime Minister Narendra Modi met US President Donald Trump, who announced they were “paving the way” for India to acquire F-35s, a jet primarily sold to close allies and partners.

The F-35 is a “fifth-generation” multi-role fighter jet with advanced sensors, AI-driven combat systems and seamless data-sharing capabilities. Built to evade radar, it’s the most sophisticated jet in the skies – but at $80m a pop, also one of the most expensive. (Stealth is a key characteristic of a “fifth-generation” fighter.)

Many believe that with its fighter squadrons dwindling and China’s military growing, India faces a high-stakes choice: splurge on the state-of-the-art but costly F-35 from the US or strengthen defence ties with Russia through local production of its most advanced stealth fighter jet Sukhoi Su-57.

Experts believe the reality is more nuanced, with the US-Russia “dogfight” largely a media hype – fuelled more recently by the appearance of both jets at Asia’s biggest air show, Aero India, in the southern city of Bengaluru last month.

Trump’s F-35 offer seems more “symbolic” than practical, driven by his push to sell US weapons, according to Ashley J Tellis, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Integrating a “fifth generation” aircraft into the India air force (IAF) plans – centred on the homegrown Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA) and more Rafales – would be challenging, especially without co-production rights. Being developed by India’s Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO), the AMCA is India’s own stealth fighter.

“It is unlikely that the F-35 will be offered for co-production to India – any acquisition will likely be a straightforward sale. This is unlikely, among other things, to sit well with Modi’s emphasis on making in India and the significant end-user monitoring in the event of an F-35 sale will likely not be welcomed by India either,” Mr Tellis told me.

India’s challenges with the F-35 are its steep cost, heavy maintenance and operational issues – the jet’s availability is around 51% for the US Air Force, according to security expert Stephen Bryen, author of a Substack column, Weapons and Strategy. “The question is whether India is willing to invest billions of rupees in the F-35, knowing it could do better buying the Russian jet.”

But many dismiss the Su-57 as a real contender, noting that India exited the decade-long programme to co-produce the jet with Russia in 2018 over disputes on technology transfer, cost-sharing and specifications.

To be sure, India’s air force is ageing and short on fighter jets.

It operates 31 fighter and combat squadrons – mostly Russian and Soviet-era aircraft – far below the sanctioned 42. A key challenge is finding a long-term replacement for the Sukhoi-30, the IAF’s versatile workhorse from Russia.

Christopher Clary, a political scientist at the University of Albany, recently pointed to unsettling data from the ISS Military Balance for India: between 2014 and 2024, China added 435 fighter and ground attack aircraft, Pakistan gained 31, while India’s fleet shrank by 151.

India’s planned fighter jet expansion is largely homegrown, with plans to acquire over 500 jets, mostly light combat aircraft.

Orders for 83 Tejas Mark 1A – an agile multirole homegrown fighter – are confirmed, with another 97 expected to be ordered shortly. Meanwhile, the heavier, more advanced Mark 2 is in development. The homegrown stealth jet remains at least a decade away.

India also has plans to buy 114 multirole fighter jets under the IAF’s $20bn Multi-Role Fighter Aircraft (MRFA) programme requiring foreign jets to be built in India under a transfer of technology deal – its biggest hurdle.

Stalled since 2019, the Indian government is looking at a transparent and non-controversial procurement process after it faced criticism over the acquisition of 36 Rafales in a government-to-government deal. Five jets are in contention, with Rafale leading as it is already in service with the IAF.

Experts say India’s air force modernisation faces three key hurdles: funding, delays and dependence on foreign jets.

Defence spending has shrunk in real terms. The foreign fighter jets programme risks a drawn-out fate. While India prioritises home-made, DRDO’s delays force stopgap foreign purchases, creating a repeating cycle. Breaking it requires delivering a capable homegrown jet on time. Deliveries are also delayed due to a holdup in supplies of General Electric’s F-404 engines for the jets.

A key challenge is the mismatch between the defence ministry’s vision and the IAF’s needs, says Rahul Bhatia, an analyst at Eurasia Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm.

The Tejas Mark 1 faced early scepticism from the air force, leading to upgrades like the Mark 1A and Mark 2. “But the decades-long development cycles frustrate the armed forces, especially as their requirements keep evolving as newer technologies become available, which in turn contributes to further delays,” Mr Bhatia told me.

Even the Indian Air Force chief AP Singh has made no secret of his frustration over delays.

“I can take a vow that I will not buy anything from outside or I will wait for whatever is developed in India, but it may not be possible if it does not come at that pace [on time],” Air Marshall Singh told a seminar recently.

“At the moment, we all know that we are very badly off when it comes to numbers [of fighters]. And the numbers which were promised are also coming a little slow. So, there will be a requirement to go and look for something which can quickly fill up these voids,” he said, referring to the delayed Tejas Mark 1A deliveries, which were supposed to begin last February but have yet to start.

India’s clear priority is a homegrown stealth fighter, with more than $1bn already committed to its development. “A foreign stealth jet would only be considered if India’s immediate threat perception shifts,” says Mr Bhatia. China has two so-called stealth fighters – the J-20 and J-35 – but they likely fall short of US standards.

Most experts believe India will choose neither the American nor Russian fighters. “In the short term, as seen in past conflicts, emergency buys may fill gaps. The medium-term focus is co-production, but the long game is clear – building its own,” says Mr Bhatia.

For India, the future of airpower isn’t just about buying jets – it’s about building them, ideally with a strong Western partner. But for that vision to succeed, India must deliver its homegrown fighters on time.

The world’s largest iceberg has run aground in shallow waters off the remote British island of South Georgia, home to millions of penguins and seals.

The iceberg, which is about twice the size of Greater London, appears to be stuck and should start breaking up on the island’s south-west shores.

Fisherman fear they will be forced to battle with vast chunks of ice, and it could affect some macaroni penguins feeding in the area.

But scientists in Antarctica say that huge amounts of nutrients are locked inside the ice, and that as it melts, it could create an explosion of life in the ocean.

“It’s like dropping a nutrient bomb into the middle of an empty desert,” says Prof Nadine Johnston from British Antarctic Survey.

Ecologist Mark Belchier who advises the South Georgia government said: “If it breaks up, the resulting icebergs are likely to present a hazard to vessels as they move in the local currents and could restrict vessels’ access to local fishing grounds.”

The stranding is the latest twist in an almost 40-year story that began when the mega chunk of ice broke off the Filchner–Ronne Ice Shelf in 1986.

We have tracked its route on satellite pictures since December when it finally broke free after being trapped in an ocean vortex.

As it moved north through warmer waters nicknamed iceberg alley, it remained remarkably intact. For a few days, it even appeared to spin on the spot, before speeding up in mid-February travelling at about 20 miles (30km) a day.

“The future of all icebergs is that they will die. It’s very surprising to see that A23a has lasted this long and only lost about a quarter of its area,” said Prof Huw Griffiths, speaking to BBC News from the Sir David Attenborough polar research ship currently in Antarctica.

On Saturday the 300m tall ice colossus struck the shallow continental shelf about 50 miles (80km) from land and now appears to be firmly lodged.

“It’s probably going to stay more or less where it is, until chunks break off,” says Prof Andrew Meijers from British Antarctic Survey.

It is showing advancing signs of decay. Once 3,900 sq km (1,500 sq miles) in size, it has been steadily shrinking, shedding huge amounts of water as it moves into warmer seas. It is now an estimated 3,234 sq km.

“Instead of a big, sheer pristine box of ice, you can see caverns under the edges,” Prof Meijers says.

Tides will now be lifting it up and down, and where it is touching the continental shelf, it will grind backwards and forwards, eroding the rock and ice.

“If the ice underneath is rotten – eroded by salt – it’ll crumble away under stress and maybe drift somewhere more shallow,” says Prof Meijers.

But where the ice is touching the shelf, there are thousands of tiny creatures like coral, sea slugs and sponge.

“Their entire universe is being bulldozed by a massive slab of ice scraping along the sea floor,” says Prof Griffiths.

That is catastrophic in the short-term for these species, but he says that it is a natural part of the life cycle in the region.

“Where it is destroying something in one place, it’s providing nutrients and food in other places,” he adds.

There had been fears for the islands’ larger creatures. In 2004 an iceberg in a different area called the Ross Sea affected the breeding success of penguins, leading to a spike in deaths.

But experts now think that most of South Georgia’s birds and animals will escape that fate.

Some Macaroni penguins that forage on the shelf where the iceberg is stuck could be affected, says Peter Fretwell at the British Antarctic Survey.

The iceberg melts freshwater into salt water, reducing the amount of food including krill (a small crustacean) that penguins eat.

The birds could move to other feeding grounds, he explains, but that would put them in competition with other creatures.

The ice could block harbours or disrupt sailing when the fishing season starts in April.

“This will be the most ice from an iceberg we will have ever dealt with in a fishing season, but we are well-prepared and resourced,” says Andrew Newman from Argos Froyanes.

But scientists working in Antarctica currently are also discovering the incredible contributions that icebergs make to ocean life.

Prof Griffiths and Prof Johnston are working on the Sir David Attenborough ship collecting evidence of what their team believe is a huge flow of nutrients from ice in Antarctica across Earth.

Particles and nutrients from around the world get trapped into the ice, which is then slowly released into the ocean, the scientists explain.

• How mega icebergs change the ocean

“Without ice, we wouldn’t have these ecosystems. They are some of the most productive in the world, and support huge numbers of species and individual animals, and feed the biggest animals in the world like the blue whale,” says Prof Griffiths.

A sign that this nutrient release has started around A23a will be when vast phytoplankton blooms blossom around the iceberg. It would look like a vast green halo around the ice, visible from satellite pictures over the next weeks and months.

The life cycle of icebergs is a natural process, but climate change is expected to create more icebergs as Antarctica warms and becomes more unstable.

More could break away from the continent’s vast ice sheets and melt at quicker rates, disrupting patterns of wildlife and fishing in the region.

Sign up for our Future Earth newsletter to get exclusive insight on the latest climate and environment news from the BBC’s Climate Editor Justin Rowlatt, delivered to your inbox every week. Outside the UK? Sign up to our international newsletter here.

Rami Qattoush’s mother beams with pride, as her nine-year-old son tentatively kicks a football for the first time since his injury.

It is a huge milestone in his recovery, since he travelled to Jordan last month after getting Israeli military approval to leave Gaza.

Rami dreams of playing football one day, like Cristiano Ronaldo. But he is still in pain and quickly tires, having to sit down on a plastic chair, exhausted from the effort.

His bandaged legs – one of them splinted – are badly scarred and withered.

Every step forward is hard.

Doctors in Gaza had urged the family to agree to have both of his legs amputated. But his eight-year-old brother, Abdul Salam, had already lost his lower right leg due to his injuries and their mother, Islam, begged the surgeons to save Rami’s limbs.

The boys had been fast asleep in the family’s third-floor flat in Maghazi in central Gaza when, their mother says, an Israeli air strike targeted the building next door, raining rubble and shrapnel on the children.

Rami’s 12-year-old brother, Mustafa, was killed, his body blown to pieces.

His heart, pierced with shrapnel, was only found two days later, Islam says. The family gave it a separate burial.

The UN says at least 14,500 children are reported to have been killed and many more badly wounded in the war between Israel and Hamas in Gaza, which began after Hamas gunmen attacked Israel on 7 October 2023, killing around 1,200 people.

Medical evacuations from Gaza are critical, it says, because the healthcare system there has been devastated. Only 20 of the territory’s 35 hospitals are partially functional and there are shortages of essential medicines and equipment.

An estimated 30,000 Gazans – like Rami and Abdul Salam – have been left with life-changing injuries which will require years of rehabilitation, according to the World Health Organization.

It has helped facilitate the evacuation of hundreds of patients since 1 February when the Rafah crossing with Egypt reopened for them. But it says that between 12,000 and 14,000 people – among them 4,500 children – still need to be brought out for treatment.

“The war has exacted a horrific toll on Gaza’s children,” the UN Children’s Fund (Unicef) said when a ceasefire deal was announced in January.

Rami endured several surgical procedures without painkillers, anaesthesia or antibiotics, his mother told the BBC. His wounds became so infected that they were crawling with maggots. Doctors did not think his legs could be saved.

“Rami was in such pain, he was screaming ‘God, you’ve taken my brother, now take me too!'” Islam says.

And then, in January, a rare chance came up – for Rami and his mother to be evacuated to Jordan for treatment at a specialised hospital for reconstructive surgery, run by Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) in Jordan’s capital, Amman.

It is currently treating 13 children from Gaza, but has the capacity to take in dozens more.

“It’s the only hospital I know of providing physical and mental rehabilitation for victims of war,” says Marc Schakal, MSF programme manager for Jordan, Syria and Yemen. “It’s multi-disciplinary care, not just surgery.”

Rami has a psychologist, surgeon and physiotherapist. He is also being fed, clothed, and taught at MSF’s small “School of the Future”, a bright prefabricated building in the grounds of the hospital. After missing so much education, he is a keen learner.

But he has also been missing his father Mohammed and his brother, Abdul Salam – who needs a prosthetic leg but wasn’t able to leave Gaza with him.

They’re grateful for their treatment, but both he and his mother want to return home as soon as they can.

“Gaza is beautiful,” Rami told me. “In Gaza before the war, we used to have medical treatment, but then the aid stopped.”

With the facilities and expertise at the MSF hospital, he’s now making quick progress.

“He arrived in a wheelchair,” says his physiotherapist, Zaid Alqaisi, who has formed a strong bond with Rami while helping him to walk again.

“He’s very motivated. He wants to get back to his friends and his family. He wants to make his dad proud.”

He also wants to swim again in the sea in Gaza.

But many more operations lie ahead, and Rami and his mother have no idea when they will return home.

Not knowing if they will be allowed back into Gaza is another huge stress for all of the Palestinian patients on top of their trauma, according to psychologist Zainoun al-Sunna.

Sharing a hospital room with Rami is a withdrawn and traumatized five-year-old boy, Abdul Rahman al-Madhoun, who also needs surgery on his legs.

He was in his mother’s arms when she was killed in an air strike in October 2023, along with his siblings. In hospital in Gaza, a nurse trying to cheer him up told him his mother had turned into a star.

“Since then, he looks up into the sky at night, looking for stars and talking to them,” his aunt Sabah says. “He doesn’t talk to other people. But I hear him saying to the stars: ‘Mummy I’ve eaten, Mummy I’m going to sleep now.'”

The psychological injuries of the hospital patients are often tougher than the physical.

“Some will never recover,” says hospital director Roshan Kumarasamy, who says that reconstructive surgery will be needed on patients from Gaza for years to come because of an “unimaginably massive spectrum of injuries”.

But Rami is strong and determined. When he breaks down in tears thinking of Mustafa, he reassures me it’s “OK”.

And when he and his mother manage to get through to his family in Gaza on a video call, Rami is eager to show them how he can now stand on his own two feet.

His father cheers him on, saying: “Rami, you’re a hero.”

And now his family have another reason to celebrate – Rami’s brother, Abdul Salam, and his father have just been given permission by Israel to leave Gaza for Jordan as well.

In the weeks to come, he should be fitted with a new leg, allowing both injured boys to relearn how to walk.

A Scottish Sikh man detained in India for seven years on terror charges has been cleared in one of nine cases against him.

Jagtar Singh Johal from Dumbarton was arrested in 2017 in the country’s northern Punjab region weeks after his wedding there.

He has been held in prison ever since, on trial for his alleged role in a series of targeted killings of religious and political figures.

Now a verdict in the District Court in Moga, Punjab, has acquitted him of conspiracy under the country’s anti-terror law and of being a member of a “terrorist gang”.

His legal team say the allegations against Mr Johal in all the cases, for which he faces the death penalty, are close to identical and that the other charges should now be dismissed.

His brother Gurpreet Singh Johal has called on the UK government to secure the 38-year-old’s release.

He told BBC Scotland News: “My brother has had seven years of his life wasted in jail. The UK government needs to bring him home.”

A spokesperson for the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) welcomed the progress in the case.

“The UK government remains committed to working for faster progress on Jagtar’s case, and the FCDO continue to work to support Mr Johal and his family,” it said.

Mr Johal was accused of being a member of a terror group, the Khalistan Liberation Force (KLF), which has carried out attacks in the Punjab region.

The charges against him stated that he travelled to Paris in 2013 and delivered £3,000 to other KLF figures, with the money then used to purchase weapons which were used in a series of murders and attacks against Hindu nationalist and other religious leaders across 2016 and 2017.

His supporters say that in early November 2017, shortly after his wedding, Mr Johal was snatched from the street and driven away by plain clothes officers of the Punjab Police.

They say that in the days following his arrest he was tortured and coerced into signing a false confession to participation in the killings.

His legal representatives also say that the prosecution against him is political due to his activism documenting crimes and atrocities against Sikhs in the Punjab region in the 1980s, and that he has been the victim of an unfair legal process.

The Indian government denies that Mr Johal was mistreated in the custody of the Punjab Police and has said due process has been followed in the case against him.

It has been contacted for its response to the verdict.

Mr Johal’s case has taken seven years to reach this point and has been beset by delays.

The court verdict in Moga marks the most significant development since it began, with a judge ruling that, in one case at least, the charges should not stand and he should be released.

Eight other terror cases remain against Mr Johal.

These will be heard in the courts in Delhi and are brought by the Indian government’s anti-terror branch, the National Investigation Agency.

Mr Johal’s legal representatives say he should now be cleared of all the charges and freed to return to his family in the UK.

His brother said: “The light at the end of the tunnel is now getting brighter.”

The legal team also questioned the evidence presented against him so far.

They said no concrete evidence had been presented against him and that the case was built on the testimony of unreliable witnesses, some of whom have given statements against him only for them to be later recanted in court.

They said a number of witnesses against Mr Johal were declared “hostile” during the proceedings after refusing to stand by the statements they gave to the police, while the prosecution failed to produce other witnesses altogether.

Since his arrest there has been a campaign for Mr Johal’s release and his case has been the subject of diplomatic discussions between the UK and Indian governments.

In May 2022, a UN panel of human rights experts found that his detention was arbitrary, and called for his immediate release.

They concluded Mr Johal was discriminated against “owing to his status as a human rights defender and based on his political activism, religious faith and opinions,” something his family had asserted since his arrest.

West Dunbartonshire MP Douglas McAllister said the case presented a “unique opportunity to secure a resolution with the Indian authorities” and bring Mr Johal home.

“Without decisive diplomatic action, he faces being imprisoned for decades while the remaining trials drag on, despite the complete lack of credible evidence against him,” he said.

Dan Dolan, from human rights campaign group Reprieve, added: “For Jagtar to remain imprisoned and facing a death sentence after this acquittal would be a mockery of justice.”

Blue skies, picture-perfect flowers, intricately-prepared cakes and Californian sunshine streams through the windows. Oh, and another celeb turns up in the kitchen.

Is that like your home too? Of course not. And that’s the point really. The new Netflix series, With Love, Meghan is about escapism and aspiration, it’s a glass of something sparkling on a grey day.

We see her standing in a kitchen, albeit not her own kitchen in Montecito, gathering fruit and herbs in the garden and chatting with friends as she makes food such as foccacia, doughnuts and Korean fried chicken.

What you won’t see are references to her life as a working royal, her children Archie and Lilibet aren’t on camera and there’s only a fleeting glimpse of Prince Harry.

“I love feeding people, it’s probably my love language,” says Meghan, as she shows her culinary skills.

She makes different types of pasta, crudités, focaccia, frittata, baked fish. And with advice on how to make guests feel extra special, she shows how to arrange flowers and make DIY bath salts.

There are occasional sprinkles of references to her famous connections. We don’t get to see Prince Harry until the final episode, but we hear he enjoys bacon and likes a lot of salt.

“Well I have a family, a husband, who no matter what meal is put in front of him before he tastes it puts salt on,” Meghan explains. “So I try to under salt.”

Friends drop in. There’s the movie star Mindy Kaling, who jokes about the weight of Le Creuset saucepans. Celebrity chef Roy Choi is there. There’s designer Tracy Robbins and Victoria Jackson who ran a cosmetics business.

It’s an eight-part ode to optimism, relentlessly upbeat and feelgood, where parents, rather than clinging to glasses of Friday night white, are standing proudly behind a huge fruit platter beautifully presented in a rainbow design.

It’s all presented in lush colours, with dramatic shots of the beautiful California coast and mountains.

Whether you love or hate the TV series will almost certainly depend on what you think about Meghan, 43. And there will be strong opinions on both sides.

It’s in an entirely different genre from the previous Netflix documentary from Meghan and Prince Harry, which raked over their angry departure from royal life.

Instead we’re into a zone of gleaming smiles in polished kitchens, with a soundtrack of positive music pulsing away. “Love is in the detail, gang,” she says. And “it’s time to pop a bottle” for a glass of champagne.

Meghan dominates every moment of the 33-minute episodes of this lifestyle TV series, whether it’s cooking, gardening, chatting, dancing. Or, as the series begins, beekeeping, as we see Meghan out harvesting honey, dressed in a beekeepers’ outfit.

“It’s that reminder to do something that scares you a little bit. I think that’s part of it, but I’m trying to stay in the calm of it because it’s beautiful to be this connected,” she says approaching the beehives.

We learn about Meghan’s fashion style. She likes “high low” fashion, mixing up high street fashions with expensive designers.

There’s also clarification that her name is Sussex now and not Markle, when she challenges Mindy Kaling over using her maiden name.

“I didn’t know how meaningful it would be to me, but it just means so much to go ‘this is our family name, our little family name’,” says Meghan.

And of course there’s jam. That was trailed as the first product of her lifestyle brand that has been renamed As Ever. The jam, presumably on sale soon, is spread generously through the series. “Oh my God,” says a guest tasting the raspberry preserve, and the plugs for the jam keep coming.

As Meghan is shown picking blackberries from rows of bushes she says: “This is sort of what inspired my jam and preserve making,” with picking fruit a “daily task”.

Asked what her favourite preserve is she replies: “My grandmother used to make apple butter so I like that, it’s connected to something sentimental.”

Does that mean that those busy worker bees in the Hello Honey episode are also going to see their produce heading for the supermarket shelves? And will the beeswax candles be heading to the retailers?

Mindy Kaling jokes about way the jams were first promoted, where celebrities were sent numbered jars by Meghan.

“When I received that in the mail, a box of your preserves it was probably one of the most glamorous moments of my life,” said Kaling.

“But then I looked at the label, and it said they were something like 50. And then I of course, as a very hierarchical person, was like ‘who are these other 50? Does having a lower number make me more special…”‘

Meghan reveals she saved the number one jar for her mother, Doria Ragland as “it felt like the right thing to do”.

For those watching with an understandable sense of nosiness, this isn’t actually filmed in Meghan’s own home in Montecito. “I’m gonna prep everything here as I would at home and then bring it back to my house,” she says.

There are occasional glimpses of another life below the surface. She mentions: “I was a latchkey kid, so I grew up with a lot of fast food and TV tray meals.” Even a domestic goddess had to grow up somewhere.

She’s shown wrapping a gift and says: “I used to teach a gift-wrapping class when I was an auditioning actress.”

As a viewer, you want to pause and find out more about that. But the show rushes on. There’s a toughness here.

In the final episode we see Prince Harry briefly, congratulating her on launching her As Ever business. And she raises a toast to this “new chapter” which is “part of that creativity that I’ve missed so much”.

Does this series also mark a final departure from any prospect of a return to palace life? The whole breezy, commercial charm of the show is a world away from the royals. This feels like looking forwards to a new future, without any more haggling over the past.

Everything that Meghan does gets intense attention. That’s partly because of how she polarises opinion. People who think she’s wonderful and people who can’t stand her are all interested in watching more.

This series will inevitably get attention because of Meghan’s involvement. But will there be enough for either her fans or her detractors to get their teeth into? How strongly can you feel about a cake with a few raspberries on top? Opinions will be divided. As Ever.

Sign up here to get the latest royal stories and analysis straight to your inbox every week with our Royal Watch newsletter. Those outside the UK can sign up here.

A young woman is due to testify in a Spanish court today in a bid to persuade a judge to let her die voluntarily against the wishes of her father, in the first case of its kind.

The 23-year-old woman who wants to end her life is paraplegic due to injuries suffered when she tried to take her own life in 2022.

She has the support of the regional government of Catalonia after a local euthanasia guarantee and evaluation board unanimously supported her decision in July 2024.

Euthanasia is the act of deliberately ending a person’s life to relieve suffering. It can be involuntary – for example, if a person is in a coma and unable to give their consent – or voluntary, as in this case.

The woman was due to die in August, but the process was suspended at the last moment due to legal objections raised by her father, with the backing of the campaign group Christian Lawyers (Abogados Cristianos).

“I feel misunderstood by my family, I feel alone and empty, this situation causes me a great deal of suffering,” the woman has said, according to documents related to the case quoted by Spanish media.

The Catalan government’s legal representation in the case has stated that “no evidence of a scientific or expert character has been presented to contradict the many medical reports which support the decision [to die].”

However, the woman’s father has argued that she is suffering from a personality disorder which affects her judgement and he has pointed to “the obligation of the state to protect the lives of people, especially the most vulnerable, as is the case with a young person with mental health problems.”

He has also said that she has responded well to rehabilitation treatment.

His legal representation has also claimed that the young woman has changed her mind about undergoing euthanasia several times.

The public prosecutor has not positioned itself with regard to the case, instead calling for the judge to hear the opinions of experts and the woman herself before taking a decision.

Among those also due to testify in court in Barcelona today are a member of the euthanasia board which evaluated her case, a neuro-rehabilitation specialist, and a psychiatric specialist.

A euthanasia law was introduced in Spain in 2021, but this is the first time that a case has gone to court for a judge to decide.

Last year, a magistrate in Barcelona rejected an attempt by a man to appeal against his 54-year-old son’s euthanasia after it had been approved by the guarantee and evaluation board.

Armed men are raping and sexually assaulting children as young as one during Sudan’s civil war, says the UN children’s agency, Unicef.

So traumatised are the survivors that some say they have attempted to end their lives.

Mass sexual violence has been widely documented as a weapon of war in the country’s nearly two-year conflict.

But Unicef’s report is the first detailed account about the impact of rape on young children in Sudan.

A third of the victims were boys, who typically face “unique challenges” in reporting such crimes and seeking the help they need.

Unicef says that, although 221 rape cases against children have been officially reported since the start of 2024, the true number is likely to be much higher.

Sudan is a socially conservative country where huge societal stigma stops survivors and their families from speaking out about rape, as does the fear of retribution from armed groups.

The Unicef report provides an appalling window into the abuse of children in the country’s civil war.

Perhaps its most shocking revelation is that 16 of the victims were under the age of five years, including four infants.

Unicef does not say who is responsible, but other UN investigations have blamed the majority of rapes on the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF), saying RSF fighters had a pattern of using sexual violence to terrorise civilians and suppress opposition to their advances.

The RSF, which is fighting this war against its former allies, the Sudanese Armed Forces, has denied any wrongdoing.

“Children as young as one being raped by armed men should shock anyone to their core and compel immediate action,” said Unicef executive director Catherine Russell.

“Millions of children in Sudan are at risk of rape and other forms of sexual violence, which is being used as a tactic of war. This is an abhorrent violation of international law and could constitute a war crime. It must stop.”

According to evidence presented by international human rights groups, victims in the RSF’s stronghold of Darfur were often targeted because they were black African rather than Arab, apparently with the aim of driving them out of Sudan.

The UN humanitarian response for Sudan is already underfunded. Recent cuts in US aid are expected to reduce programmes to help the victims even further.

Harrowing details in Unicef’s report underscore the dire situation.

“After nine at night, someone opens the door, carrying a whip, selects one of the girls, and takes her to another room. I could hear the little girl crying and screaming. They were raping her,” recalls Omnia (not her real name), an adult female survivor who was held by armed men in a room with other women and girls.

“Every time they raped her, this girl would come back covered in blood. She is still just a young child. They only release these girls at dawn, and they return almost unconscious. Each of them cries and speaks incoherently. During the 19 days I spent there, I reached a point where I wanted to end my life.”

Unicef says the attacks included armed men storming homes and demanding that the girls be surrendered, raping some of them in front of their loved ones.

Victims were sometimes left with serious injuries and unwanted pregnancies.

In addition to the 221 rapes reported by Unicief were an additional 77 cases of sexual assault against children – mostly attempted rape.

As a fractured nation at war, Sudan is one of the most challenging places on earth to access services and frontline workers.

“The sheer scale of sexual violence we have documented in Sudan is staggering,” said Mohamed Chande Othman, chair of the UN’s fact-finding mission when its previous report was published in October.

The vast number of people displaced by the war has made women and children more vulnerable to attack – three out of four school-age girls are out of school, the UN says.

The devastating outcome of these crimes is aggravated by the fact that victims have few places to turn to for medical help, because many medical facilities have been destroyed, looted or occupied by the warring parties.

Recent US aid cuts may be endangering even the limited services available to protect children.

Unicef has been providing safe spaces for children through a network of local activists who have set up what are known as Emergency Response Rooms to deal with the crises in their communities.

The activists relied quite heavily on US aid, and most have been forced to shut down, according to a Sudanese coordinating committee that monitors them.

More broadly, the UN organization dedicated to protecting women’s rights says local organisations led by women are vital in delivering support to survivors of sexual violence. But they receive less than 2% of the total funding of the UN’s Sudan Humanitarian Fund.

The BBC learned that at least one of these local groups, known as “She Leads”, was forced to close when US funding was stopped.

It was not a big expense, measured in the tens of thousands of dollars, but enabled case workers to reach around 35 survivors a month, said Sulaima Elkhalifa, a Sudanese human rights defender who runs a government unit on combatting violence against woman and helped organize the private initiative.

Those who have been raped by armed men “don’t have the luxury of being depressed,” she told the BBC.

The demands of war – finding food, needing to flee – leave no space to deal with trauma, she added.

• Sudan fighters accused of storming famine-hit camp
• Villagers killed execution-style in Sudan, activists say
• ‘I miss my school’: BBC launches programme for children in war zones

Japan has deployed more than 2,000 firefighters to battle the country’s biggest forest fire in three decades.

At least one person has died in the blaze, which has torched more than 5,200 acres around the northern Japanese city of Ofunato since Thursday, according to the Fire and Disaster Management Agency (FDMA).

Although January to March is typically Ofunato’s driest season, the area saw less rainfall last month than any February in more than 20 years – recording just 2.5 millimetres, compared to the usual average of 41.

About 4,600 people remain under government-issued evacuation orders as the fire continues to burn.

Some 2,000 have already left the area to stay with friends or relatives, and more than 1,200 have evacuated to shelters, officials said.

The fires are burning in a forest area of Iwate Prefecture, which is Japan’s second largest prefecture and has the country’s second-lowest population density.

More than 80 buildings are estimated to have been damaged so far, although FDMA noted that details are still being assessed.

“Although it is inevitable that the fire will spread to some extent, we will take all possible measures to ensure there will be no impact on people’s homes,” Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba said in parliament.

Thousands of firefighters from 14 prefectures, including Tokyo, have been dispatched to fight the fires. At least 16 helicopters are also being used, with images showing the aircraft dumping water onto the smouldering hills.

Like many other countries, Japan in 2024 recorded its hottest year since records began.

It is difficult to know if climate change has caused or worsened specific fires, because other factors – such as changes to the way land is used – are also relevant.

However, the IPCC says climate change is making the weather conditions needed for wildfires to spread more likely.

Have you been evacuated? Send us your story.

US President Donald Trump has imposed tariffs on Canada and Mexico in a move that threatens to spark a trade war between America and its neighbours.

Goods entering the US from Canada and Mexico will now be slapped with a 25% charge. Canada has announced tariffs of its own in response and Mexico has said it will also retaliate to the measures.

The three trade partners have deeply integrated economies and supply chains, with an estimated $2bn (£1.6bn) worth of manufactured goods crossing the borders daily.

Trump says he wants to protect American industry, but many economists warn such tariffs could lead to prices rising for consumers in the US.

That’s because the tax is paid by the domestic company importing the goods, who may choose to pass the cost on to customers directly, or to reduce imports, which would mean fewer products available.

So what could get more expensive?

Cars will probably go up in price – by about $3,000 according to TD Economics.

That’s because parts cross the US, Canadian and Mexican borders multiple times before a vehicle is assembled.

Many well-known car brands, including Audi, BMW, Ford, General Motors and Honda trade parts and vehicles across the three countries.

As a result of higher taxes paid on the importing of parts to build the cars, it is likely the costs will be passed on to customers.

“Suffice it to say that disrupting these trends through tariffs… would come with significant costs,” said Andrew Foran, an economist at TD Economics.

He added “uninterrupted free trade” in the car-making sector had “existed for decades”, which had led to lower prices for consumers.

• Trump agrees to pause tariffs on Canada and Mexico
• What are tariffs and will prices go up?

Popular Mexican beers Modelo and Corona could get more expensive for US customers if the American companies importing them pass on the increased import taxes.

However, it’s also possible that rather than passing on the cost increase, firms could just import less.

Modelo became the number one beer brand in the US in 2023, and remains in the top spot, for now.

It’s more complex when it comes to spirits. The sector has been largely free of tariffs since the 1990s. Industry bodies from the US, Canada and Mexico issued a joint statement in advance of the tariffs being announced saying they were “deeply concerned”.

They say that certain brands, such as Bourbon, Tennessee whiskey, tequila and Canadian whisky are “recognized as distinctive products and can only be produced in their designated countries”.

So given the production of these drinks cannot simply be moved, supplies might be impacted, leading to price rises. The trade bodies also highlighted that many companies own different spirit brands in all three countries.

The US imports about a third of its softwood lumber from Canada each year, and that key building material would be hit by Trump’s suggested tariffs. Trump has said the US has “more lumber than we ever use”.

However, the National Association of Home Builders has urged the president to exempt building materials from the proposed tariffs “because of their harmful effect on housing affordability”.

The industry group has “serious concerns” that the tariffs on lumber could increase the cost of building homes – which are mostly made out of wood in the US – and also put off developers building new homes.

“Consumers end up paying for the tariffs in the form of higher home prices,” the NAHB said.

It’s not just lumber from Canada that could be affected by tariffs.

There is now a second threat looming for most lumber and timber imports into the US, regardless of their country of origin.

On 1 March Trump ordered an investigation into whether the US should either place additional tariffs on most lumber and timber imports, regardless of their country of origin, or create incentives to boost domestic production. Findings are due towards the end of the year.

When it comes to the trade war with Canada, the “most obvious” household impact would be on the price of Canadian maple syrup, according to Thomas Sampson, associate professor of economics at the London School of Economics.

Canada’s billion-dollar maple syrup industry accounts for 75% of the world’s entire maple syrup production.

The majority of the sweet staple – around 90% – is produced in the province of Quebec, where the world’s sole strategic reserve of maple syrup was set up 24 years ago.

“That maple syrup is going to become more expensive. And that’s a direct price increase that households will face,” Mr Sampson said.

“If I buy goods that are domestically produced in the US, but that are produced using inputs from Canada, the price of those goods is also going to go up,” he added.

Canada is America’s largest foreign supplier of crude oil. According to the most recent official trade figures, 61% of oil imported into the US between January and November last year came from Canada.

While 25% has been slapped on Canadian goods imported to the US, its energy faces a lower 10% tariff.

Now the US doesn’t have a shortage of oil, but the type its refineries are designed to process means it depends on so-called “heavier” – i.e. thicker – crude oil from mostly Canada and some from Mexico.

“Many refineries need heavier crude oil to maximize flexibility of gasoline, diesel and jet fuel production,” according to the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers.

That means if Canada decided in retaliation to any US tariffs to reduce crude oil exports, that could lead to prices rising at the petrol pumps.

One food import that American consumers could see a significant price increase in is avocados.

Grown primarily in Mexico due to its warm, humid climate, Mexican avocados make up nearly 90% of the US avocado market each year.

However, if tariffs come into force, the US Agriculture Department has warned that the cost of avocados – along with popular avocado-based dishes like guacamole – could surge.

Donald Trump has been threatening major tariffs on America’s two largest trading partners, Canada and Mexico, for more than a month. It now appears that the day of reckoning is at hand.

The risk for the president is that his sweeping tariffs, which also target China, may drive up prices for businesses and consumers in the months ahead, damaging the health of the US economy – the issue that Americans say they care about most.

The economy and inflation was at the top of voter concerns last November – concerns Trump promised to address as he stormed back to the White House, partly on the back of lingering discontent about soaring prices early in the Biden presidency.

Trump can comfortably boast that he has delivered many of his most striking campaign promises – including slashing federal jobs, stepping up immigration enforcement and recognising two sexes only.

But on inflation, the new Trump administration has made little tangible progress. Sky-high egg prices have been a daily reminder. And while the mass culling of chickens in response to bird flu has played a major role, the cost of the daily staple for many Americans has kept inflation front and centre in voters’ minds.

As Trump confirmed on Monday that 25% tariffs on Canadian and Mexican-made goods would indeed be coming into effect, US stock markets took their biggest hit of the year, providing an early indication of the economic turbulence his policies could create. And Trump’s tariffs on Mexican food imports, in particular, could hit Americans where they feel it the most – in higher prices at the grocery store.

According to a CBS survey conducted last week, 82% of Americans say they think the economy should be a “high” priority for the president. Only 30% said that about tariffs.

Only 36% of respondents think Trump is prioritising the economy “a lot” – compared to 68% for tariffs. Just 29% believe Trump is prioritising inflation. Views on the state of the economy remain generally dour, as 60% said it is “bad”, compared to 58% who had the same view last year.

Public opinion of Trump’s handling of the economy as a whole is within the margin of error on the survey, with 51% approving. That exactly matches his overall job rating, suggesting that the fate of this president, like those of his predecessors, will hinge on the strength of the economy.

According to Clifford Young, president of public affairs at polling company Ipsos, Trump is still in the honeymoon period of his presidency, when Americans will give him room to manoeuvre.

Typically, he said, this benefit of the doubt for a new president lasts about six months – but that can be cut short if the economy suffers some kind of dramatic shift. Trump argues that his tariffs will boost US manufacturing, raise tax revenue and spur investment – but most economists say that prices for Americans are likely to rise, potentially in a similar timeframe.

• Markets sink as Trump confirms tariffs on Canada, Mexico and China
• What are tariffs and why is Trump using them?
• Six things that could get more expensive for Americans
• Booze, oil and orange juice: How Canada could fight Trump tariffs

On Tuesday night, in a primetime speech to a joint session of Congress, Trump will have a chance to make the case that the short-term pain of his tariff plan will lead to long-term benefits. It’s his chance to convince the American public to keep his honeymoon going.

“I’d be interested to see how he links government efficiency to the economy, global tariffs to the economy, even immigration to the economy,” said Young. “Ideally, he would make an argument that all these different things he’s doing are ultimately done with the view of improving the economy.”

The challenge for the president is there are some indications that doubts about the economy are growing, along with warning signs of other challenges to come.

A survey of public and private businesses released last week by the Conference Board, a non-partisan economic research group, found a precipitous drop in consumer confidence – the largest decline since August 2021. The souring mood among US consumers was largely attributed to concerns over inflation and economic disruptions caused by rising tariffs.

Inflation, as measured by the Consumer Price Index, rose 3% in January, marking a six-month high. The public appears to agree, as the CBS poll found 62% of Americans reporting that prices have been “going up” in the past few weeks.

White House officials privately insist that administration efforts to cut government costs, reduce regulation and boost energy production will ultimately lead to lower prices even in the face of higher tariffs – but that such efforts take time to produce results.

In a television interview on Sunday, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said Trump plans to appoint an “affordability tsar” to address the concerns of “working-class Americans”.

“President Trump said that he’ll own the economy in six or 12 months,” Bessent said, suggesting that former President Joe Biden was to blame for the current conditions.

“But I can tell you that we are working to get these prices down every day.”

While Tuesday’s speech is not a formal State of the Union address, Trump can talk about what he is doing – and will do – to address these voter concerns.

Any missteps could give Democrats, who have been struggling to find an effective line of attack against the new president, an opening. Their choice of rebuttal speaker, newly elected Senator Elissa Slotkin from the trade-dependent industrial Midwestern state of Michigan, suggest they are keen to focus on economic issues.

At the moment, Trump is at the height of his political power. Now, he appears willing to use that power to change the way the US conducts trade policy – an issue that has animated him for more than four decades.

But American history books are lined with the names of presidents felled by souring public perceptions of the economy.

Some financial disruptions are entirely out of a White House’s control. With his tariff decision, however, Trump is making a high-stakes bet that the American public will ultimately approve of his decisions.

If he’s right, the payoff could be a generational political realignment on this issue.

If he’s wrong, it could undercut the second term of his presidency before it even gets fully underway.

US President Donald Trump’s latest move has left investors in a spin – for good reason.

With the stroke of a pen, the tariffs he has imposed on Canada, Mexico and China have turned back the clock 70 years, erasing decades of globalisation.

Tariffs, he says is a beautiful word, signalling jobs and riches for America.

However, history tells us that those firing the opening shots in a trade war also suffer heavy casualties. Despite the president’s rhetoric, American consumers are on the front line.

These extra taxes mean that Americans are facing the highest level of tariffs on goods being imported to their country since the 1930s.

Vegetables from Mexico, wheat from Canada, toys and T-shirts from China are all in the firing line. Retailers of such items can have very narrow profit margins and will raise prices quickly to cover the tariffs.

Consumers will notice the price rises.

Groceries may be one of Trump’s favourite words, but his own electorate may not appreciate the increase in bills they could face. Assuming no further tariffs, economists suggest US inflation, already higher than expected, could rise further in the second half of this year.

A price worth paying “to make America great again”? Look no further than the laundry room for a cautionary tale.

During his first-term of office in 2018, Trump imposed tariffs of up to 50% on imported washing machines after American producer Whirlpool complained about cheap South Korean competition.

Those rivals – Samsung and LG – then set up in America, creating close to 2,000 jobs.

But at what price? An imported washing machine cost an American shopper almost a third more at the start of 2023, just before tariffs were abolished, than five years previously.

Add up the costs of tariffs and one study claims each of those jobs cost Americans the equivalent of more than $800,000 (£627,000).

Those tariffs of course meant revenue for American governments and that source has increased dramatically in recent years, following the raft of tariffs Trump also imposed in his first term on China – most of which were retained under President Joe Biden.

However, the amount netted is equivalent to a tax rise on American households of up to $300. Ultimately it is they who are footing the bill – and will continue to do so.

Then consider the impact on American manufacturers who have businesses spawning Canada, Mexico and perhaps even China. Overall, economists think we could be looking at a hit to US growth of up to 1% – not enough to prompt a recession, but unwelcome nonetheless.

In sheer numbers terms, the hit to the Canadian economy could be greater, economists say. It sells more than $400bn worth of goods to America every year, accounting for a fifth of its income.

But it has the capacity to lower interest rates, and healthy public finances, providing policy makers with scope to cushion the blow for Canadians.

The damage to Mexico’s national income could be less severe, but its central bank has less capacity to cut interest rates making it harder to deflect the pain.

All of this will be anxiously watched by the European Union, likely next in line for those Trump tariffs. Germany, already in a fragile state, accounts for about a third of the goods sold by the EU to the US.

China, despite being the target of Trump’s repeated trade blows could actually be less vulnerable. Its exports to the US account for less than 3% of national income – easily made up elsewhere.

Ironically, some of this resilience is down to the tariffs imposed by President Trump last time round. China simply looked for new markets.

Countries like the UK could also benefit from a furthering of such trade diversion, more access to cheaper goods – something that could keep our own inflation down.

A key point about trade wars is that there are winners as well as losers – particularly for those countries outside of President Trump’s firing line. Vietnam and Malaysia for example saw their exports grow rapidly during President Trump’s last term as they scrambled to replace China in selling to America.

If the UK continues to escape the wrath of President Trump, we could actually benefit from closer trading links with his country and indeed from greater foreign investment, if we looked to be a more certain environment than some of our competitors. But of course, our fate remains unclear.

As it stands, the prospects for global growth in 2025 have dulled, but a recession appears very unlikely. However, in Trump world we have learnt very quickly to expect the unexpected – so much still depends on what happens from here.

And that uncertainty itself is harming business confidence both in the US and around the world, putting off key decisions about where to invest and create jobs.

Weaponising uncertainty too comes at a price – even on home soil.

Stock markets around the world fell following the introduction of tariffs by President Donald Trump on goods entering the US from China, Canada and Mexico.

Trump has imposed 25% tariffs on imports from Canada and Mexico, and 20% tariffs against China.

Canada and China announced their own import taxes on US goods, while Mexico said it had “contingency plans”, sparking fears of full-blown trade war.

The three major stock market indexes in the US sank following the news, while the FTSE 100 index of the UK’s biggest publicly-listed companies opened lower on Tuesday and stock markets in Asia were also down.

Analysts have warned tariffs could push up prices for US households and could also have a knock-on effect on consumers across the world, including in the UK.

The chief executive of US retailer Target warned shoppers were likely to see price increases over the next couple of days.

Brian Cornell told CNBC prices for foods including strawberries, avocados and bananas could rise.

Ford chief executive Jim Farley warned last month the business “could handle two weeks of tariffs”.

He told Bloomberg: “We could see billions of billions of dollars of pressure on the industry, lost jobs, lots of impacts to communities.”

Trump threatened to impose the tariffs, which are a tax added to a product when it enters a country – on Canada, Mexico and China in response to what claims is the unacceptable flow of illegal drugs and illegal immigrants into the US.

But Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said his country was responsible for less than 1% of fentanyl entering the US and would retaliate with 25% tariffs on $150bn worth of US goods.

“There is no justification for [the US’s] actions…Canada will not let this unjustified decision go unanswered,” Trudeau said in a statement on Monday.

He said Canada would first target $30bn worth of products, and target the remaining $125bn over 21 days.

Any fresh duties Canada imposes will be in place “until the US trade action is withdrawn”, he said, adding that his country would pursue “non-tariff measures” should US tariffs not cease – without specifying what those measures were.

China swiftly announced its own counter measures, which include 10-15% tariffs on some US agricultural goods, including wheat, corn, beef and soybeans. China is the US’s biggest buyer of these goods.

“If the United States… persists in waging a tariff war, a trade war, or any other kind of war, the Chinese side will fight them to the bitter end,” foreign ministry spokesman Lin Jian said.

Before the US tariffs on Mexican imports came into force, President Claudia Sheinbaum said her country had contingency plans.

“In this situation, we need composure, serenity, and patience. We have Plan A, Plan B, Plan C, and even Plan D,” she said.

Sheinbaum said she would speak more about Mexico’s response on Tuesday.

In the US, the Dow Jones closed 1.5% lower and the S&P 500 ended the day down 1.8% on Monday, while in Asia on Tuesday, the Nikkei 225 closed 1.2% lower and the Hang Seng Index ended down 0.3%.

London’s FTSE 100 was lower in early trading while the main stock exchanges in Germany and France also fell.

Trump has argued tariffs will boost US manufacturing and protect jobs, as well as raising tax revenues and grow the economy.

However, such measures can have detrimental effects on both consumers and businesses – including the ones they set out to protect.

Shoppers can be the ones who bear the bulk of tariffs in the form of higher prices, if they’re passed on, as well as less choice.

Meanwhile, tariffs tend to trigger retaliation from targeted countries, disadvantaging domestic businesses looking to export goods, meaning the measures can ultimately hold back trade, jobs being created and economic growth.

Goods worth some $2bn cross the borders of the US, Canada and Mexico each day and their economies are deeply integrated.

With the introduction of tariffs on that cross-border trade, companies importing goods might decide to pass on some or all of the extra costs onto consumers by putting prices up.

They could also reduce imports, which would mean fewer products and therefore higher demand, which could also push up prices.

Andrew Wilson, from the International Chamber of Commerce, said: “What we’re seeing is the biggest effective increase in US tariffs since the 1940s – with severe economic risks attached to that.”

“The initial market moves are entirely reflective that we’re now entering into a very risky scenario for global trade and for the global economy,” he told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme

He said Yale University had predicted these measures could cost US households in the region of $2,000 in this year alone.

Analysis from TD Economics has suggested cars could go up in price by about $3,000.

That is because parts cross the US, Canadian and Mexican borders multiple times before a vehicle is assembled.

American consumers could also see the price of avocados go up as Mexican avocados make up nearly 90% of the US avocado market each year.

Canada’s billion-dollar maple syrup industry accounts for 75% of the world’s entire maple syrup production so US households could see prices for the sweet treat rise too.

Ella Hoxha, head of fixed income at Newton Investment Management, told the BBC: “In terms of consumers, you’re more likely looking at, certainly over the short term, increases in prices as companies pass some of those prices onto the consumer.”

Chris Torrens, vice president of the British Chamber of Commerce in China, added: “It’s a huge challenge for British business because of the historical links that the UK and the US have. [We are] Seeing what looks like the dismantling of a transatlantic alliance between the US and Europe.

“But, there is a real sense of hope for a stronger UK-China relationship.”

The business of the North American Toy Fair, an annual showcase of the latest in silly putty, monster trucks and board games, is fun. But this year at the convention center in New York City, tariffs were killing the vibe.

In February, US President Donald Trump raised tariffs on products made in China by 10%. Then last week, with little warning, he announced an additional 10% border tax, which has now come into force on Tuesday, along with tariffs on Mexico and Canada.

In the toy industry, which estimates that about 80% of toys sold in the US are made in China, the rapid-fire announcements have stunned businesses, leaving them scrambling to figure out how to swallow a sudden 20% rise in cost.

The moves are the first of what Trump has threatened will be far wider action, making it a preview of the upheaval that could be coming for companies around the world.

“It’s the first thing we talk about and the last thing we talk about,” toymaker Jay Foreman said this weekend from his booth at the trade show, where classic hits such as Lincoln Logs, Tonka Trucks and K’Nex were on display.

His business, Basic Fun!, makes 90% of its products in China and had been planning to counter the cost of the initial 10% tariff with a mix of higher prices for customers and lower profits, both for his firm and for his manufacturing partners.

He presented the strategy to his board on Wednesday, ahead of the toy show, only to have to rip it up the next day, after Trump’s later announcement.

He will have to shoulder the tariff costs for products headed to stores this spring, he said, but is now expecting to raise prices for many items by at least 10% later in the year.

“The reality is that tariffs will raise the cost of toys for consumers,” he said. “If a customer says, ‘Then I can’t buy it’, then I can’t sell it, because I can’t produce to lose money.”

Tariffs are a tax on imports collected by the government at the border and paid for by the companies bringing in the goods.

During Trump’s first term, China was the main target of the measures, with more than $360bn worth of products sent to the US getting hit by the measures.

At the time, toys and many other consumer products were spared.

But Trump has now applied the duties across the board, hitting almost 15% of the imports into the US each year.

His actions have been overshadowed by tariffs on products made in Mexico and Canada – America’s top two trade partners, which have long operated under a free trade agreement with the US.

And they fall short of the “up to 60%” tariff that Trump called for on the campaign trail last year.

But with the latest move, businesses say the costs are getting too big to ignore.

The average effective tariff rate on imports from China now stands at roughly 34%, with recent actions amounting to a rise roughly twice as large as the increase during Trump’s first four-year term as president, according to estimates by Goldman Sachs.

“10% – it’s something we can somehow live with. 20% is a different ball game,” said Yaron Barlev, chief operating officer of Clixo, a Brooklyn-based maker of magnetic building toys which started about five years ago and signed a deal last year to start selling its toys at Target later in 2025.

With manufacturing in China now under way to satisfy that order, his firm, which employs 18 people in the US, is expecting to have to shoulder the costs of the border duties, scrambling its plans for profits.

He said he hoped Trump would offer some kind of reprieve for toys but was not feeling especially optimistic.

“It’s much less predictable now than he used to be so I really don’t know.”

Trump has said his actions will help boost manufacturing in the US, by making it less cost-effective to make products overseas.

But toymakers like Clixo, which had hoped to do its manufacturing in the US, say high costs and limited manufacturing capacity in the US make that idea unrealistic.

Meanwhile, a string of weaker economic data has raised concerns that the uncertainty due to the tariff talk is starting to cause wider economic paralysis.

Basic Fun!, which employs about 165 people and does roughly $200m in sales each year, had been looking to grow. But with the threat of tariffs bearing down, Mr Foreman recently put plans for acquisitions on hold, unsure how to calculate what a business would be worth in such a changeable environment.

“[A tariff] sounds good – ‘Let’s stick it to them!’ But the ripple effect is unbelievable,” Mr Foreman said.

The Toy Association, a business lobby group, says it is trying to make the case to the White House and Congress that toys should be exempt from tariffs, as they were before, warning that higher prices won’t go unnoticed by a public already upset by the jump in prices in recent years.

President Greg Ahearn said his members are largely small businesses with profit margins barely as large as the tariffs that are getting under way.

“We think we have a very strong point to make and we’re hoping they’re going to be open to listening,” he said.

The Toy Fair is his organisation’s marquee event, drawing businesses from around the world who line New York’s convention center with cheerful displays of blocks, high-contrast baby books and spiky coloured balls. But worry about tariffs pulsed through the gathering this year.

“It’s killing our mojo,” said Mr Ahearn, noting that it was his members’ top concern.

From their booths, toymakers greeted questions about Trump’s moves with head shakes, grimaces and disbelief.

“20% is a lot,” said Ada Luo, sales director for Wonderful Party, a manufacturer in Shenzhen, China, which makes Christmas light necklaces, leis and New Year’s hats. “10% maybe… between the supplier and the buyer we can share, but 20%? We don’t have a clue.”

India faces a crucial choice in modernising its air force – but is a cutting-edge American fighter jet the answer?

During his Washington visit last month, Prime Minister Narendra Modi met US President Donald Trump, who announced they were “paving the way” for India to acquire F-35s, a jet primarily sold to close allies and partners.

The F-35 is a “fifth-generation” multi-role fighter jet with advanced sensors, AI-driven combat systems and seamless data-sharing capabilities. Built to evade radar, it’s the most sophisticated jet in the skies – but at $80m a pop, also one of the most expensive. (Stealth is a key characteristic of a “fifth-generation” fighter.)

Many believe that with its fighter squadrons dwindling and China’s military growing, India faces a high-stakes choice: splurge on the state-of-the-art but costly F-35 from the US or strengthen defence ties with Russia through local production of its most advanced stealth fighter jet Sukhoi Su-57.

Experts believe the reality is more nuanced, with the US-Russia “dogfight” largely a media hype – fuelled more recently by the appearance of both jets at Asia’s biggest air show, Aero India, in the southern city of Bengaluru last month.

Trump’s F-35 offer seems more “symbolic” than practical, driven by his push to sell US weapons, according to Ashley J Tellis, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Integrating a “fifth generation” aircraft into the India air force (IAF) plans – centred on the homegrown Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA) and more Rafales – would be challenging, especially without co-production rights. Being developed by India’s Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO), the AMCA is India’s own stealth fighter.

“It is unlikely that the F-35 will be offered for co-production to India – any acquisition will likely be a straightforward sale. This is unlikely, among other things, to sit well with Modi’s emphasis on making in India and the significant end-user monitoring in the event of an F-35 sale will likely not be welcomed by India either,” Mr Tellis told me.

India’s challenges with the F-35 are its steep cost, heavy maintenance and operational issues – the jet’s availability is around 51% for the US Air Force, according to security expert Stephen Bryen, author of a Substack column, Weapons and Strategy. “The question is whether India is willing to invest billions of rupees in the F-35, knowing it could do better buying the Russian jet.”

But many dismiss the Su-57 as a real contender, noting that India exited the decade-long programme to co-produce the jet with Russia in 2018 over disputes on technology transfer, cost-sharing and specifications.

To be sure, India’s air force is ageing and short on fighter jets.

It operates 31 fighter and combat squadrons – mostly Russian and Soviet-era aircraft – far below the sanctioned 42. A key challenge is finding a long-term replacement for the Sukhoi-30, the IAF’s versatile workhorse from Russia.

Christopher Clary, a political scientist at the University of Albany, recently pointed to unsettling data from the ISS Military Balance for India: between 2014 and 2024, China added 435 fighter and ground attack aircraft, Pakistan gained 31, while India’s fleet shrank by 151.

India’s planned fighter jet expansion is largely homegrown, with plans to acquire over 500 jets, mostly light combat aircraft.

Orders for 83 Tejas Mark 1A – an agile multirole homegrown fighter – are confirmed, with another 97 expected to be ordered shortly. Meanwhile, the heavier, more advanced Mark 2 is in development. The homegrown stealth jet remains at least a decade away.

India also has plans to buy 114 multirole fighter jets under the IAF’s $20bn Multi-Role Fighter Aircraft (MRFA) programme requiring foreign jets to be built in India under a transfer of technology deal – its biggest hurdle.

Stalled since 2019, the Indian government is looking at a transparent and non-controversial procurement process after it faced criticism over the acquisition of 36 Rafales in a government-to-government deal. Five jets are in contention, with Rafale leading as it is already in service with the IAF.

Experts say India’s air force modernisation faces three key hurdles: funding, delays and dependence on foreign jets.

Defence spending has shrunk in real terms. The foreign fighter jets programme risks a drawn-out fate. While India prioritises home-made, DRDO’s delays force stopgap foreign purchases, creating a repeating cycle. Breaking it requires delivering a capable homegrown jet on time. Deliveries are also delayed due to a holdup in supplies of General Electric’s F-404 engines for the jets.

A key challenge is the mismatch between the defence ministry’s vision and the IAF’s needs, says Rahul Bhatia, an analyst at Eurasia Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm.

The Tejas Mark 1 faced early scepticism from the air force, leading to upgrades like the Mark 1A and Mark 2. “But the decades-long development cycles frustrate the armed forces, especially as their requirements keep evolving as newer technologies become available, which in turn contributes to further delays,” Mr Bhatia told me.

Even the Indian Air Force chief AP Singh has made no secret of his frustration over delays.

“I can take a vow that I will not buy anything from outside or I will wait for whatever is developed in India, but it may not be possible if it does not come at that pace [on time],” Air Marshall Singh told a seminar recently.

“At the moment, we all know that we are very badly off when it comes to numbers [of fighters]. And the numbers which were promised are also coming a little slow. So, there will be a requirement to go and look for something which can quickly fill up these voids,” he said, referring to the delayed Tejas Mark 1A deliveries, which were supposed to begin last February but have yet to start.

India’s clear priority is a homegrown stealth fighter, with more than $1bn already committed to its development. “A foreign stealth jet would only be considered if India’s immediate threat perception shifts,” says Mr Bhatia. China has two so-called stealth fighters – the J-20 and J-35 – but they likely fall short of US standards.

Most experts believe India will choose neither the American nor Russian fighters. “In the short term, as seen in past conflicts, emergency buys may fill gaps. The medium-term focus is co-production, but the long game is clear – building its own,” says Mr Bhatia.

For India, the future of airpower isn’t just about buying jets – it’s about building them, ideally with a strong Western partner. But for that vision to succeed, India must deliver its homegrown fighters on time.

“I’m scared,” sobs Nabila.

The 10-year-old’s life is limited to her one-bedroom home in Islamabad and the dirt road outside it. Since December she hasn’t been to her local school, when it decided it would no longer accept Afghans without a valid Pakistani birth certificate. But even if she could go to classes, Nabila says she wouldn’t.

“I was off sick one day, and I heard police came looking for Afghan children,” she cries, as she tells us her friend’s family were sent back to Afghanistan.

Nabila’s not her real name – all the names of Afghans quoted in this article have been changed for their safety.

Pakistan’s capital and the neighbouring city of Rawalpindi are witnessing a surge in deportations, arrests and detentions of Afghans, the UN says. It estimates that more than half of the three million Afghans in the country are undocumented.

Afghans describe a life of constant fear and near daily police raids on their homes.

Some told the BBC they feared being killed if they went back to Afghanistan. These include families on a US resettlement programme, that has been suspended by the Trump administration.

Pakistan is frustrated at how long relocation programmes are taking, says Philippa Candler, the UN Refugee Agency’s representative in Islamabad. The UN’s International Organization for Migration (IOM) says 930 people were sent back to Afghanistan in the first half of February, double the figure two weeks earlier. At least 20% of those deported from Islamabad and Rawalpindi had documentation from the UN Refugee Agency, meaning they were recognised as people in need of international protection.

But Pakistan is not a party to the Refugee Convention and has previously said it does not recognise Afghans living in the country as refugees. The government has said its policies are aimed at all illegal foreign nationals and a deadline for them to leave is looming. That date has fluctuated but is now set to 31 March for those without valid visas, and 30 June for those with resettlement letters.

Many Afghans are terrified amid the confusion. They also say the visa process can be difficult to navigate. Nabila’s family believes they have only one option: to hide. Her father Hamid served in the Afghan military, before the Taliban takeover in 2021. He broke down in tears describing his sleepless nights.

“I have served my country and now I’m useless. That job has doomed me,” he said.

His family are without visas, and are not on a resettlement list. They tell us their phone calls to the UN’s refugee agency go unanswered.

The BBC has reached out to the agency for comment.

The Taliban government has previously told the BBC all Afghans should return because they could “live in the country without any fear”. It claims these refugees are “economic migrants”.

But a UN report in 2023 cast doubt on assurances from the Taliban government. It found hundreds of former government officials and armed forces members were allegedly killed despite a general amnesty.

The Taliban government’s guarantees are of little reassurance to Nabila’s family so they choose to run when authorities are nearby. Neighbours offer each other shelter, as they all try to avoid retuning to Afghanistan.

The UN counted 1,245 Afghans being arrested or detained in January across Pakistan, more than double the same period last year.

Nabila says Afghans shouldn’t be forced out. “Don’t kick Afghans out of their homes – we’re not here by choice, we are forced to be here.”

There is a feeling of sadness and loneliness in their home. “I had a friend who was here and then was deported to Afghanistan,” Nabila’s mother Maryam says.

“She was like a sister, a mother. The day we were separated was a difficult day.”

I ask Nabila what she wants to do when she’s older. “Modelling,” she says, giving me a serious look. Everyone in the room smiles. The tension thaws.

Her mother whispers to her there are plenty of other things she could be, an engineer or a lawyer. Nabila’s dream of modelling is one she could never pursue under the Taliban government. With their restrictions on girls’ education, her mother’s suggestions would also prove impossible.

Pakistan has a long record of taking in Afghan refugees. But cross-border attacks have surged and stoked tension between the two neighbours. Pakistan blames them on militants based in Afghanistan, which the Taliban government denies. Since September 2023, the year Pakistan launched its “Illegal Foreigners’ Repatriation Plan,” 836,238 individuals have now been returned to Afghanistan.

Amidst this current phase of deportations, some Afghans are being held in the Haji camp in Islamabad. Ahmad was in the final stages of the United States’ resettlement programme. He tells us when President Donald Trump suspended it for review, he extinguished Ahmad’s “last hope”. The BBC has seen what appears to be his employment letter by a Western, Christian non-profit group in Afghanistan.

A few weeks ago, when he was out shopping, he received a call. His three-year-old daughter was on the line. “My baby called, come baba police is here, police come to our door,” he says. His wife’s visa extension was still pending, and she was busy pleading with the police.

Ahmad ran home. “I couldn’t leave them behind.” He says he sat in a van and waited hours as police continued their raids. The wives and children of his neighbours continued trickling into the vehicle. Ahmad began receiving calls from their husbands, begging him to take care of them. They had already escaped into the woods.

His family was held for three days in “unimaginable conditions”, says Ahmad, who claims they were only given one blanket per family, and one piece of bread per day, and that their phones were confiscated. The Pakistani government says it ensures “no one is mistreated or harassed during the repatriation process”.

We attempt to visit inside Haji camp to verify Ahmad’s account but are denied entry by authorities. The BBC approached the Pakistani government and the police for an interview or statement, but no one was made available.

Scared of being detained or deported, some families have chosen to leave Islamabad and Rawalpindi. Others tell us they simply can’t afford to.

One woman claims she was in the final stages of the US resettlement scheme and decided to move with her two daughters to Attock, 80km (50 miles) west of Islamabad. “I can barely afford bread,” she says.

The BBC has seen a document confirming she had an interview with the IOM in early January. She claims her family is still witnessing almost daily raids in her neighbourhood.

A spokesman for the US embassy in Islamabad has said it is in “close communication” with Pakistan’s government “on the status of Afghan nationals in the US resettlement pathways”.

Outside Haji camp’s gates, a woman is waiting. She tells us she has a valid visa but her sister’s has expired. Her sister is now being held inside the camp, along with her children. The officers would not let her visit her family, and she is terrified they will be deported. She begins weeping, “If my country was safe, why would I come here to Pakistan? And even here we cannot live peacefully.”

She points to her own daughter who is sitting in their car. She was a singer in Afghanistan, where a law states women cannot be heard speaking outside their home, let alone singing. I turn to her daughter and ask if she still sings. She stares. “No.”

Netflix’s new drama Toxic Town revisits one of the UK’s biggest environmental scandals: the Corby toxic waste case.

The series tells the story of families fighting for justice after children in the Northamptonshire town were born with birth defects, believed to be caused by industrial pollution.

Corby’s steel and iron industry expanded rapidly in the 1930s with the construction of Stewarts and Lloyds steelworks.

By the 1970s, half the town worked in the mills, but when the steelworks closed in the 1980s, toxic waste from the demolition process was mishandled, leading to widespread contamination.

In 2009, after a long legal battle, the High Court ruled Corby Borough Council was negligent in managing the waste.

Families affected won an undisclosed financial settlement in 2010, held in trust until the children turned 18.

Alongside the drama, a BBC Radio Northampton podcast series offers a deeper look into the real-life events, using original court transcripts and newly uncovered documents.

Hosted by George Taylor, 32, who was born with an upper limb defect linked to the case, the podcast features testimony and interviews with those directly impacted.

Here are some of the key voices behind the story.

George Angus Taylor was born on 11 March 1992 to parents Fiona and Brian, in Corby.

Brian had worked at Stewart and Lloyds, a job that left him covered in dust and debris at the end of each shift.

Fiona, a former Boots No7 beauty consultant, vividly remembers George’s birth, an event that would change their lives forever.

Born “navy blue” as a result of pre-foetal circulation issues, he was immediately ventilated and placed in intensive care.

It was then Fiona noticed something unusual.

“I remember just seeing his little hand; his pinkie ring finger and middle finger,” she says.

“It was like a fist; you know how babies make a fist? Then his index finger; his thumb was sticking out.

“I just kept thinking, ‘He’s here because of me,’ and you just look for blame. You look, and the first person you are going to blame is yourself.”

At 14, doctors discovered a tumour in George’s hand so large that amputation became a real possibility.

The surgery, experimental at the time, was gruelling. “When I woke up, I was so full of morphine,” he remembers.

“They said it was like climbing Everest with no practice – my body just shut down.”

The experience, particularly the smell, left lasting memories. “They burn flesh as they [operate]: very quiet sizzling, like sausages in a pan. And that’s the smell that still comes to you from time to time.”

Despite everything, George was determined to move forward. “The first time I saw my hand, I wasn’t shocked. I wasn’t sad. It was better than before.”

But George was not alone. Other children in Corby were born with similar conditions.

Lisa Atkinson was a security guard at the Corby steel mills, where her duties involved outside patrols, checking parking permits, and often having to move dust that had settled over everything.

On 27 June 1989, she gave birth to her daughter, Simone, at Kettering General Hospital.

Simone was born with three fingers on each hand.

Doctors reassured Lisa, saying the only thing she would not be able to do was play the piano.

Just as Fiona Taylor did with George, Lisa initially questioned whether she was responsible for her daughter’s condition.

“There was probably part of me that sat there and went, ‘What did I do? Did I do this?'” she says.

“Because I’ve had a couple of miscarriages before Simone… I always thought maybe I was lucky; maybe I was given Simone… but she wasn’t quite perfect. But I was lucky to have had that baby and not the two previous ones.”

Despite her initial self-doubt, Lisa “knew” she had done nothing wrong, as she had neither drunk nor smoked during pregnancy.

She recalls the lack of follow-up care or investigation into her daughter’s condition.

“You’re let out into the world with a child that’s a little bit different,” she says.

“But there was nowhere to go. There was no follow-up or anything, no ‘We’re going to look into it.’ So you just deal with it. And you did, because you had to.”

Lisa quickly adjusted to life with Simone’s condition, saying: “It shocked other people more than it shocked me. I got used to it really, really quickly.”

Winning the subsequent legal case against the borough council brought with it overwhelming attention.

“I’m not famous, but I feel like that’s how famous people must feel… It was crazy.”

Growing up, Simone, now 35, faced relentless bullying.

“I had a great family and friends… but [school] was hard. I wasn’t a very confident child, and I was an easy target,” she remembers.

Simone coped by using humour. She would joke that her mum had chopped off her fingers or that she was part alien, turning her differences into something entertaining.

“It was a bit of a front, because if I make a joke about myself, nobody else can. Just accept that’s who you are; it’s not going to change.”

At 18, she was offered surgery to reshape her hands, but declined.

“They admitted they didn’t really know if it would help. By then, I’d adapted. I live with daily pain, but I didn’t want to risk making things worse.”

Meeting her now-husband, she initially hid her hands, subtly positioning herself to avoid detection.

Eventually, she told him – through a long message and sending him a link to the 2020 Horizon documentary about the case.

His response? “It’s really not a big deal.”

Today, she is grateful for the legal battle her family fought. “It set me up for life,” she says.

“I was able to start my own life, and I went to university. I’ve got my own house and my daughter had the best start in life.”

Lewis Waterfield was born in 1994 with deformities to both hands.

His father worked near the contaminated site as a roofer, and his pregnant mother often visited him there.

“My dad noticed something wasn’t right straight away,” Lewis recalls.

As a child, he endured disruptive hospital stays, including an unsuccessful attempt to graft a toe on to his hand to create a functioning finger.

“I’ve had extensive surgery, but there are limits to what can be done.”

During the legal battle, Lewis’s parents fought to prove a link between industrial pollution and birth defects.

“The council, I remember, was dismissive. It felt like we were an inconvenience to them.”

Now a senior lecturer in public health at the University of Northampton, Lewis acknowledges how his experiences shaped him.

“Every now and then, someone asks about my hands, and it takes me right back.” he says.

“But I don’t mind. It’s part of who I am.”

Corby Borough Council ceased to exist in 2021 when it merged with other authorities to become North Northamptonshire Council.

In 2010, its then chief executive, Chris Mallender, issued a formal apology over the scandal.

“The council extends its deepest sympathy to the children and their families,” it said.

“Although I accept that money cannot properly compensate these young people for their disabilities and for all that they’ve suffered to date and their problems in the future, the council sincerely hopes that this apology, coupled with today’s agreement, will mean they can now put their legal battle behind them and proceed with their lives with a greater degree of financial certainty.”

The world’s largest iceberg has run aground in shallow waters off the remote British island of South Georgia, home to millions of penguins and seals.

The iceberg, which is about twice the size of Greater London, appears to be stuck and should start breaking up on the island’s south-west shores.

Fisherman fear they will be forced to battle with vast chunks of ice, and it could affect some macaroni penguins feeding in the area.

But scientists in Antarctica say that huge amounts of nutrients are locked inside the ice, and that as it melts, it could create an explosion of life in the ocean.

“It’s like dropping a nutrient bomb into the middle of an empty desert,” says Prof Nadine Johnston from British Antarctic Survey.

Ecologist Mark Belchier who advises the South Georgia government said: “If it breaks up, the resulting icebergs are likely to present a hazard to vessels as they move in the local currents and could restrict vessels’ access to local fishing grounds.”

The stranding is the latest twist in an almost 40-year story that began when the mega chunk of ice broke off the Filchner–Ronne Ice Shelf in 1986.

We have tracked its route on satellite pictures since December when it finally broke free after being trapped in an ocean vortex.

As it moved north through warmer waters nicknamed iceberg alley, it remained remarkably intact. For a few days, it even appeared to spin on the spot, before speeding up in mid-February travelling at about 20 miles (30km) a day.

“The future of all icebergs is that they will die. It’s very surprising to see that A23a has lasted this long and only lost about a quarter of its area,” said Prof Huw Griffiths, speaking to BBC News from the Sir David Attenborough polar research ship currently in Antarctica.

On Saturday the 300m tall ice colossus struck the shallow continental shelf about 50 miles (80km) from land and now appears to be firmly lodged.

“It’s probably going to stay more or less where it is, until chunks break off,” says Prof Andrew Meijers from British Antarctic Survey.

It is showing advancing signs of decay. Once 3,900 sq km (1,500 sq miles) in size, it has been steadily shrinking, shedding huge amounts of water as it moves into warmer seas. It is now an estimated 3,234 sq km.

“Instead of a big, sheer pristine box of ice, you can see caverns under the edges,” Prof Meijers says.

Tides will now be lifting it up and down, and where it is touching the continental shelf, it will grind backwards and forwards, eroding the rock and ice.

“If the ice underneath is rotten – eroded by salt – it’ll crumble away under stress and maybe drift somewhere more shallow,” says Prof Meijers.

But where the ice is touching the shelf, there are thousands of tiny creatures like coral, sea slugs and sponge.

“Their entire universe is being bulldozed by a massive slab of ice scraping along the sea floor,” says Prof Griffiths.

That is catastrophic in the short-term for these species, but he says that it is a natural part of the life cycle in the region.

“Where it is destroying something in one place, it’s providing nutrients and food in other places,” he adds.

There had been fears for the islands’ larger creatures. In 2004 an iceberg in a different area called the Ross Sea affected the breeding success of penguins, leading to a spike in deaths.

But experts now think that most of South Georgia’s birds and animals will escape that fate.

Some Macaroni penguins that forage on the shelf where the iceberg is stuck could be affected, says Peter Fretwell at the British Antarctic Survey.

The iceberg melts freshwater into salt water, reducing the amount of food including krill (a small crustacean) that penguins eat.

The birds could move to other feeding grounds, he explains, but that would put them in competition with other creatures.

The ice could block harbours or disrupt sailing when the fishing season starts in April.

“This will be the most ice from an iceberg we will have ever dealt with in a fishing season, but we are well-prepared and resourced,” says Andrew Newman from Argos Froyanes.

But scientists working in Antarctica currently are also discovering the incredible contributions that icebergs make to ocean life.

Prof Griffiths and Prof Johnston are working on the Sir David Attenborough ship collecting evidence of what their team believe is a huge flow of nutrients from ice in Antarctica across Earth.

Particles and nutrients from around the world get trapped into the ice, which is then slowly released into the ocean, the scientists explain.

• How mega icebergs change the ocean

“Without ice, we wouldn’t have these ecosystems. They are some of the most productive in the world, and support huge numbers of species and individual animals, and feed the biggest animals in the world like the blue whale,” says Prof Griffiths.

A sign that this nutrient release has started around A23a will be when vast phytoplankton blooms blossom around the iceberg. It would look like a vast green halo around the ice, visible from satellite pictures over the next weeks and months.

The life cycle of icebergs is a natural process, but climate change is expected to create more icebergs as Antarctica warms and becomes more unstable.

More could break away from the continent’s vast ice sheets and melt at quicker rates, disrupting patterns of wildlife and fishing in the region.

Sign up for our Future Earth newsletter to get exclusive insight on the latest climate and environment news from the BBC’s Climate Editor Justin Rowlatt, delivered to your inbox every week. Outside the UK? Sign up to our international newsletter here.

The UK has been one of the most popular destinations for international students in recent years – but is its appeal starting to fade?

Home Office figures show UK sponsored study visas dropped by 31% – from 600,024 in 2023 to 415,103 in 2024 – and with this, money many university cities rely on.

Universities UK, which represents 141 institutions, says measures to reduce net migration have “created significant uncertainty around the UK’s post-study work offer”.

The government says international students “will always be welcome but the net migration levels seen in recent years have been completely unacceptable, and we have committed to reducing those numbers substantially”.

Coventry in the West Midlands is particularly dependent on the international student economy.

In 2022-23, of universities with at least 10,000 students, Coventry University had the second highest percentage of international students in England outside London.

There were 16,285 non-UK students out of a total of 35,405, according to the most recent figures from the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA).

Jingwen Yuan, 30, spent seven years as a construction project manager in her native China, where she oversaw building projects that housed more people than are found in some UK cities.

The Coventry University alumnus has a masters degree in advanced engineering management and paid £3,000 to stay in the UK on a graduate visa while looking for work – but has been unable to find a job.

“All of my bachelor degrees classmates from home have gone back to China,” she says.

“My friend got £5,000 to £6,000 from our government if she came back. And for us, if we choose to stay, we need to pay £3,000 to the UK government. Can you see the difference?”

“The one thing stopping more students coming here is recent changes in the visa,” says Mohammed Abdullah Sayyed, 21, from India.

Student visa restrictions took effect in January 2024, meaning postgraduates lost the right to bring dependant family members to the UK and new students were prevented from switching to a work visa before the end of their courses.

There was an 85% drop in the number of sponsored study visas for dependants, from 143,276 in 2023 to 21,978 in 2024.

Mohammed says another factor is international students pay more than UK ones.

Coventry University says tuition fees can vary depending on the course – but as of September 2024, most courses cost approximately £16,800 – £20,050 per year for international students.

That’s compared to £9,250 for domestic students, which will rise to £9,535 in September.

Coventry University says Brexit has had “a profound impact” on UK universities’ ability to attract EU students.

The House of Commons Library states the number of EU students fell sharply after changes to visa requirements and funding rules in 2021-22.

Since August 2021, new students from the EU generally have had to pay international fees and do not qualify for tuition fee loans.

Laura Alonso is studying international relations at Coventry University.

The 21-year-old from Spain says: “There’s a lot of international people and international students, especially in Coventry, so you always feel welcome”.

But she believes the UK’s withdrawal from the Erasmus+ programme put lots of Spanish students off studying there.

The Turing Scheme, which replaced it, funds UK participants to study or work abroad – but does not fund international students coming to the UK.

Whilst the number of international visas has fallen by almost a third, the number of international students applying to study in the UK via The University and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS) has increased.

UCAS saw a 2.7% rise in international undergraduate applicants between 2024 and 2025

However this does not represent the full picture, as UCAS figures do not account for students applying directly through colleges and universities, or postgraduate courses.

The overall fall in international students is impacting Coventry University’s finances. It recently put hundreds of staff at risk of redundancy.

So it is little surprise the change is also being felt in the city’s wider economy.

Coventry University’s analysis of Higher Education Policy Institute and Kaplan International’s figures suggests international students generate about £651m a year for the city’s economy.

One sign of a drop in overseas students is that several purpose-built student accommodation blocks are the subject of change-of-use planning proposals to convert them for residential use.

The volume of student accommodation being approved has attracted debate, with some residents objecting to planning applications.

Estate agents report landlords selling up due to falling international student numbers.

Coventry University says it is proud to widen accessibility to education: “It would be odd to constrain our mission and values within national borders.

“Our long-term strategy of diversifying income to help counter the fact UK tuition fees have been frozen for several years has been successful and remains the right thing to do.

“The sustained growth in student numbers over a number of years allowed us to create many jobs and increased economic and social benefits. We are now having to rebalance the organisation based on changes outside of our control.”

The government says its Immigration White Paper will set out “a comprehensive plan to restore order to our broken immigration system, linking immigration, skills and visa systems to grow our domestic workforce, end reliance on overseas labour and boost economic growth.”

Vivienne Stern, CEO of Universities UK, says funding issues mean universities are reducing students’ options – and the drop in international students is hurting communities.

“There are people in all sorts of walks of life who benefit from the fact that universities bring students in who spend money in shops and cafes – local businesses, getting their hair cut, taking taxis.

“It really contributes to economies right across the UK, and I think that’s really special.”

The level of destruction in Jabalia when viewed from the air is truly astonishing.

A Hiroshima-like wasteland stretches as far as the eye can see. The mangled carcasses of buildings dot the churned-up landscape, some leaning at crazy angles.

Great undulating waves of rubble make it all but impossible to make out the geography of this once bustling, tightly packed refugee camp.

And yet, as a drone camera flies over the wreckage, it picks out splashes of blue and white where small tent camps have been set up in patches of open ground.

And figures, clambering over broken buildings, moving along streets of dirt, where food markets are springing up under tin roofs and canvas awnings. Children using a collapsed roof as a slide.

After more than six weeks of Gaza’s fragile ceasefire, Jabalia is slowly coming back to life.

In the neighbourhood of al-Qasasib, Nabil has returned to a four-storey house that’s somehow still standing, even if it lacks windows, doors and – in some places – walls.

He and his relatives have made crude balconies out of wooden pallets and strung-up tarpaulin to keep out the elements.

“Look at the destruction,” he says as he surveys Jabalia’s ocean of ruins from a gaping upper floor.

“They want us to leave without rebuilding it? How can we leave. The least we can do is rebuild it for our children.”

To cook a meal, Nabil lights a fire on the bare staircase, stoking it carefully with pieces of torn-up cardboard.

On another floor, Laila Ahmed Okasha washes up in a sink where the tap ran dry months ago.

“There’s no water, electricity or sewage,” she says. “If we need water, we have to go to a far place to fill up buckets.”

She says she cried when she came back to the house and found it wrecked.

She blames Israel and Hamas for destroying the world she once knew.

“Both of them are responsible,” she says. “We had a decent, comfortable life.”

Soon after the war began in October 2023, Israel told Palestinians in the northern part of the Gaza Strip – including Jabalia – to move south for their own safety.

Hundreds of thousands of people heeded the warning, but many stayed, determined to ride out the war.

Laila and her husband Marwan clung on until October last year, when the Israeli military reinvaded Jabalia, saying Hamas had reconstituted fighting units inside the camp’s narrow streets.

After two months of sheltering in nearby Shati camp, Leila and Marwan returned to find Jabalia almost unrecognisable.

“When we came back and saw how it was destroyed, I didn’t want to stay here anymore,” Marwan says.

“I had a wonderful life, but now it’s a hell. If I have the chance to leave, I’ll go. I won’t stay one more minute.”

Stay or go? The future of Gaza’s civilian population is now the subject of international debate.

In February, Donald Trump suggested that the US should take over Gaza and that nearly two million Palestinian residents should leave, possibly for good.

Faced with international outrage and fierce opposition from Arab leaders, Trump has subsequently appeared to back away from the plan, saying he recommended it but would not force it on anyone.

In the meantime, Egypt has led Arab efforts to come up with a viable alternative, to be presented at an emergency Arab summit in Cairo on Tuesday.

Crucially, it says the Palestinian population should remain inside Gaza while the area is reconstructed.

Donald Trump’s intervention has brought out Gaza’s famously stubborn side.

“If Trump wants to make us leave, I’ll stay in Gaza,” Laila says. “I want to travel on my own free will. I won’t leave because of him.”

Across the way sits a nine-storey yellow block of flats so spectacularly damaged it’s hard to believe it hasn’t collapsed.

The upper floors have caved in entirely, threatening the rest. In time, it will surely have to be demolished, but for now it’s home to yet more families. There are sheets in the windows and washing hanging to dry in the late winter sunshine.

Most incongruously of all, outside a makeshift plastic doorway on a corner of the ground floor, next to piles of rubble and rubbish, stands a headless mannequin, wearing a wedding gown.

It’s Sanaa Abu Ishbak’s dress shop.

The 45-year-old seamstress, mother of 11, set up the business two years before the war but had to abandon it when she fled south in November 2023.

She came back as soon as the ceasefire was announced. With her husband and daughters, she’s been busy clearing debris from the shop, arranging dresses on hangers and getting ready for business.

“I love Jabalia camp,” she says, “and I won’t leave it till I die.”

Sanaa and Laila seem equally determined to stay put if they can. But both women speak differently when they talk of the young.

“She doesn’t even know how to write her own name,” Laila says of her granddaughter.

“There’s no education in Gaza.”

The little girl’s mother was killed during the war. Laila says she still talks to her at night.

“She was the soul of my soul and she left her daughter in my hands. If I have the chance to travel, I will do so for the sake of my granddaughter.”

From dazzling costumes to exuberant parties, Trinidad’s carnival is often dubbed “the greatest show on Earth”.

But some of its elements are not exactly eco-friendly and the festivities are estimated to produce 3.4 tonnes of waste every year according to Carnicycle, a local initiative aiming to make festivities more sustainable.

Danii McLetchie, who co-founded Carnicycle in 2018, says that while carnival “is a big part of our culture” it also has a very negative environmental impact “from the events, to the textiles, to costumes” used by the masqueraders, spectators and vendors taking part in the annual parade on the two days preceding Ash Wednesday.

Producing and transporting just a single carnival costume bra can generate approximately 37.68kg (83lb) of CO2 emissions, Carnicycle estimates based on calculations made using an online tool provided by Swedish tech company Doconomy.

Danii and her team are working to have that estimate verified by a third party, but with tens of thousands of masqueraders parading every year, she says the amount of emissions is cause for concern.

To reduce those emissions, Carnicycle has started a recycling programme, collecting unused costumes that would have been dumped or burned by masquerade bands, which use new costume designs every year.

Carnicycle also puts up collection bins at hotels and other venues so discarded costumes can be reused.

“Up until last year we collected around 10,000 pieces of costume materials,” Danii told the BBC, describing the arduous task of completely stripping down truckloads of costumes to preserve feathers, beads and other materials for future use.

The salvaged materials are sold to costume designers, ravers, and people in the burlesque industry, who save by buying second hand.

Carnicycle also rents out the large backpack pieces which are a popular part of the costumes worn at Trinidad’s carnival. Their price can run up to $700 (£550), depending on size.

Danii explains that they came up with the idea after hearing revellers complain not just about the expense but also about the weight of the backpack pieces. “‘I’m paying this much money but then it’s heavy and by the time it’s lunch I just want to throw it away’,” Danni recalls people saying.

Carnicycle rents the backpacks to masqueraders long enough so that they can pose for photos, but are freed from carrying their load during the parade.

Danii and Carnicycle’s co-founder Luke Harris – who both hold down full-time jobs in addition to their environmental initiative – are not the only ones dedicating their spare time to making Trinidad’s carnival both fun and eco-friendly

Lawyer Aliyah Clarke and fashion designer Kaleen Sanois started a side business called 2nd Closet – a pop-up thrift shop where people can buy and sell pre-owned clothing.

The two have also been making video tutorials with tips on how to transform costumes into beachwear and outfits for other occasions.

Aliya told the BBC it was something she first did for herself: “After I was finished with my costume I would rip it apart, literally down to the wire, and figure out how to make this into something else to wear outside of carnival.”

Now she is sharing her ideas in a video segment the two millennials have dubbed “Tipsy Tuesday”.

They also offer a closet-sorting service, which involves coming to a person’s home and sorting through unwanted clothing, to rescue items fit for sale at their pop-up thrift shop.

In what Kaleen believes is a testament to the work they have been doing, they were asked to sort the sprawling closet of Machel Montano, a musician known as the “King of Soca” and a superstar in the carnival world.

“Clothes are personal things, especially for somebody like Machel who has so many big moments tied to his pieces,” Kaleen explains.

After sorting through Machel’s shoes and clothes, 2nd Closet organised a two-day pop-up shop, giving people a chance to buy items worn by Machel on stage and in his music videos.

“People came with pictures, and were like ‘I’m looking for this piece’,” Aliyah recalls of fans’ enthusiasm for the second-hand items.

But costumes and outfits are not the only items being recycled to make Trinidad’s festivities more environmentally friendly.

At Fete with the Saints, a party many regard as one of the best of Trinidad’s carnival, food is eaten with biodegradable wooden cutlery and the drinks are poured into reusable cups.

The organisers of the fete – a fundraiser for one of Trinidad and Tobago’s top secondary schools – also hire “bin detectives” to ensure patrons properly sort and dispose their rubbish for recycling.

It is estimated that this year the bin detectives helped to more than double the amount of recyclables captured, compared with the two previous years combined.

“Over the past three years we’ve actually prevented over one million single-use plastics from entering the landfill, I think maybe over five tonnes of glass,” says Vandana Mangroo, co-founder of Close the Loop Caribbean, a company which started working with the organisers of Fete with the Saints in 2023 to make the event more sustainable.

Joseph Hadad, co-chairman of the party’s organising committee, says that those behind the event knew that their efforts to make it greener would “add some layer of costs and more labour”. But he is adamant “it worked” and insists that the party spirit has not been dampened.

These green efforts are being welcomed by patrons such as Roland Riley, who hailed it as “a good initiative by Fete with the Saints to go that route”.

Sign up here to receive our new weekly newsletter highlighting uplifting stories and remarkable people from around the world.

The US vice-president has sparked a row with his comments about a potential peacekeeping force in Ukraine.

UK opposition politicians accused JD Vance of disrespecting British forces after he said a US stake in Ukraine’s economy was a “better security guarantee than 20,000 troops from some random country that hasn’t fought a war in 30 or 40 years”.

The UK and France have said they would be willing to put troops on the ground in Ukraine as part of a peace deal.

Vance has since insisted he did not “even mention the UK or France”, adding that both had “fought bravely alongside the US over the last 20 years, and beyond”.

However, he did not specify which country or countries he was referring to.

In a post on social media, Vance added: “But let’s be direct: there are many countries who are volunteering (privately or publicly) support who have neither the battlefield experience nor the military equipment to do anything meaningful.”

So far only the UK and France have publicly committed troops towards policing any potential peace deal in Ukraine, although Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has previously said a “number of countries” have agreed to.

Vance’s comments came as the US paused military aid to Ukraine, following an explosive spat between President Donald Trump and Volodymyr Zelensky in the Oval Office last week.

Zelensky left the White House before a proposed deal on sharing Ukrainian minerals with American companies could be signed.

Speaking about the proposal, Vance told Fox News: “The very best security guarantee is to give Americans economic upside in the future of Ukraine.

“That is a way better security guarantee than 20,000 troops from some random country that hasn’t fought a war in 30 or 40 years.”

Sir Keir has said US security guarantees – such as air cover – will be needed to deter Vladimir Putin from invading Ukraine again, if there is a deal to end the war.

However, Trump has so far refused to pledge this, instead arguing that US workers in Ukraine as part of a minerals deal could provide such assurances.

Earlier, Vance’s original comments had drawn criticism from UK opposition politicians.

Conservative shadow defence secretary James Cartlidge pointed out both the UK and France deployed forces alongside the US in Afghanistan, adding: “It’s deeply disrespectful to ignore such service and sacrifice.”

Asked about Vance’s comments later, Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch said the vice-president did not call Britain a “random country”.

“A lot of people are getting carried away. They’re saying loads of things and getting quite animated. Let’s keep cool heads,” she said.

Reform UK leader Nigel Farage said Vance was “wrong, wrong, wrong”, adding that the UK “stood by America” for 20 years in Afghanistan.

Liberal Democrat defence spokesperson Helen Maguire, a former captain in the Royal Military Police who served in Iraq, urged the UK’s ambassador to the US, Peter Mandelson, to call on Vance to apologise for the comments.

“JD Vance is erasing from history the hundreds of British troops who gave their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan,” she said.

“I saw first hand how American and British soldiers fought bravely together shoulder to shoulder. Six of my own regiment, the Royal Military Police, didn’t return home from Iraq. This is a sinister attempt to deny that reality.”

Conservative MP Ben Obese-Jecty, a former British Army officer who fought in Iraq and Afghanistan, said: “The disrespect shown by the new US vice-president to the sacrifices of our service personnel is unacceptable.”

Speaking after Vance posted on social media to defend his comments, Obese-Jecty told BBC Two’s Politics Live programme: “It’s difficult to see who he was talking about, if he wasn’t talking about Britain and France.”

He called on the vice-president to clarify which countries he was referring to, and to apologise, adding that Vance had caused “real offence”.

Downing Street refused to be drawn on whether the prime minister found the comments insulting or disrespectful, but said he was “full of admiration for all British troops who have served, for instance in Iraq and Afghanistan”.

The UK joined the US invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001, following the 9/11 attacks, with France also sending forces to the country.

More than 150,000 British personnel have served in Afghanistan over the last 20 years, with the final troops withdrawing in 2021.

The UK was also part of a US-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003, with British forces in the country peaking at 46,000.

Sign up for our Politics Essential newsletter to read top political analysis, gain insight from across the UK and stay up to speed with the big moments. It’ll be delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

US President Donald Trump has imposed tariffs on Canada and Mexico in a move that threatens to spark a trade war between America and its neighbours.

Goods entering the US from Canada and Mexico will now be slapped with a 25% charge. Canada has announced tariffs of its own in response and Mexico has said it will also retaliate to the measures.

The three trade partners have deeply integrated economies and supply chains, with an estimated $2bn (£1.6bn) worth of manufactured goods crossing the borders daily.

Trump says he wants to protect American industry, but many economists warn such tariffs could lead to prices rising for consumers in the US.

That’s because the tax is paid by the domestic company importing the goods, who may choose to pass the cost on to customers directly, or to reduce imports, which would mean fewer products available.

So what could get more expensive?

Cars will probably go up in price – by about $3,000 according to TD Economics.

That’s because parts cross the US, Canadian and Mexican borders multiple times before a vehicle is assembled.

Many well-known car brands, including Audi, BMW, Ford, General Motors and Honda trade parts and vehicles across the three countries.

As a result of higher taxes paid on the importing of parts to build the cars, it is likely the costs will be passed on to customers.

“Suffice it to say that disrupting these trends through tariffs… would come with significant costs,” said Andrew Foran, an economist at TD Economics.

He added “uninterrupted free trade” in the car-making sector had “existed for decades”, which had led to lower prices for consumers.

• Trump agrees to pause tariffs on Canada and Mexico
• What are tariffs and will prices go up?

Popular Mexican beers Modelo and Corona could get more expensive for US customers if the American companies importing them pass on the increased import taxes.

However, it’s also possible that rather than passing on the cost increase, firms could just import less.

Modelo became the number one beer brand in the US in 2023, and remains in the top spot, for now.

It’s more complex when it comes to spirits. The sector has been largely free of tariffs since the 1990s. Industry bodies from the US, Canada and Mexico issued a joint statement in advance of the tariffs being announced saying they were “deeply concerned”.

They say that certain brands, such as Bourbon, Tennessee whiskey, tequila and Canadian whisky are “recognized as distinctive products and can only be produced in their designated countries”.

So given the production of these drinks cannot simply be moved, supplies might be impacted, leading to price rises. The trade bodies also highlighted that many companies own different spirit brands in all three countries.

The US imports about a third of its softwood lumber from Canada each year, and that key building material would be hit by Trump’s suggested tariffs. Trump has said the US has “more lumber than we ever use”.

However, the National Association of Home Builders has urged the president to exempt building materials from the proposed tariffs “because of their harmful effect on housing affordability”.

The industry group has “serious concerns” that the tariffs on lumber could increase the cost of building homes – which are mostly made out of wood in the US – and also put off developers building new homes.

“Consumers end up paying for the tariffs in the form of higher home prices,” the NAHB said.

It’s not just lumber from Canada that could be affected by tariffs.

There is now a second threat looming for most lumber and timber imports into the US, regardless of their country of origin.

On 1 March Trump ordered an investigation into whether the US should either place additional tariffs on most lumber and timber imports, regardless of their country of origin, or create incentives to boost domestic production. Findings are due towards the end of the year.

When it comes to the trade war with Canada, the “most obvious” household impact would be on the price of Canadian maple syrup, according to Thomas Sampson, associate professor of economics at the London School of Economics.

Canada’s billion-dollar maple syrup industry accounts for 75% of the world’s entire maple syrup production.

The majority of the sweet staple – around 90% – is produced in the province of Quebec, where the world’s sole strategic reserve of maple syrup was set up 24 years ago.

“That maple syrup is going to become more expensive. And that’s a direct price increase that households will face,” Mr Sampson said.

“If I buy goods that are domestically produced in the US, but that are produced using inputs from Canada, the price of those goods is also going to go up,” he added.

Canada is America’s largest foreign supplier of crude oil. According to the most recent official trade figures, 61% of oil imported into the US between January and November last year came from Canada.

While 25% has been slapped on Canadian goods imported to the US, its energy faces a lower 10% tariff.

Now the US doesn’t have a shortage of oil, but the type its refineries are designed to process means it depends on so-called “heavier” – i.e. thicker – crude oil from mostly Canada and some from Mexico.

“Many refineries need heavier crude oil to maximize flexibility of gasoline, diesel and jet fuel production,” according to the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers.

That means if Canada decided in retaliation to any US tariffs to reduce crude oil exports, that could lead to prices rising at the petrol pumps.

One food import that American consumers could see a significant price increase in is avocados.

Grown primarily in Mexico due to its warm, humid climate, Mexican avocados make up nearly 90% of the US avocado market each year.

However, if tariffs come into force, the US Agriculture Department has warned that the cost of avocados – along with popular avocado-based dishes like guacamole – could surge.

The Academy Awards have taken place in Los Angeles, with Anora scooping the most honours, while Conclave, The Brutalist, Wicked and Emilia Pérez also took prizes.

Here is the full list of winners.

Best picture

• WINNER: Anora
• The Brutalist
• A Complete Unknown
• Conclave
• Dune: Part Two
• Emilia Pérez
• I’m Still Here
• Nickel Boys
• The Substance
• Wicked

Best actress

• WINNER: Mikey Madison – Anora
• Cynthia Erivo – Wicked
• Karla Sofía Gascón – Emilia Pérez
• Demi Moore – The Substance
• Fernanda Torres – I’m Still Here

Best actor

• WINNER: Adrien Brody – The Brutalist
• Timothée Chalamet – A Complete Unknown
• Colman Domingo – Sing Sing
• Ralph Fiennes – Conclave
• Sebastian Stan – The Apprentice

Best supporting actress

• WINNER: Zoe Saldaña – Emilia Pérez
• Monica Barbaro – A Complete Unknown
• Ariana Grande – Wicked
• Felicity Jones – The Brutalist
• Isabella Rossellini – Conclave

Best supporting actor

• WINNER: Kieran Culkin – A Real Pain
• Yura Borisov – Anora
• Edward Norton – A Complete Unknown
• Guy Pearce – The Brutalist
• Jeremy Strong – The Apprentice

Best director

• WINNER: Sean Baker – Anora
• Jacques Audiard – Emilia Pérez
• Brady Corbet – The Brutalist
• Coralie Fargeat – The Substance
• James Mangold – A Complete Unknown

Best international feature

• WINNER: I’m Still Here – Brazil
• The Girl with the Needle – Denmark
• Emilia Pérez – France
• The Seed of the Sacred Fig – Germany
• Flow – Latvia

Best animated feature

• WINNER: Flow
• Inside Out 2
• Memoir of a Snail
• Wallace & Gromit: Vengeance Most Fowl
• The Wild Robot

Best original screenplay

• WINNER: Anora – Sean Baker
• The Brutalist – Brady Corbet and Mona Fastvold
• A Real Pain – Jesse Eisenberg
• September 5 – Moritz Binder, Tim Fehlbaum, Alex David
• The Substance – Coralie Fargeat

Best adapted screenplay

• WINNER: Conclave – Peter Straughan
• A Complete Unknown – Jay Cocks and James Mangold
• Emilia Pérez – Jacques Audiard
• Nickel Boys – RaMell Ross and Joslyn Barnes
• Sing Sing – Clint Bentley and Greg Kwedar

Best original song

• WINNER: El Mal – Emilia Pérez
• Never Too Late – Elton John: Never Too Late
• Mi Camino – Emilia Pérez
• Like A Bird – Sing Sing
• The Journey – The Six Triple Eight

Best original score

• WINNER: The Brutalist
• Conclave
• Emilia Pérez
• Wicked
• The Wild Robot

Best documentary feature

• WINNER: No Other Land
• Black Box Diaries
• Porcelain War
• Soundtrack to a Coup d’Etat
• Sugarcane

Best costume design

• WINNER: Wicked
• Nosferatu
• A Complete Unknown
• Conclave
• Gladiator II

Best make-up and hairstyling

• WINNER: The Substance
• A Different Man
• Emilia Pérez
• Nosferatu
• Wicked

Best production design

• WINNER: Wicked
• The Brutalist
• Dune: Part Two
• Nosferatu
• Conclave

Best sound

• WINNER: Dune: Part Two
• A Complete Unknown
• Emilia Pérez
• Wicked
• The Wild Robot

Best film editing

• WINNER: Anora
• The Brutalist
• Conclave
• Emilia Pérez
• Wicked

Best cinematography

• WINNER: The Brutalist
• Dune: Part Two
• Emilia Pérez
• Maria
• Nosferatu

Best visual effects

• WINNER: Dune: Part Two
• Alien: Romulus
• Better Man
• Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes
• Wicked

Best live action short

• WINNER: I’m Not a Robot
• Anuja
• The Last Ranger
• A Lien
• The Man Who Could Not Remain Silent

Best animated short

• WINNER: In the Shadow of the Cypress
• Beautiful Men
• Magic Candies
• Wander to Wonder
• Yuck!

Best documentary short

• WINNER: The Only Girl in the Orchestra
• Death by Numbers
• I Am Ready, Warden
• Incident
• Instruments of a Beating Heart

More on the Oscars 2025:

• LIVE: Follow BBC coverage of the ceremony
• RECAP: How the Oscars unfolded this year
• BEST MOMENTS: A payback kiss, a surprise win, and defying gravity
• WATCH: Highlights of the show in 180 seconds
• FASHION: See the best looks from the red carpet
• MORE: How to watch the winning films

“China will fight to the bitter end of any trade war,” the foreign ministry spokesperson in Beijing declared, after China announced tit-for-tat tariffs on agricultural imports from the US.

This came within minutes of a new 10% US levy on Chinese imports that came into effect on Tuesday – which adds to existing tariffs both from Trump’s first term and those announced last month.

But China’s latest retaliatory measures are an opening swing, not a direct punch.

It shows some strength, and it has the potential to sting parts of the United States, but also leaves room to negotiate or escalate if necessary.

“We advise the US to put away it’s bullying face and return to the right track of dialogue and co-operation before it is too late,” foreign ministry spokesperson Lin Jian added.

This is the second round of tariffs the two countries have imposed on each other since February. But this time China is hitting Donald Trump where it has the potential to hurt – by targeting farmers, who are some of his core supporters.

Almost 78% of farming-dependent counties in the US endorsed Mr Trump in 2024.

China is one of their biggest customers for produce such as chicken, beef, pork and soybeans and now all those products will face a 10-15% tax which will come into effect on 10 March.

“The tariffs are broadly negative for US agricultural markets. It is going to have a bearish influence on prices. There are enough corn and soybean supplies in the world for China to make a switch, it is more of an issue for the US, because 30% of US soybeans still go to China,” Ole Houe, of Ikon commodities, told Reuters news agency.

Beijing may hope that this will apply some pressure on the Trump administration ahead of any potential negotiations.

The latest announcements raise the prospect of an all-out trade war between the world’s top two economies and in various ministry statements, China is making two things very clear.

Firstly, it is prepared to continue to fight.

“Pressure, coercion and threats are not the right way to deal with the Chinese side,” said Mr Lin.

But secondly, it is also willing to talk.

Beijing is not ramping up the rhetoric or the tariffs in the same way it did in 2018, during the last Trump administration. Back then it imposed a tariff of 25% on US soybeans.

“China’s tariffs impact a limited number of US products, and remain below the 20% level. This is by design. China’s government is signalling that they do not want to escalate, they want to de-escalate,” according to Even Pay, an analyst with Trivium China.

The prospect of talks was raised last month.

The White House said there would be a call between President Xi and Donald Trump. That never happened.

So will these talks take place and who will make the first move?

China is unlikely to want to go first. It will not want to be seen kowtowing to Washington.

And in contrast to Canada and Mexico, Beijing has not announced new measures to target the flow of fentanyl. It simply repeated past statements that fentanyl is a “US problem” and that China has the strictest drug policies in the world.

On Tuesday, the State Council released a White Paper entitled “Controlling Fentanyl-related substances – China’s contribution.”

It outlines the measures Beijing says it has already made to crack down on Fentanyl-related crimes and the precursor chemicals used to make the drug. It adds that it is “diligently fulfilling international drug control obligations”.

So, while China hasn’t picked up the phone to Washington, this document forms part of the country’s message which appears to be saying – we are already doing what we can on fentanyl.

Despite stating that China “will not yield”, these latest tariffs are bound to sting.

The cumulative 20% tax on all Chinese goods comes on top of a slew of tariffs Trump imposed in his first term on tens of billions of dollars of Chinese imports. And China’s population is already concerned about a sluggish economy.

Thousands of delegates are gathering in the capital this week to take part in an annual parliamentary session, most of which will focus on the economy.

House prices are still falling, and youth unemployment remains stubbornly high. A potential trade war with the US could prompt more money worries for businesses and consumers across the country at a time when the Communist Party wants people to spend to help the economy to grow.

But Beijing will also see an opportunity as Donald Trump sows uncertainty among his international allies.

It can partly place the blame for any further economic woes at Washington’s door and state that it’s the fault of the US for starting a trade war.

The state media outlet Xinhua has in recent days released a series of parodies poking fun at a United States that is prepared to tax its allies and neighbours. The skits portray Washington as a bully echoing the words coming from the leaders of Canada and Mexico.

At the same time, China’s Commerce Ministry has reiterated that it is prepared to work with other countries around the world to combat Mr Trump’s tariffs.

Beijing appears to be looking for potential allies in this trade war while also trying to cast Washington as a troublemaker who is prepared to target friends and foes alike.

All at a time when Donald Trump’s ‘America First’ doctrine has many in Europe and the UK wondering if the US-led world order is already in doubt.

The world’s largest iceberg has run aground in shallow waters off the remote British island of South Georgia, home to millions of penguins and seals.

The iceberg, which is about twice the size of Greater London, appears to be stuck and should start breaking up on the island’s south-west shores.

Fisherman fear they will be forced to battle with vast chunks of ice, and it could affect some macaroni penguins feeding in the area.

But scientists in Antarctica say that huge amounts of nutrients are locked inside the ice, and that as it melts, it could create an explosion of life in the ocean.

“It’s like dropping a nutrient bomb into the middle of an empty desert,” says Prof Nadine Johnston from British Antarctic Survey.

Ecologist Mark Belchier who advises the South Georgia government said: “If it breaks up, the resulting icebergs are likely to present a hazard to vessels as they move in the local currents and could restrict vessels’ access to local fishing grounds.”

The stranding is the latest twist in an almost 40-year story that began when the mega chunk of ice broke off the Filchner–Ronne Ice Shelf in 1986.

We have tracked its route on satellite pictures since December when it finally broke free after being trapped in an ocean vortex.

As it moved north through warmer waters nicknamed iceberg alley, it remained remarkably intact. For a few days, it even appeared to spin on the spot, before speeding up in mid-February travelling at about 20 miles (30km) a day.

“The future of all icebergs is that they will die. It’s very surprising to see that A23a has lasted this long and only lost about a quarter of its area,” said Prof Huw Griffiths, speaking to BBC News from the Sir David Attenborough polar research ship currently in Antarctica.

On Saturday the 300m tall ice colossus struck the shallow continental shelf about 50 miles (80km) from land and now appears to be firmly lodged.

“It’s probably going to stay more or less where it is, until chunks break off,” says Prof Andrew Meijers from British Antarctic Survey.

It is showing advancing signs of decay. Once 3,900 sq km (1,500 sq miles) in size, it has been steadily shrinking, shedding huge amounts of water as it moves into warmer seas. It is now an estimated 3,234 sq km.

“Instead of a big, sheer pristine box of ice, you can see caverns under the edges,” Prof Meijers says.

Tides will now be lifting it up and down, and where it is touching the continental shelf, it will grind backwards and forwards, eroding the rock and ice.

“If the ice underneath is rotten – eroded by salt – it’ll crumble away under stress and maybe drift somewhere more shallow,” says Prof Meijers.

But where the ice is touching the shelf, there are thousands of tiny creatures like coral, sea slugs and sponge.

“Their entire universe is being bulldozed by a massive slab of ice scraping along the sea floor,” says Prof Griffiths.

That is catastrophic in the short-term for these species, but he says that it is a natural part of the life cycle in the region.

“Where it is destroying something in one place, it’s providing nutrients and food in other places,” he adds.

There had been fears for the islands’ larger creatures. In 2004 an iceberg in a different area called the Ross Sea affected the breeding success of penguins, leading to a spike in deaths.

But experts now think that most of South Georgia’s birds and animals will escape that fate.

Some Macaroni penguins that forage on the shelf where the iceberg is stuck could be affected, says Peter Fretwell at the British Antarctic Survey.

The iceberg melts freshwater into salt water, reducing the amount of food including krill (a small crustacean) that penguins eat.

The birds could move to other feeding grounds, he explains, but that would put them in competition with other creatures.

The ice could block harbours or disrupt sailing when the fishing season starts in April.

“This will be the most ice from an iceberg we will have ever dealt with in a fishing season, but we are well-prepared and resourced,” says Andrew Newman from Argos Froyanes.

But scientists working in Antarctica currently are also discovering the incredible contributions that icebergs make to ocean life.

Prof Griffiths and Prof Johnston are working on the Sir David Attenborough ship collecting evidence of what their team believe is a huge flow of nutrients from ice in Antarctica across Earth.

Particles and nutrients from around the world get trapped into the ice, which is then slowly released into the ocean, the scientists explain.

• How mega icebergs change the ocean

“Without ice, we wouldn’t have these ecosystems. They are some of the most productive in the world, and support huge numbers of species and individual animals, and feed the biggest animals in the world like the blue whale,” says Prof Griffiths.

A sign that this nutrient release has started around A23a will be when vast phytoplankton blooms blossom around the iceberg. It would look like a vast green halo around the ice, visible from satellite pictures over the next weeks and months.

The life cycle of icebergs is a natural process, but climate change is expected to create more icebergs as Antarctica warms and becomes more unstable.

More could break away from the continent’s vast ice sheets and melt at quicker rates, disrupting patterns of wildlife and fishing in the region.

Sign up for our Future Earth newsletter to get exclusive insight on the latest climate and environment news from the BBC’s Climate Editor Justin Rowlatt, delivered to your inbox every week. Outside the UK? Sign up to our international newsletter here.

Canada has responded to new tariffs from the US with retaliatory import taxes of its own – after warning of an “existential threat” from its neighbour.

US President Donald Trump has imposed 25% tariffs on products entering the US from Canada and Mexico – which became effective overnight – and has increased a levy on goods coming from China.

Canada has responded with tariffs on tens of billions of dollars’ worth of products imported from the US. Its provincial leaders have suggested going further.

Trump says he is protecting US jobs and manufacturing, and trying to prevent illegal migration and drug trafficking. But experts say he is likely to push up prices for consumers in the US and abroad.

The three countries targeted are America’s top trading partners, and the tit-for-tat measures have also prompted fears of a wider trade war.

Tariffs are a tax on imports from other countries, designed to protect against cheaper competition from elsewhere and boost businesses and jobs at home.

In addition to the 25% tariffs on products entering from Canada and Mexico, Trump is also charging a 10% tariff on Canadian energy.

Trump’s team have characterised tariffs as a key negotiating tool. The US president wants to clamp down on the powerful opioid fentanyl, and has variously blamed the other countries for the drug’s arrival in the US.

A statement from Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said there was “no justification” for the new US tariffs, because less than 1% of the fentanyl intercepted at the US border came from Canada.

Trudeau’s words were echoed by Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum, who said there was “no motive, no reason, no justification” for Trump’s move. Speaking on Tuesday, she vowed to issue her own “tariff and non-tariff measures” – but said further details would be given on Sunday.

In his statement, Trudeau noted that his country had taken steps to further limit the flow of fentanyl during a month-long period in which Trump’s new tariffs were paused.

• Follow live reaction to the new tariffs
• What are tariffs and why is Trump using them?
• Analysis: Trump’s tariffs risk voter backlash
• Six things that could get more expensive for Americans
• How does fentanyl get into the US?

Anticipating the start of the new American tariffs, Trudeau’s statement outlined Canada’s retaliatory measures – under which a 25% tariff will be imposed on C$155bn (US$107bn; £84bn) of American goods:

• A tariff on C$30bn worth of goods will become effective immediately
• Tariffs on the remaining C$125bn on American products will become effective in 21 days’ time

Earlier on Monday, Foreign Minister Melanie Joly told reporters that Trump’s tariffs represented an “existential threat to us”, because jobs were at risk.

Immigration Minister Marc Miller warned that as many as a million jobs in Canada were at risk if the tariffs were implemented, given how intertwined trade was between the two countries.

“We can’t replace an economy that is responsible for 80% of our trade overnight and it’s going to hurt,” he said on Monday.

Speaking to the AFP news agency, a car manufacturing employee in the Canadian province of Ontario said people were indeed “pretty scared” of being laid off. “I just bought my first house,” Joel Soleski said. “I might have to look for work elsewhere.”

The sector is one that could be badly affected by the new tariffs regime in North America. Car parts may cross US-Canada border several times during the manufacturing process, and so might be taxed on multiple occasions.

The tariffs were called “reckless” by the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, whose president Candace Laing cautioned that the move would force both Canada and the US towards “recession, job losses and economic disaster”.

Ms Laing warned that the tariffs would also increase prices for Americans, and force US businesses to find alternate suppliers that she said “are less reliable than Canadian ones”.

Canadian provincial leaders have vowed their own responses. Ontario Premier Doug Ford mooted the possibility of cutting off Canadian electricity supplies and exports of high-grade nickel to the US.

Canada exports enough electricity to power some six million American homes.

“If they want to try to annihilate Ontario, I will do anything, including cutting off their energy, with a smile on my face,” Ford told NBC on Monday.

Meanwhile China – which now faces tariffs of 20% after Trump doubled an earlier levy – has vowed to fight any trade war to the “bitter end”. It has announced its own counter-measures – including tariffs on a range of US agricultural and food products.

India faces a crucial choice in modernising its air force – but is a cutting-edge American fighter jet the answer?

During his Washington visit last month, Prime Minister Narendra Modi met US President Donald Trump, who announced they were “paving the way” for India to acquire F-35s, a jet primarily sold to close allies and partners.

The F-35 is a “fifth-generation” multi-role fighter jet with advanced sensors, AI-driven combat systems and seamless data-sharing capabilities. Built to evade radar, it’s the most sophisticated jet in the skies – but at $80m a pop, also one of the most expensive. (Stealth is a key characteristic of a “fifth-generation” fighter.)

Many believe that with its fighter squadrons dwindling and China’s military growing, India faces a high-stakes choice: splurge on the state-of-the-art but costly F-35 from the US or strengthen defence ties with Russia through local production of its most advanced stealth fighter jet Sukhoi Su-57.

Experts believe the reality is more nuanced, with the US-Russia “dogfight” largely a media hype – fuelled more recently by the appearance of both jets at Asia’s biggest air show, Aero India, in the southern city of Bengaluru last month.

Trump’s F-35 offer seems more “symbolic” than practical, driven by his push to sell US weapons, according to Ashley J Tellis, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Integrating a “fifth generation” aircraft into the India air force (IAF) plans – centred on the homegrown Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA) and more Rafales – would be challenging, especially without co-production rights. Being developed by India’s Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO), the AMCA is India’s own stealth fighter.

“It is unlikely that the F-35 will be offered for co-production to India – any acquisition will likely be a straightforward sale. This is unlikely, among other things, to sit well with Modi’s emphasis on making in India and the significant end-user monitoring in the event of an F-35 sale will likely not be welcomed by India either,” Mr Tellis told me.

India’s challenges with the F-35 are its steep cost, heavy maintenance and operational issues – the jet’s availability is around 51% for the US Air Force, according to security expert Stephen Bryen, author of a Substack column, Weapons and Strategy. “The question is whether India is willing to invest billions of rupees in the F-35, knowing it could do better buying the Russian jet.”

But many dismiss the Su-57 as a real contender, noting that India exited the decade-long programme to co-produce the jet with Russia in 2018 over disputes on technology transfer, cost-sharing and specifications.

To be sure, India’s air force is ageing and short on fighter jets.

It operates 31 fighter and combat squadrons – mostly Russian and Soviet-era aircraft – far below the sanctioned 42. A key challenge is finding a long-term replacement for the Sukhoi-30, the IAF’s versatile workhorse from Russia.

Christopher Clary, a political scientist at the University of Albany, recently pointed to unsettling data from the ISS Military Balance for India: between 2014 and 2024, China added 435 fighter and ground attack aircraft, Pakistan gained 31, while India’s fleet shrank by 151.

India’s planned fighter jet expansion is largely homegrown, with plans to acquire over 500 jets, mostly light combat aircraft.

Orders for 83 Tejas Mark 1A – an agile multirole homegrown fighter – are confirmed, with another 97 expected to be ordered shortly. Meanwhile, the heavier, more advanced Mark 2 is in development. The homegrown stealth jet remains at least a decade away.

India also has plans to buy 114 multirole fighter jets under the IAF’s $20bn Multi-Role Fighter Aircraft (MRFA) programme requiring foreign jets to be built in India under a transfer of technology deal – its biggest hurdle.

Stalled since 2019, the Indian government is looking at a transparent and non-controversial procurement process after it faced criticism over the acquisition of 36 Rafales in a government-to-government deal. Five jets are in contention, with Rafale leading as it is already in service with the IAF.

Experts say India’s air force modernisation faces three key hurdles: funding, delays and dependence on foreign jets.

Defence spending has shrunk in real terms. The foreign fighter jets programme risks a drawn-out fate. While India prioritises home-made, DRDO’s delays force stopgap foreign purchases, creating a repeating cycle. Breaking it requires delivering a capable homegrown jet on time. Deliveries are also delayed due to a holdup in supplies of General Electric’s F-404 engines for the jets.

A key challenge is the mismatch between the defence ministry’s vision and the IAF’s needs, says Rahul Bhatia, an analyst at Eurasia Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm.

The Tejas Mark 1 faced early scepticism from the air force, leading to upgrades like the Mark 1A and Mark 2. “But the decades-long development cycles frustrate the armed forces, especially as their requirements keep evolving as newer technologies become available, which in turn contributes to further delays,” Mr Bhatia told me.

Even the Indian Air Force chief AP Singh has made no secret of his frustration over delays.

“I can take a vow that I will not buy anything from outside or I will wait for whatever is developed in India, but it may not be possible if it does not come at that pace [on time],” Air Marshall Singh told a seminar recently.

“At the moment, we all know that we are very badly off when it comes to numbers [of fighters]. And the numbers which were promised are also coming a little slow. So, there will be a requirement to go and look for something which can quickly fill up these voids,” he said, referring to the delayed Tejas Mark 1A deliveries, which were supposed to begin last February but have yet to start.

India’s clear priority is a homegrown stealth fighter, with more than $1bn already committed to its development. “A foreign stealth jet would only be considered if India’s immediate threat perception shifts,” says Mr Bhatia. China has two so-called stealth fighters – the J-20 and J-35 – but they likely fall short of US standards.

Most experts believe India will choose neither the American nor Russian fighters. “In the short term, as seen in past conflicts, emergency buys may fill gaps. The medium-term focus is co-production, but the long game is clear – building its own,” says Mr Bhatia.

For India, the future of airpower isn’t just about buying jets – it’s about building them, ideally with a strong Western partner. But for that vision to succeed, India must deliver its homegrown fighters on time.

US President Donald Trump is set to deliver a speech to Congress on Tuesday evening, in which he is expected to discuss new US trade tariffs and the war in Ukraine.

The televised address, scheduled for 21:00 EST (02:00 GMT), will be Trump’s first major speech since his return to the White House more than six weeks ago.

Its theme will be the “Renewal of the American Dream”, Fox News reports, and it will have four sections: Trump’s accomplishments so far in his second presidency, the economy, funding for border security and Trump’s plans for global peace.

It comes after Trump imposed sweeping tariffs on Canada and Mexico, prompting a fall in stock markets, while pausing all US aid to Ukraine.

Trump teased the speech in a post on his Truth Social network on Monday, writing: “TOMORROW NIGHT WILL BE BIG. I WILL TELL IT LIKE IT IS.”

White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt said it would be “must-see TV”.

She told Fox News that the address “will celebrate his extraordinarily successful first month in office while outlining his bold, ambitious and common sense vision for the future”.

• Analysis: Trump’s tariffs risk economic turbulence – and voter backlash

Since returning to the White House in January, Trump has drastically upended US policy on key foreign policy and trade issues.

He has also created a Department of Government Efficiency (Doge), fronted by tech titan Elon Musk, to dramatically shrink the size of the federal government in a bid to cut costs and balance the books. Doge has since instructed controversial mass layoffs in the federal workforce across departments.

Democratic lawmakers have invited several workers who were fired as a result of Doge cuts to Tuesday’s address.

Trump’s speech will be followed by a rebuttal from Democrats, which will be delivered by newly-elected Michigan senator Elissa Slotkin. Chuck Schumer, the Senate minority leader, said Slotkin would “offer a bold vision of hope, unity, and a brighter future for everyone, not just the wealthy few at the top”.

While Tuesday’s speech appears to be like a traditional State of the Union (SOTU) address, it is expected to be slightly different.

SOTU addresses are typically given by the president annually in late January or early February, and serve as an update on events of the previous year as well as future agendas.

Tuesday’s remarks, however, are what is called a joint address to Congress – a formal speech to all US lawmakers that a president could deliver at any time to discuss matters of national importance.

The practice of calling for a joint address to Congress at the beginning of a presidential term was pioneered by Ronald Reagan, and has been carried out by every US president since.

Stock markets around the world fell following the introduction of tariffs by President Donald Trump on goods entering the US from China, Canada and Mexico.

Trump has imposed 25% tariffs on imports from Canada and Mexico, and 20% tariffs against China.

Canada and China announced their own import taxes on US goods, while Mexico said it had “contingency plans”, sparking fears of full-blown trade war.

The three major stock market indexes in the US sank following the news, while the FTSE 100 index of the UK’s biggest publicly-listed companies opened lower on Tuesday and stock markets in Asia were also down.

Analysts have warned tariffs could push up prices for US households and could also have a knock-on effect on consumers across the world, including in the UK.

The chief executive of US retailer Target warned shoppers were likely to see price increases over the next couple of days.

Brian Cornell told CNBC prices for foods including strawberries, avocados and bananas could rise.

Ford chief executive Jim Farley warned last month the business “could handle two weeks of tariffs”.

He told Bloomberg: “We could see billions of billions of dollars of pressure on the industry, lost jobs, lots of impacts to communities.”

Trump threatened to impose the tariffs, which are a tax added to a product when it enters a country – on Canada, Mexico and China in response to what claims is the unacceptable flow of illegal drugs and illegal immigrants into the US.

But Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said his country was responsible for less than 1% of fentanyl entering the US and would retaliate with 25% tariffs on $150bn worth of US goods.

“There is no justification for [the US’s] actions…Canada will not let this unjustified decision go unanswered,” Trudeau said in a statement on Monday.

He said Canada would first target $30bn worth of products, and target the remaining $125bn over 21 days.

Any fresh duties Canada imposes will be in place “until the US trade action is withdrawn”, he said, adding that his country would pursue “non-tariff measures” should US tariffs not cease – without specifying what those measures were.

China swiftly announced its own counter measures, which include 10-15% tariffs on some US agricultural goods, including wheat, corn, beef and soybeans. China is the US’s biggest buyer of these goods.

“If the United States… persists in waging a tariff war, a trade war, or any other kind of war, the Chinese side will fight them to the bitter end,” foreign ministry spokesman Lin Jian said.

Before the US tariffs on Mexican imports came into force, President Claudia Sheinbaum said her country had contingency plans.

“In this situation, we need composure, serenity, and patience. We have Plan A, Plan B, Plan C, and even Plan D,” she said.

Sheinbaum said she would speak more about Mexico’s response on Tuesday.

In the US, the Dow Jones closed 1.5% lower and the S&P 500 ended the day down 1.8% on Monday, while in Asia on Tuesday, the Nikkei 225 closed 1.2% lower and the Hang Seng Index ended down 0.3%.

London’s FTSE 100 was lower in early trading while the main stock exchanges in Germany and France also fell.

Trump has argued tariffs will boost US manufacturing and protect jobs, as well as raising tax revenues and grow the economy.

However, such measures can have detrimental effects on both consumers and businesses – including the ones they set out to protect.

Shoppers can be the ones who bear the bulk of tariffs in the form of higher prices, if they’re passed on, as well as less choice.

Meanwhile, tariffs tend to trigger retaliation from targeted countries, disadvantaging domestic businesses looking to export goods, meaning the measures can ultimately hold back trade, jobs being created and economic growth.

Goods worth some $2bn cross the borders of the US, Canada and Mexico each day and their economies are deeply integrated.

With the introduction of tariffs on that cross-border trade, companies importing goods might decide to pass on some or all of the extra costs onto consumers by putting prices up.

They could also reduce imports, which would mean fewer products and therefore higher demand, which could also push up prices.

Andrew Wilson, from the International Chamber of Commerce, said: “What we’re seeing is the biggest effective increase in US tariffs since the 1940s – with severe economic risks attached to that.”

“The initial market moves are entirely reflective that we’re now entering into a very risky scenario for global trade and for the global economy,” he told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme

He said Yale University had predicted these measures could cost US households in the region of $2,000 in this year alone.

Analysis from TD Economics has suggested cars could go up in price by about $3,000.

That is because parts cross the US, Canadian and Mexican borders multiple times before a vehicle is assembled.

American consumers could also see the price of avocados go up as Mexican avocados make up nearly 90% of the US avocado market each year.

Canada’s billion-dollar maple syrup industry accounts for 75% of the world’s entire maple syrup production so US households could see prices for the sweet treat rise too.

Ella Hoxha, head of fixed income at Newton Investment Management, told the BBC: “In terms of consumers, you’re more likely looking at, certainly over the short term, increases in prices as companies pass some of those prices onto the consumer.”

Chris Torrens, vice president of the British Chamber of Commerce in China, added: “It’s a huge challenge for British business because of the historical links that the UK and the US have. [We are] Seeing what looks like the dismantling of a transatlantic alliance between the US and Europe.

“But, there is a real sense of hope for a stronger UK-China relationship.”

A reconstruction plan to rival President Donald Trump’s idea for the US to “take over Gaza” and move out more than two million Palestinians is expected to be approved at an emergency summit in the Egyptian capital Cairo.

Egypt has produced another plan with a glossy brochure, 91 pages long and complete with some gleaming Emirati influenced designs, to counter the US scheme which shocked the Arab world and beyond.

Will a “Dubai on the Mediterranean” rise one day from the rubble of Gaza instead of the US’s “Riviera of the Middle East”?

What sets Cairo’s plan apart is that this blueprint is not just about property development; its banners are politics and the rights of Palestinians.

A leak of the draft statement obtained by the BBC underlines it is owned by Arab states and the Palestinians.

It will be “presented by Egypt, in full co-ordination with Palestine and Arab countries, based on studies conducted by the World Bank and the United Nations Development Programme regarding early recovery and reconstruction in Gaza as a comprehensive Arab plan”.

Most critically, it allows more than two million residents of Gaza to hold on to what is left of their lives, including their right to remain on land which generations of their families have called home.

President Trump continues to wonder aloud: “Why wouldn’t they want to move?” His description of Gaza as a “demolition site” underlines how, after almost 16 months of grievous war, the territory lies in utter ruin.

The UN says 90% of homes are damaged or destroyed. All the basics of a life worth living, from schools and hospitals to sewage systems and electricity lines, are shredded.

The leaked draft document does not explicitly refer to President Trump’s plan to “take over” the territory and move the Palestinians out, mainly to neighbouring countries. But it makes clear that moves like that will only trigger more disasters.

“Any malicious attempts to displace Palestinians or annex any part of occupied Palestinian territories would lead to new phases of conflict, undermine stability opportunities, expand conflict into other countries in the region, and pose a clear threat to peace foundations in the Middle East,” it warns.

Ever since the US president suddenly spoke of his plan, there has been huge pressure on Arab states not just to come up with an alternative plan but to prove it can work.

Property developers know presentation matters.

President Trump deepened the shock and anger around his ideas when he posted an AI-generated video of a golden Gaza on his Truth Social account last week.

It featured a shimmering statue of himself, his close ally Elon Musk enjoying snacks on the beach, and he and the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu sunning themselves, shirtless. All to a catchy tune with lines like “Trump Gaza is finally here”.

“They had President Trump in mind,” remarked one Western diplomat who attended a briefing about Egypt’s plan at the foreign ministry in Cairo. “It’s very glossy and very well-prepared.”

Cairo’s reconstruction plans, which the BBC has obtained, with their alluring images of leafy neighbourhoods and grand columned buildings, is said to have drawn on a wide range of expertise, from World Bank professionals on sustainability, to Dubai developers on hotels.

There are also lessons learned from other ravaged cities which rose from the ruins including Hiroshima, Beirut, and Berlin.

And the proposed designs are also influenced by Egypt’s own experience in developing its “New Cairo” – its grand megaproject which has seen a new administrative capital rising from the desert – at great expense.

Who will pay for Gaza’s build is a major issue. Egypt is proposing that an international conference be convened as soon as possible for the “recovery and reconstruction”.

Wealthy Gulf states appear willing to foot some of the colossal bill the UN estimates will be around $50bn (£39bn).

But no-one is ready to invest unless they are absolutely convinced buildings will not come crashing down in another war.

A fragile ceasefire which now seems to be on the brink of collapse will only amplify that hesitation.

“We will hold intensive talks with major donor countries once the plan is adopted,” Egypt’s Foreign Minister, Badr Abdelatty, said on Sunday, underlining a hope that capitals the world over will help come up with the cash.

Another sensitive aspect is who will run Gaza once this current confrontation ends.

A leak of the draft statement, backed up by sources who have also seen the document, say there is a proposal for a transitional arrangement, a committee of technocrats called a “Gaza Management Committee under the umbrella of the Palestinian government”.

Benjamin Netanyahu, who describes President Trump’s Gaza plan as “visionary”, has repeatedly ruled out any future role for Hamas, but also for the Palestinian Authority.

The draft document “urges the United Nations Security Council to deploy international peacekeeping forces that contribute to ensuring security for both Palestinians and Israelis in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.”

Getting approval from Arab leaders for this new plan may be the easy part.

Hamas, which is said to have accepted it will not play a role in running Gaza, still has military and political sway on the ground.

Some Arab states are known to be calling for its complete dismantling; others believe those decisions should be left up to the Palestinians. Hamas itself says disarming is a red line.

As for President Trump, he has said he won’t “force” his ideas on anyone but still insists his plan is the one “that really works”.

A Scottish Sikh man detained in India for seven years on terror charges has been cleared in one of nine cases against him.

Jagtar Singh Johal from Dumbarton was arrested in 2017 in the country’s northern Punjab region weeks after his wedding there.

He has been held in prison ever since, on trial for his alleged role in a series of targeted killings of religious and political figures.

Now a verdict in the District Court in Moga, Punjab, has acquitted him of conspiracy under the country’s anti-terror law and of being a member of a “terrorist gang”.

His legal team say the allegations against Mr Johal in all the cases, for which he faces the death penalty, are close to identical and that the other charges should now be dismissed.

His brother Gurpreet Singh Johal has called on the UK government to secure the 38-year-old’s release.

He told BBC Scotland News: “My brother has had seven years of his life wasted in jail. The UK government needs to bring him home.”

A spokesperson for the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) welcomed the progress in the case.

“The UK government remains committed to working for faster progress on Jagtar’s case, and the FCDO continue to work to support Mr Johal and his family,” it said.

Mr Johal was accused of being a member of a terror group, the Khalistan Liberation Force (KLF), which has carried out attacks in the Punjab region.

The charges against him stated that he travelled to Paris in 2013 and delivered £3,000 to other KLF figures, with the money then used to purchase weapons which were used in a series of murders and attacks against Hindu nationalist and other religious leaders across 2016 and 2017.

His supporters say that in early November 2017, shortly after his wedding, Mr Johal was snatched from the street and driven away by plain clothes officers of the Punjab Police.

They say that in the days following his arrest he was tortured and coerced into signing a false confession to participation in the killings.

His legal representatives also say that the prosecution against him is political due to his activism documenting crimes and atrocities against Sikhs in the Punjab region in the 1980s, and that he has been the victim of an unfair legal process.

The Indian government denies that Mr Johal was mistreated in the custody of the Punjab Police and has said due process has been followed in the case against him.

It has been contacted for its response to the verdict.

Mr Johal’s case has taken seven years to reach this point and has been beset by delays.

The court verdict in Moga marks the most significant development since it began, with a judge ruling that, in one case at least, the charges should not stand and he should be released.

Eight other terror cases remain against Mr Johal.

These will be heard in the courts in Delhi and are brought by the Indian government’s anti-terror branch, the National Investigation Agency.

Mr Johal’s legal representatives say he should now be cleared of all the charges and freed to return to his family in the UK.

His brother said: “The light at the end of the tunnel is now getting brighter.”

The legal team also questioned the evidence presented against him so far.

They said no concrete evidence had been presented against him and that the case was built on the testimony of unreliable witnesses, some of whom have given statements against him only for them to be later recanted in court.

They said a number of witnesses against Mr Johal were declared “hostile” during the proceedings after refusing to stand by the statements they gave to the police, while the prosecution failed to produce other witnesses altogether.

Since his arrest there has been a campaign for Mr Johal’s release and his case has been the subject of diplomatic discussions between the UK and Indian governments.

In May 2022, a UN panel of human rights experts found that his detention was arbitrary, and called for his immediate release.

They concluded Mr Johal was discriminated against “owing to his status as a human rights defender and based on his political activism, religious faith and opinions,” something his family had asserted since his arrest.

West Dunbartonshire MP Douglas McAllister said the case presented a “unique opportunity to secure a resolution with the Indian authorities” and bring Mr Johal home.

“Without decisive diplomatic action, he faces being imprisoned for decades while the remaining trials drag on, despite the complete lack of credible evidence against him,” he said.

Dan Dolan, from human rights campaign group Reprieve, added: “For Jagtar to remain imprisoned and facing a death sentence after this acquittal would be a mockery of justice.”

Stranger Things actor Millie Bobby Brown has criticised recent press articles about her appearance, saying “this isn’t journalism, this is bullying”.

The 21-year-old posted a three-minute video on her Instagram page, in which she called out article headlines and the names of the reporters who wrote them.

Brown has been on the promotion circuit in recent weeks for the press tour of her new movie The Electric State, whilst also making appearances at the SAG and Brit awards.

“I grew up in front of the world and for some reason people can’t seem to grow up with me,” Brown said.

She added: “Instead, they act like I’m supposed to stay frozen in time, like I should still look the way I did on Stranger Things season one. And because I don’t, I’m now a target.”

The articles highlighted by Brown criticise her hair, face, body and style, with some insinuating she looks much older than she is.

“The fact that adult writers are spending their time dissecting my face, my body, my choices, is disturbing,” Brown said.

“That some of these articles are written by women makes it even worse,” she added.

Brown has grown up in the media spotlight since the age of nine, when she appeared in ABC drama Once Upon a Time in Wonderland and BBC America show Intruders.

Her big break came in 2016, when she was cast as Eleven in the Netflix’s sci-fi hit Stranger Things.

It led to worldwide recognition for Brown, who was nominated for various accolades at the SAG and Emmy awards.

In her social media video, Brown concluded: “I will not be shamed for how I look, how I dress or how I present myself.

“Let’s do better, not just for me but for every young girl who deserves to grow up without the fear of being torn apart for simply existing.”

Brown has been praised by fellow actors in response to the post, including Sex and the City’s Sarah Jessica Parker, who wrote that she was “enormously proud”.

Brown’s co-star in Enola Holmes, Louis Partridge, commented: “Well said Millie. Handled with grace.”

Fellow former child actor and The Handmaid’s Tale star Mckenna Grace added: “No young woman or person deserves to feel pressure or cruelty for simply existing. You are so well spoken and so beautiful. Very well said, thank you for making this video.”

More than half of all adults and a third of children, teenagers and young adults around the world are predicted to be overweight or obese by 2050.

The findings come in a new study of global data published in The Lancet journal, covering more than 200 countries.

Researchers warn that obesity levels are predicted to accelerate rapidly during the remainder of this decade, particularly in lower-income countries.

However, experts say that if governments take urgent action now, there is still time to prevent what they describe as a “profound tragedy”.

By 2021, almost half the global adult population – a billion men and 1.11 billion women aged 25 or older – were overweight or obese.

The proportion of both men and women living with these conditions has doubled since 1990.

If trends continue, global rates of overweight and obese adults would rise to about 57.4% for men and 60.3% for women by 2050.

In terms of raw numbers, China (627 million), India (450 million) and the USA (214 million) will be the countries with the biggest populations of overweight or obese people in 2050.

However, population growth means that forecasters are predicting the number in sub-Saharan Africa will rise by more than 250% to 522 million.

Nigeria, in particular, stands out, with the predicted number projected to more than triple – from 36.6 million in 2021 to 141 million in 2050. That would make it the country with the fourth-largest population of adults who are overweight or obese.

The authors acknowledge the study does not take into account the impact that new weight loss medications might have – and they could play a significant role in the future.

Experts say if governments take urgent action now, there is still time to prevent what could be a disaster for vulnerable healthcare systems.

The research was led by Prof Emmanuela Gakidou, from the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME), at the University of Washington in the US.

She said: “[Governments] can use our country specific estimates on the stage, timing, and speed of current and forecasted transitions in weight to identify priority populations experiencing the greatest burdens of obesity who require immediate intervention and treatment, and those that remain predominantly overweight and should be primarily targeted with prevention strategies.

“The unprecedented global epidemic of overweight and obesity is a profound tragedy and a monumental societal failure,” she added.

A surge in rates of obesity is happening right now, particularly among young people.

Rates of obesity in children and younger teenagers (from 8.8% to 18.1%) and younger adults (those under 25 – from 9.9% to 20.3%) more than doubled between 1990 and 2021.

However, by 2050 one in three young people will be affected.

The co-lead author of the report, Dr Jessica Kerr of the Murdoch Children’s Research Institute in Australia, says the figures present a real challenge to health care systems in the coming years.

“But if we act now, preventing a complete transition to global obesity for children and adolescents is still possible,” she said.

“Our estimates identify children and adolescents in much of Europe and south Asia living with overweight who should be targeted with obesity prevention strategies.

“We have also identified large populations, particularly adolescent girls, in North America, Australasia, Oceania, North Africa and the Middle East, and Latin America that are expected to tip over to obesity predominance and require urgent, multifaceted intervention and treatment.

“This is essential to avoid intergenerational transmission of obesity and to prevent a wave of serious health conditions and dire financial and societal costs for future generations.”

Members of the UK’s Royal Society have urged the elite scientific academy to “step up its efforts to advocate for science and scientists” amid a row over one of its fellows – Elon Musk.

Over the last nine months, many scientists have raised concerns about the controversial billionaire’s behaviour, which has been called a “threat to science”.

A meeting on Monday evening did not result in Mr Musk’s expulsion, but it has drawn the world’s oldest scientific academy into a divisive, political row.

The campaign to revoke Mr Musk’s membership centres on suggestions, from a growing number of fellows, that the billionaire’s actions are “incompatible” with the society’s own code of conduct.

Mr Musk has overseen unprecedented funding cuts to scientific research in the US, in his senior role in President Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency (or Doge).

Mr Musk has also been accused of sharing misinformation on his social media platform, X.

In a statement after the meeting, the Royal Society addressed those issues, saying that members who attended were particularly concerned about the fate of scientists in the US, “amid threats of radical cutbacks in research funding”.

The society agreed to “look at potential further actions” to “counter the misinformation and ideologically motivated attacks on both science and scientists”.

The BBC understands that a letter will be sent to Mr Musk from the Royal Society.

It is 250 years since a member of the Royal Society was ejected: German scientist and writer Rudolf Erich Raspe, who was accused of theft and fraud.

So the rift among the membership, caused by Mr Musk and his public pronouncements, could be a historic turning point for this most elite of scientific academies.

Two eminent scientists have resigned their fellowships in protest – Dr Dorothy Bishop of Oxford University and Prof Andrew Millar from University of Edinburgh.

More than than 3,300 scientists also put their names to a letter, written by Prof Stephen Curry, emeritus professor of structural biology at Imperial College London, who is not a fellow, that expressed “deep concern” about the billionaire’s fellowship and the society’s “continued silence and apparent inaction” with regard to the controversy.

Prof Curry told the BBC he was glad that the society had gathered fellows to discuss these concerns.

But, he added that he was “disappointed that they have so far given only a very short statement summarising the meeting”.

“It makes no mention of the one [member] whose actions contrary to their code of conduct have prompted it”.

Dr Dorothy Bishop, emeritus professor of development neuropsychology at Oxford University and the first fellow to resign over the issue, told BBC News she had complained to the Royal Society twice last year.

“On both occasions they consulted lawyers, and it may well be the case that the lawyers are concerned about the prospect of legal action,” she said.

There are more than 1,700 fellows of the Royal Society and more than 60 of them have signed Prof Curry’s letter. Many more have expressed their concern about Mr Musk’s behaviour.

But there are many academics, researchers and Royal Society fellows who do not wish to see the divisive billionaire have his membership revoked.

Nobel prize-winner Prof Sir Andre Geim from Manchester University said: “Musk is certainly an eccentric, but his achievements beat those of any of his critics in the Royal Society. Very few can say that they achieved similar in their lives.”

Other scientists who spoke to the BBC pointed out that an attempt to remove Mr Musk’s fellowship could be seen as political interference and a curtailment of freedom of expression.

But Prof George Efstathiou, from the University of Cambridge, dismissed that argument.

Members, he said, “should at least have respect for the truth”.

“If somebody has a disregard for the truth and says things that are blatantly false, then that speaks to their ethical standards,” he added. “That’s not political.”

Fiona Fox is chief executive of the Science Media Centre, which works with journalists and scientists to promote “accurate, evidence-based information” in science coverage. She was elected as a Royal Society fellow in 2023.

Ms Fox told BBC News she was concerned at what was happening to the science community in the US, but questioned whether ejecting Mr Musk would achieve the Royal Society’s overall aims of educating and advancing scientific research.

“There are terrifying things being done in the US – removing data sets, taking web pages down of data. This is knowledge. This is universally owned.

“There’s a climate of fear in which people are self censoring. I mean, it’s absolutely terrifying,” she said.

Mr Musk has not responded to requests for comment that BBC News sent via his companies, Tesla and Space X.

Carl Dean, the longtime husband of country music icon Dolly Parton, died on Monday at the age of 82.

Dean, who was famously private throughout his nearly 60-year marriage to Parton, died in Nashville, Tennessee, according to a statement she posted on social media.

“Carl and I spent many wonderful years together. Words can’t do justice to the love we shared for over 60 years. Thank you for your prayers and sympathy,” the statement read.

The “9-5” singer met Dean outside a laundromat on the first day she arrived in Nashville as an 18-year-old aspiring singer.

Parton, 79, recalled their first meeting, saying, “I was surprised and delighted that while he talked to me, he looked at my face (a rare thing for me). He seemed to be genuinely interested in finding out who I was and what I was about.”

Two years later, on May 30, 1966, the couple exchanged vows at a private ceremony in Ringgold, Georgia.

• Singer spots Welsh influence in Dolly Parton music
• Dolly Parton surprised with Kentucky’s highest honour

Throughout their marriage, Dean remained out of the public eye, choosing instead to focus on his asphalt-paving business in Nashville.

Though he largely stayed out of the limelight, Dean continued to influence Parton’s work, most notably inspiring her classic hit “Jolene.”

She told US media in 2008 that the song was about a bank teller who developed a crush on Dean.

“She got this terrible crush on my husband,” Parton said. “And he just loved going to the bank because she paid him so much attention. It was kinda like a running joke between us—when I was saying, ‘Hell, you’re spending a lot of time at the bank. I don’t believe we’ve got that kind of money.’ So it’s really an innocent song all around, but sounds like a dreadful one.”

Parton and Dean’s relationship remained such a mystery that rumours started that he did not exist – but Parton joked about that.

“A lot of people say there’s no Carl Dean, that he’s just somebody I made up to keep other people off me,” she said to the Associated Press in 1984.

Parton and Dean had no children together.

He is survived by his siblings, Sandra and Donnie, Parton’s statement said.