China has set an economic growth target for this year of “around 5%” and pledged to pump billions of dollars into its ailing economy, which is now facing a trade war with the US.

China’s leaders unveiled the plan as thousands of delegates attend the National People’s Congress (NPC), a rubber-stamp parliament, which passes decisions already made behind closed doors.

But the week-long gathering is watched closely for clues on Beijing’s policy changes – and this year is more significant than most.

President Xi Jinping had already been battling persistently low consumption, a property crisis and unemployment, before Donald Trump’s new 10% levy on Chinese imports came into effect on Tuesday.

This follows the 10% tariff imposed in early February, taking the total US levy to 20%. And it hits what has been a rare bright spot for the Chinese economy: exports.

Beijing hit back almost immediately on Tuesday, just as it did last month. It announced retaliatory action that included 10%-15% tariffs on certain agriculture imports from the US. This is key because China is the biggest market for these goods, such as American corn, wheat and soybeans.

Still, at this week’s meeting, known as Two Sessions, the spotlight will be on how to spur growth in the wake of these tariffs.

Beijing was able to meet the 5% target for the last two years but growth was driven by strong exports, which resulted in a nearly trillion-dollar record trade surplus.

Repeating that is going to be much harder this year. “If the tariffs linger, Chinese exports to the US could drop by a quarter to a third,” says Harry Murphy Cruise, head of China economics at Moody’s Analytics.

Beijing is going to have to rely more than ever on domestic spending to achieve 5% growth – but that has been one of its biggest challenges.

Analysts say expanding domestic demand, which was the third objective at last year’s meeting, could now move to the top of the priority list.

Beijing has already rolled out schemes to encourage its people to spend more, including allowing them to trade in and replace consumer goods like kitchen appliances, cars, phones and electronic devices.

The government aims to put more money into ordinary Chinese people’s pockets and help cut China’s reliance on exports and investment.

Beijing’s plans include issuing 1.3 trillion yuan ($179bn; £140bn) in special treasury bonds this year to help fund its stimulus measures. Local governments will also be allowed to increase the amount of money they borrow to 4.4 trillion yuan.

Beijing also announced plans to create more than 12 million jobs in cities, setting the target for urban unemployment at around 5.5% for 2025.

Whether these measures will be enough to boost consumption is the key question.

Harsh pandemic-era restrictions along with a prolonged real estate crisis and a government crackdown on tech and finance companies have fuelled pessimism among Chinese people. And a weak social safety net means savings have become especially crucial in case of unexpected out-of-pocket expenses.

But China’s leadership is optimistic. CPCC spokesman Liu Jieyi told reporters ahead of the session that while the economy was facing challenges such as low demand, it was “important to recognise that China’s economic fundamentals are stable, there are many advantages, resilience is strong, and potential is significant”.

Investment in what President Xi calls “high-quality development”, which covers high-tech industries from renewables to artificial intelligence (AI), is also expected to be a major focus.

The world’s second-largest economy, China has long vied to become a global leader in tech, partly to reduce its reliance on the West.

State media has already touted recent examples like DeepSeek and Unitree Robotics, both of which have caught global attention, as examples of China’s “technological progress”.

The success of Deepseek in particular saw an AI-driven stock rally, with analysts noting renewed interest in China among foreign investors.

A commentary in the state-run Xinhua newspaper said “China’s new energy industries and overall green transition, driven by its cutting-edge technologies, will continue to be important growth drivers”.

But the new US levies – which come on top of tariffs from Trump’s first term – could stymie these plans, not least because they could dampen investor sentiment.

“The chaos that tariffs leave in their wake is kryptonite for investment,” Mr Murphy Cruise says. “Tariffs are set to deliver a one-two punch to China’s economy, landing blows to both exports and investment.”

Volodymyr Zelensky said he was ready to work under Donald Trump’s “strong leadership” to achieve a lasting peace days after their explosive Oval Office meeting.

The Ukrainian president described the White House showdown as “regrettable” in a lengthy social media post in the wake of the US announcing a pause in military aid to Kyiv.

Zelensky said “it was time to make things right”, after Trump had accused him of not being ready to come to the negotiating table.

The Ukrainian leader also outlined the first stages of how the war could be ended.

“We are ready to work fast to end the war, and the first stages could be the release of prisoners and truce in the sky – ban on missiles, long-ranged drones, bombs on energy and other civilian infrastructure – and truce in the sea immediately, if Russia will do the same,” he wrote.

“Then we want to move very fast through all next stages and to work with the US to agree a strong final deal.”

In his social media post, Zelensky said Friday’s meeting “did not go the way it was supposed to be”, adding: “It is regrettable that it happened this way,” he wrote. “It is time to make things right. We would like future co-operation and communication to be constructive.”

He also reiterated that Ukraine was ready to sign a minerals deal with the US, after the failure to do so at the Washington meeting.

Ukraine woke to the news on Tuesday that the US was “pausing and reviewing” its military aid to the country after a breakdown in diplomacy last week.

In his post, Zelensky offered an overt declaration of gratitude for the help the US has so far given to his country.

“We do really value how much America has done to help Ukraine maintain its sovereignty and independence,” he wrote.

“And we remember the moment when things changed when President Trump provided Ukraine with Javelins. We are grateful for this,” he added, referring to the US anti-tank missile system sold to Ukraine during Trump’s first administration.

During Friday’s meeting in the Oval Office, Vice-President JD Vance accused Zelensky of being ungrateful for the military support the US had provided.

“Have you said ‘thank you’ once this entire meeting?” Vance said, before Trump told Zelensky he was not being “very thankful”.

Zelensky defended himself in the meeting, and began an interview with Fox News in the hours afterwards, saying: “I’m very thankful to Americans for all your support.”

The Oval Office meeting between Zelensky and US officials last week was due to conclude with the two parties signing a deal that would grant the US access to rare earth minerals in Ukraine.

After the clash, which saw Trump accuse Zelensky of “gambling with World War III”, the Ukrainian delegation left without signing the deal – Trump told Zelensky “come back when you’re ready for peace”.

Trump is due to deliver an address to Congress later on Tuesday, during which the Reuters news agency reports he plans to announce a minerals deal between US and Ukraine has been signed.

A number of Ukraine’s allies have commented on the latest from the Ukrainian president, including UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, who welcomed Zelensky’s “steadfast commitment to securing peace”.

It is “vital that all parties worked towards a lasting and secure peace for Ukraine as soon as possible”, a statement from No 10 said.

Likewise, French President Emmanuel Macron praised Zelensky’s willingness to “re-engage in dialogue” with Trump, the Elysee Palace said.

Days before his meeting with Zelensky, the US President had met with Macron, who travelled to Washington with a warning to Trump: “You can’t be weak in the face of Putin.”

While European leaders rallied behind Zelensky following the clash, Nato’s secretary general advised the Ukrainian leader to “find a way” to restore his relationship with Trump.

Speaking to the BBC the following day, Mark Rutte said he had told him “we have to respect” what Trump has done for Ukraine so far.

• Follow live: Trump pauses US military aid to Ukraine

Zelensky’s statement falls short of an apology to Trump, which those in the US president’s camp had called for.

In Moscow, Vladimir Putin’s team earlier welcomed the US’s pause to military aid as likely to be the “best” contribution to peace.

“If the US stops, or pauses these supplies, this will probably be the best contribution to the cause of peace,” Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov told the BBC’s Steve Rosenberg.

Trump himself has not commented on the pause to aid, nor Zelensky’s response, however he did earlier berate the Ukrainian leader following his meetings with European allies at the weekend.

A Sunday summit – hosted by the UK prime minister – was intended as a show of support for Ukraine.

After the meeting, Zelensky said a deal to end the war between Ukraine and Russia was “still very, very far away”.

Trump described this as the “worst statement that could have been made by Zelensky”, in a post on his Truth Social platform.

“It is what I was saying, this guy doesn’t want there to be peace as long as he has America’s backing,” the president wrote.

The speaker of the house in New Zealand’s parliament says he will not consider any further complaints from lawmakers over the use of the country’s Māori name in proceedings.

“Aotearoa is regularly used as a name of New Zealand,” Speaker Gerry Brownlee said in a ruling in Parliament on Tuesday.

His comments come after Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters asked Brownlee to bar the use of the name Aotearoa, and suggested a referendum would be needed for anyone to use it in parliament.

While New Zealand is the legal name of the country and can only be changed by law, Aotearoa, which translates to “land of the long white cloud”, has long been used when referring to New Zealand in Māori.

“It [Aotearoa] appears on our passports and it appears on our currency,” Brownlee said on Tuesday. The name is also used in the Māori version of New Zealand’s national anthem, which is commonly heard before the English version.

“If other members do not like certain words, they don’t have to use them. But it’s not a matter of order, and I don’t expect to have further points of order raised about it,” he added.

MPs are allowed to use any of the country’s three official languages – English, Māori and New Zealand sign language – when speaking in Parliament.

• Thousands gather for Waitangi Day with Māori rights in focus
• New Zealand mountain gets same legal rights as a person

The objection by Peters, who is Māori, arose last month, when Green MP Ricardo Menéndez March used it during a parliamentary session.

“Why is someone who applied to come to this country in 2006 allowed to ask a question of this Parliament that changes this country’s name without the referendum and sanction of the New Zealand people?” Peters asked.

Menéndez March is originally from Mexico but is a New Zealand citizen, as all MPs must be.

Shane Jones, another government minister who is a member of Peters’ New Zealand First party and is also Māori, questioned “the appropriateness of recent immigrants telling Māori what the name of our country should be?”

At the time, Brownlee encouraged lawmakers to use the name Aotearoa New Zealand instead in order to avoid any confusion but said it was not a requirement.

Not all Māori have the same connection to the name Aotearoa, which was originally used to describe New Zealand’s North Island only. However, it is often used by non-Māori out of respect for indigenous people.

Winston Peters said on Tuesday that he disagreed with Brownlee’s ruling, Radio New Zealand (RNZ) reported.

He added that he only had a problem with Aotearoa being used in Parliament, not of Māori in general, and that, if a question was addressed to him in future using the name, he would not answer.

The use of Māori in public has grown considerably across New Zealand in recent decades, following advocacy from indigenous leaders.

A petition was launched in 2022 by the Māori Party, an official political party, to officially change the country’s name to Aotearoa, which received more than 70,000 signatures.

“New Zealand is a Dutch name and has no connection to this whenua [land]. How many people in Aotearoa can even point to ‘old’ Zealand on a map?” Māori Party Co-leader Rawiri Waititi said at the time.

Since the current administration came into power in 2023, it has required that government departments prioritise their English names and communicate primarily in English, unless they are specifically related to Māori.

Another of the coalition’s members, the Act party, is also seeking to redefine the terms of New Zealand’s founding document, the Treaty of Waitangi, which has been met with fierce opposition.

A $53bn (£41.4 billion) reconstruction plan to rival President Donald Trump’s idea for the US to “take over Gaza” and move out more than two million Palestinians has been approved by Arab leaders at an emergency summit in the Egyptian capital Cairo.

“The Egypt plan is now an Arab plan,” announced the secretary general of the Arab League Ahmed Aboul Gheit at the end of this hours-long gathering.

Without referring specifically to President Trump’s ideas, he underlined that “the Arab stance is to reject any displacement, whether it is voluntary or forced”.

Egypt had produced a detailed blueprint, with a 91-page glossy document including images of leafy neighbourhoods and grand public buildings, to counter a US scheme labelled as a “Middle East Riviera” which shocked the Arab world and beyond.

What sets this new plan apart is it is not just about property development; its banners are politics and the rights of Palestinians.

In his opening remarks, Egypt’s President Abdul Fattah al-Sisi also called for a parallel plan alongside the physical reconstruction to move towards what is known as the two state solution – a Palestinian state alongside Israel. This is widely seen by Arab states, and many others, as the only lasting solution to this perpetual conflict, but it is firmly ruled out by Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his allies.

This new plan proposes that Gaza would be run, temporarily, by a “Gaza management committee under the umbrella of the Palestinian government” comprised of qualified technocrats.

It glosses over the issue of what role, if any, Hamas, will play. There is a vague reference to the “obstacle” of militant groups and said this issue would be resolved if the causes of the conflict with Israel were removed.

Some Arab states are known to be calling for the complete dismantling of Hamas; others believe those decisions should be left up to the Palestinians. Hamas is said to have accepted it will not play a role in running Gaza but has made it clear that disarming is a red line.

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

The other sensitive issue of security was dealt with by calling on the UN Security Council to deploy international peacekeepers.

And a major international conference will be held next month to raise the huge sums of money necessary for this rebuilding project.

Wealthy Gulf states appear willing to foot some of the colossal bill. But no one is ready to invest unless they are absolutely convinced buildings won’t come crashing down in another war.

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

This new Arab plan to rebuild Gaza would unfold in three phases including an initial period of about six months, called the early recovery stage, to start clearing the massive amounts of rubble as well as unexploded ordinance. Two subsequent stages would last several years.

During this time displaced Palestinians, said to number 1.5 million, would be housed in temporary containers. Photographs in the glossy brochure present them as well-built and designed housing units set in pretty landscaped areas.

President Trump continues to wonder aloud “Why wouldn’t they want to move?” His description of Gaza as a “demolition site” underlines how 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 US President deepened the shock and anger around his ideas when he posted an AI-generated video of a golden Gaza on his Truth Social account which featured a shimmering statue of himself, his close ally Elon Musk enjoying snacks on the beach, and he and the Israeli leader 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 proposal 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.

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

Now it is up to the Arab states and their allies to prove that their plan is the only plan.

A second Sydney nurse who allegedly appeared in a video that made threats towards Israeli patients has been charged by police.

Ahmad Rashad Nadir, 27, and Sarah Abu Lebdeh, 26, were both suspended from their duties at Bankstown Hospital in February after the video was released online. It was filmed on an anonymous online platform which pairs people randomly for a chat.

Authorities say there is “no evidence” the pair actually harmed patients.

Mr Nadir was charged on Wednesday with using a carriage service to threaten, menace or harass, and with possessing a prohibited drug.

Carriage services refer to modern communication systems such as phones and the internet.

Ms Lebdeh was charged last week with three offences: threatening violence to a group, using a carriage service to threaten to kill, and using a carriage service to harass or cause offence.

Neither person has entered a plea to the charges, but Mr Nadir apologised last month through his lawyer.

In the footage, which appeared to have been filmed inside a hospital and was published by an Israeli content creator, Ms Abu Lebdeh and Mr Nadir allegedly bragged about refusing to treat Israeli patients, killing them, and said they would go to hell.

The video spread widely online and caused public outcry, with Prime Minister Anthony Albanese describing it as “disgusting” and “vile”.

Earlier this month Australia passed tougher laws against hate crimes following a wave of unrelated antisemitic attacks.

In recent months, there have been a series of arson and graffiti incidents involving homes, cars, and synagogues in Jewish communities across Australia.

There have also been rising incidents of islamophobia. A Western Australian teenager was charged on Wednesday after allegedly threatening to launch a Christchurch massacre-inspired attack on a Sydney mosque.

A Hong Kong-based company has agreed to sell most of its stake in two key ports on the Panama Canal to a group led by US investment firm BlackRock.

The sale comes after weeks of complaining by President Donald Trump that the canal is under Chinese control and that the US should take control of the major shipping route.

Through a subsidiary, CK Hutchison Holding operates ports at the Atlantic Ocean and Pacific Ocean entrances to the canal.

It said Tuesday that it would sell its interests as part of a deal worth $22.8bn (£17.8bn).

CK Hutchison, founded by Hong Kong billionaire Li Ka-shing, is not owned by the Chinese government. But its base in Hong Kong means it operates under Chinese financial laws. It has operated the ports since 1997.

The deal includes a total of 43 ports in 23 countries around the world, including the two canal terminals. It will require approval by the Panamanian government.

The 51-mile (82km) Panama Canal cuts across the central American nation and is the main link between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans.

Up to 14,000 ships travel through it each year, including container ships carrying cars, natural gas and other goods, and military vessels.

It was built in the early 1900s. The US maintained control over the canal zone until 1977, when treaties gradually ceded the land back to Panama.

After a period of joint control, Panama took sole control in 1999.

Trump has made several arguments for retaking control of the canal and the surrounding area. He argued that Chinese influence is a national security threat, that the US investment in the initial building of the canal justifies taking back control, and that US ships are charged too much for using the waterway.

In a visit to Panama in February, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio demanded that the country make “immediate changes” to what he calls the “influence and control” of China over the canal.

• Does China ‘operate’ Panama Canal, as Trump says?

Panama rejected the US government claims and President Jose Raul Mulino has said the canal “is and will remain” in the central American country’s hands.

In a statement announcing the business deal, Frank Sixt, co-managing director of CK Hutchison, said: “I would like to stress that the transaction is purely commercial in nature and wholly unrelated to recent political news reports concerning the Panama Ports.”

BlackRock is one of the world’s largest asset management companies. The group buying the ports also includes Terminal Investment Limited, a Swiss company.

“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 titled “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.

After years of speculation, Tesla could finally be making its India debut.

The American electric vehicle (EV) giant has begun hiring for a dozen jobs in Delhi and Mumbai. It is also reportedly hunting for showrooms in both cities.

Asia’s third largest economy offers an interesting growth opportunity for Tesla’s futuristic cars as global EV sales plummet and competition from Chinese manufacturers gets more intense.

But there’s a million-dollar question – can Tesla compete in India’s price-sensitive market?

Tata Motors currently holds pole position in India’s EV market – with over 60% market share. MG Motors – jointly owned by India’s JSW and a Chinese firm – is second at 22%. They are followed by Mahindra and Mahindra.

EVs made by these companies cost less than half of what consumers will have to shell out – around $40,000 (£31,637) – for just the base model of Tesla. It will, therefore, be seen as a luxury car, competing with higher-end EVs made by Hyundai, BMW and Mercedes.

Simply in volume terms, this will make India a tiny market for Tesla chief Elon Musk, unless the company introduces a low-cost model specifically for the country.

Besides price, India’s road conditions could pose a challenge.

Tesla cars have very low ground clearance – or the distance between the lowest point of the car’s undercarriage and the ground. This will make adapting to Indian roads difficult. To operate in the country, existing models may have to be re-engineered – which would drive up manufacturing costs.

Will Tesla do this just for one developing market where it could have only a small presence?

“It’s been a challenge even with other global original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) at the high end with small volumes. You can’t justify these major engineering changes,” Hormazd Sorabjee, editor of Autocar India magazine, told the BBC.

Also, amidst all the hype, it is easy to forget that EV sales still make up less than 3% of overall passenger vehicle sales in India. Even critical ancillary infrastructure, like charging stations, have taken years to come up. While they have picked up pace, there are only around 25,000 charging stations across India.

In effect, Tesla will be jostling for space in a very small, albeit growing, EV market.

But at a policy level, India appears to be making every effort to woo the carmaker.

The country has outlined an ambitious national vision to go electric. It plans to have 30% of private cars, 70% of commercial cars, 40% of buses and 80% of two and three-wheelers go electric by 2030. Most provincial governments have also established their own EV policies to incentivise demand and supply.

Subsidies offered by India on electric cars are also the highest among major economies, according to HSBC Securities. They amount to as much as 46% of the price of the country’s top-selling electric car model.

It’s no surprise then that passenger EV sales have grown astronomically by over 2,000% in less than five years – going from a low base of 4,700 annually to a 100,000 cars.

“The price difference between regular cars and EVs has reduced a lot, making customers rethink their choice,” says Jyoti Gulia, founder of JMK Research.

In April last year, India also cut import taxes on EVs for global carmakers which committed to investing $500m (£400m) and starting local production within three years.

Tesla and other imported electric vehicles costing over $35,000 (£27,550) can now enjoy a lower import duty of 15% on up to 8,000 vehicles. This came after Musk complained that high import duties had prevented the firm from launching its cars in the world’s fastest-growing major economy.

“It’s quite clever, as it forces a global player to localise – which is the way the game works: come and build in India,” says Sorabjee.

The proposed policy could put Indian domestic carmakers at a disadvantage, however, given that the investment requirement for foreign players is “not significant” compared to Indian players in this segment, an HSBC research paper warns.

Import duty of 15% is also “much lower” than the tax on comparable combustion engine cars in India which also pay an additional road tax, according to HSBC.

Domestic EV players say having a “level playing field” is important, but appear unperturbed by Tesla’s impending entry for now.

“We welcome competition,” Rajesh Jejurikar, Mahindra and Mahindra’s Executive Director and CEO, told the BBC. His company feels that more players will strengthen India’s existing EV ecosystem and is working to improve the appeal of their offerings.

Critical issues like “range anxiety” – the worry whether an EV’s battery charge will be enough to complete a journey – have been addressed through “robust battery integration and rigorous real-world testing across diverse road conditions”, says Mr Jejurikar, adding that the brand is deploying cutting-edge technology into their product.

It will be hard to beat Tesla’s edge in this area though, and coupled with sturdier batteries and a better user interface, it will certainly differentiate Tesla cars from others in the market, says Sorabjee.

What might also give Tesla tailwind is the rising share of premium vehicles in the Indian auto market. As a global brand with a perceived “cool quotient”, owning a Tesla will be a status symbol for the young, aspirational Indian population.

But none of this – India’s EV policy or the growing demand for premium cars among India’s affluent – has yet led to a commitment from Tesla to put manufacturing dollars into an EV facility.

For now, it appears the carmaker will only ship units from its factories abroad.

When that changes will depend on a lot of things – how quickly India’s affluent consumer base widens, and what tariff structures look like once India completes trade negotiations with the US.

President Donald Trump has already voiced displeasure over Tesla potentially building a factory in India to avoid high tariffs. In an interview with Fox News recently, he said that this would be “unfair” to the US.

Could Trump’s ‘America First’ policy diminish Musk’s appetite for starting manufacturing units in India then?

The question is moot, but for now it does look like India will first get glitzy Tesla showrooms for its rich, rather than job-creating Tesla factories for its under-employed masses.

An Indian woman who worked as a domestic helper in the United Arab Emirates has been executed after she was convicted of killing her employers’ baby.

Shahzadi Khan, who worked for an Indian couple, was executed last month, according to the Indian government.

According to Abu Dhabi court documents, Khan asphyxiated the boy, but a doctor who testified at the trial could not confirm this as he had not been allowed to perform a post-mortem.

Khan’s family maintain she was innocent and say the four-month-old died from an incorrect vaccination on the day of his death. They said Khan did not get “adequate representation” during her trial. The BBC contacted UAE authorities for comment.

The execution was carried out on 15 February, but the news was only confirmed by Indian authorities on 3 March after Khan’s parents petitioned the Delhi High Court seeking information about their daughter.

The secrecy surrounding the execution has made headlines in India, which has close ties with United Arab Emirates. Hundreds of thousands of Indians live and work in the country.

According to the petition filed by Khan’s family, she had moved to Abu Dhabi in December 2021 to work for the Indian family as a caregiver.

She was entrusted to look after the baby, who was born in August the following year. According to Khan’s father, she would often call her family back in the north Indian state of Uttar Pradesh and show them the baby over video calls.

But the calls stopped after his death – and the family later learnt that Khan was in jail. According to Khan’s family, the baby died on 7 December 2022, just hours after he received a vaccine.

Police arrested Khan two months later. She insisted that a video recording showing her confessing to killing the baby had been forced, and that she had not received proper legal support in court.

She was sentenced to death in July 2023. Her appeal was rejected in February 2024.

Khan’s family said they last heard from her on 13 February this year when she called from prison, saying that she might be executed the next day.

“She kept crying and said she was put in a separate cell, and that she would not come out alive and that it might be her last call,” her father Shabbir Khan told the BBC.

When Khan’s family did not hear from her after that, they filed a petition with the Delhi High Court, seeking information from the Indian government on whether she had been executed.

Khan’s family said they felt she did not have “adequate representation” which resulted in her receiving the death sentence.

In an interview with the Press Trust of India, her father Shabbir Khan said: “She didn’t get justice. I have tried everywhere, running around since last year. But I didn’t have money to go there [Abu Dhabi] to hire a lawyer.”

In an earlier statement released to BBC Hindi following her conviction, Khan’s employer said: “Shahzadi brutally and intentionally killed my son which is already proven by the United Arab Emirates authorities in the light of all the evidence.

“Misleading information has been provided to media and other authorities to gain [their] sympathy and shift the focus from the actual crime which she committed.”

In February, the Indian government informed parliament that a total of 54 Indians were on death row in foreign countries, including 29 in the UAE.

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.

Speaking in the French Parliament, France’s Armed Forces Minister Sébastien Lecornu welcomed that Vance had “corrected his remarks”.

He paid tribute to the memory of French soldiers who had died in recent decades, earning applause from French MPs by saying they “deserved the respect of our allies”.

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.

She later told the BBC Vance’s comments “were clearly referring to the UK and France”, adding that they were “deeply disrespectful”.

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.

Pope Francis has remained stable after suffering two episodes of respiratory failure on Monday.

In its nightly update, the Vatican said the Pope did not present any further episodes of respiratory failure or bronchospasm.

“He remained afebrile, always alert, cooperative with therapies and well-oriented”, the statement said.

The 88-year-old pontiff has been in hospital since mid-February undergoing treatment for pneumonia.

After Monday’s episodes, the Pope had begun using an oxygen mask and ventilator to assist his breathing.

It was the second time the mechanical intervention had been used, after spending two days on the ventilator following an “isolated” breathing crisis involving vomiting on Friday, the Vatican said.

In Tuesday’s update, the Holy See said Pope Francis had switched back to high-flow oxygen therapy.

During the day he alternated prayer and rest and this morning he received the Eucharist, it added.

Pope Francis is due to miss the procession and mass on Wednesday that marks the first day of Lent, the six-week period leading to Easter.

He has been unable to deliver his traditional Angelus prayer in person on each of the last three Sundays.

The Pope was admitted to hospital on 14 February after experiencing breathing difficulties for several days.

He was first treated for bronchitis before being diagnosed with pneumonia in both lungs.

The pontiff is particularly susceptible to pneumonia, an infection of the lungs that can be caused by bacteria, viruses or fungi, after he contracted pleurisy – an inflammation of the lungs – as a young man and had a partial lung removal.

Vatican sources stress, as they have all along, that the Pope’s condition remains complex – his doctors remain cautious – and he is not out of danger.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau slammed Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs on Canada, calling it a “very dumb thing to do” and vowed to conduct a “relentless fight” to protect its economy.

Trump has imposed 25% tariffs on products entering the US from Canada and Mexico, and has increased a levy on goods coming from China.

The Canadian prime minister announced retaliatory tariffs on US exports and warned that a trade war would be costly for both countries.

But Trump pushed even further in a post on Truth Social, saying: “Please explain to Governor Trudeau, of Canada, that when he puts on a Retaliatory Tariff on the U.S., our Reciprocal Tariff will immediately increase by a like amount!”

Trudeau accused the US president of planning “a total collapse of the Canadian economy because that will make it easier to annex us”.

“That is never going to happen. We will never be the 51st state,” he told reporters on Tuesday.

“This is a time to hit back hard and to demonstrate that a fight with Canada will have no winners.”

He said that Canada’s main goal remains to get the tariffs lifted so that they “don’t last a second longer than necessary”.

Trump said he is protecting US jobs and manufacturing, and trying to prevent illegal migration and drug trafficking. The US president said his goal is to clamp down on the powerful opioid fentanyl; he has variously blamed the other countries for the drug’s arrival in the US.

Responding to the accusations, Trudeau said on Tuesday there was “no justification” for the new tariffs, because less than 1% of the fentanyl intercepted at the US border comes 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 too vowed to issue her own “tariff and non-tariff measures” – but said further details would be given on Sunday.

Trump’s tariffs are likely to push up prices for consumers in the US and abroad, said John Rogers, an economics professor at American International University.

The items most likely to be affected the soonest are food – the fruits, vegetables and other produce the US imports from Mexico – followed by the large amounts of oil and gas imported from Canada, Prof Rogers said.

“Prices could go up pretty soon”, Prof Rogers warned, though he was reluctant to say by exactly how much or how quickly.

“We are in pretty uncharted territory,” he told the BBC.

The bigger concern for prof Rogers was the potential damage he said was being done to America’s longstanding trade partners.

“This is kind of sticking your finger in the eye of your neighbour,” he said, adding that, in a potential US-Canada-Mexico trade war, “everybody is a loser”.

The three countries targeted are America’s top trading partners, and the tit-for-tat measures also prompted fears of that very trade war.

“There’s no way you can win a trade war. Everybody suffers, because everybody’s just going to wind up paying higher prices and sacrificing quality,” Prof Rogers said.

Tariffs are a tax on imports from other countries, designed to protect against cheaper competition from elsewhere, and boost businesses and jobs at home.

• 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?

Canada’s retaliatory measures include a 25% reciprocal tariff that 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 of American products will become effective in 21 days’ time

Canada’s 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.

Ontario Premier Doug Ford, whose province is home to Canada’s auto manufacturing industry, told reporters on Tuesday that he anticipates assembly plants will “shut down on both sides of the border” as a result of the tariffs.

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 they 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.

Ford of Ontario mooted the possibility of cutting off Canadian electricity supplies and exports of high-grade nickel to the US, as well as putting an export levy of 25% on electricity sent to power homes in Michigan, New York and Minnesota.

Canada exports enough electricity to power some six million American homes.

Ontario and other provinces have also moved to remove US-made liquor off their shelves. In Nova Scotia, Premier Tim Houston said his province will ban American companies from bidding on provincial contracts, as will Ontario.

Ford also announced that a C$100m ($68m; £55.1) contract with Elon Musk’s satellite internet company Starlink will be cancelled.

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.

“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 titled “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.

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.

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 spanning 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 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.

“I just wanna talk about girls.”

Cat Burns couldn’t be clearer about what’s on her mind in her new track.

Called – you guessed it – Girls! she says it marks a shift from her more “serious” records and is her shot at writing music she didn’t have access to growing up.

“I feel like I never had a song like that for me,” she says. “Especially for all the queer girls.”

She says she’s leaning into a new era where she feels increasingly confident celebrating her sexuality.

The singer, 24, has enjoyed in meteoric rise in the past few years.

Her single Go, first released in 2020, became a viral hit on TikTok in 2023 – rising to number 2 in the charts, and propelling Burns on to a Brits Critics’ Choice award nomination later that year.

She tells BBC Newsbeat having songs like that is “super important”, especially growing up and figuring out who you are.

“It’s nice to know that people like you exist and exist freely,” she says.

“And I think the ‘fun-ness’ of the song can show people who aren’t lesbian or queer or bi or whatever that we are just normal human beings who like just so happen to like the same sex.”

In the past year, the charts have been dominated more than once by queer women writing openly about gay relationships.

Chappell Roan’s Good Luck, Babe! tells the story of being in love with a woman struggling to come to terms with their sexuality and spent 16 weeks in the UK top 10.

And after Billie Eilish claimed she was “outed” by Variety magazine in 2023, she followed up with her album Hit Me Hard and Soft, including the single Lunch which explored her desire for women.

Billboard described the track, which peaked at number two in the UK chart, as “a glorious queer awakening”.

Before that though, there’s been slim pickings for mainstream pop songs that celebrate authentic lesbian relationships.

Take, for example, Katy Perry’s 2008 debut I Kissed A Girl.

It’s “a brilliant pop song”, Cat says, but doesn’t go any deeper than the first stage of exploring sexuality.

“I think it’s always good when we make room and allow space for lesbian and queer artists to to speak about it whilst we’re further into our journey,” she says.

“Where it’s less curiosity and trying… and it’s and it’s more like: ‘No, I’m into it now and really delving to my experience as a queer woman’.”

And the more voices that add to that, the better, Cat says.

“The more representation and more space for different types of queer artist, it can just help paint a more vivid picture of what the community’s actually like and who exists within that community.

“Having people like Reneé Rapp and Chappell Roan and, hopefully, someone like myself, we’re starting to show people that we’re not a monolith and we vary across the spectrum.”

Cat, who’s previously spoken about her ADHD and autism spectrum disorder (ASD) diagnoses, says she “falls into so many different groups” and wants to celebrate differences.

“I just want to continue to show people that we’re just not all one way,” she says.

“What you know of something might not always be true.”

As for why it seems more artists are getting comfortable writing about their sexuality, Cat credits social media as well as other artists that have gone before.

“Social media has allowed more queer artists to be queer loudly,” she says.

“Safety-wise, before it was harder. There’s so many icons that have paved the way.

“I’m really happy that I was able to make a song like Girls!, for it to be received the way it has been and for me to be so able to be open about what it’s about.”

With more artists loudly celebrating the LGBT community, Cat says the fan base now has the opportunity to be loud back in their support.

“The LGBTQ + community, we’re a very hard fan base,” she says. “We love our favourite artists down and will do forever.

“We champion and love loads of straight artists, which is great.

“Bur I think it’s nice that, in the last five to 10 years, we’re now getting queer artists being able to be championed and loved by our own community.”

Listen to Newsbeat live at 12:45 and 17:45 weekdays – or listen back here.

“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.”

“It’s certainly one way of focusing our minds — and wallets! Donald Trump is doing us a favour, we choose to think about it that way. And we may as well look on the bright side. Otherwise these times are too dark.”

The words of a diplomat from a major European country, speaking after Donald Trump turned off the military aid tap to Ukraine on Monday. He asked not to be named, so he can share his thoughts more freely.

The relentlessness, and pace, of change in Washington, can be dizzying. Not only for consumers of news but politicians as well.

Europe is scrambling to react effectively.

There has been a frenzy of diplomatic activity: bilateral, late-night leader phone calls, European huddles in London and in Paris, meetings of Nato defence ministers in Brussels. An emergency security summit of EU leaders is also scheduled this Thursday.

It is a huge moment in European history.

Most European countries believe the security of all of Europe, not only the sovereignty of Ukraine, is at stake — with Russia looking to dismantle the western-facing balance of power, in place since the end of the Cold War.

Washington, which has had Europe’s back in terms of security and defence since World War Two, now appears “not to care about the fate of Europe”, according to the man poised to be the next leader of the continent’s biggest economy, Friedrich Merz of Germany.

But what are all the big-name European meetings and summits actually achieving?

Just a few hours prior to Washington halting military aid to Kyiv, UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, who is taking a lead in Europe over Ukraine, announced it was time for “action not words”. The European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, meanwhile, said Europe must turn Ukraine into a “steel porcupine”, with urgent, extra arms deliveries.

Can the continent really act as one, though? Europe is a sum total of different countries with different-sized budgets and diverse domestic politics and priorities.

Europe’s aim in taking this defence action is two-fold as well:

First, to show Donald Trump that — in the words of the UK prime minister — Europe will now do the “heavy lifting” to defend itself. Europe hopes to persuade Trump to restart his military support of Ukraine, and to keep in place the current US security back-up for Europe as a whole, if he believes they are no longer “freeloading” off the United States.

But also, Europe’s leaders will need to urgently boost their own defences and support for Kyiv anyway, if Donald Trump turns away from Ukraine, and further down the line, from Europe more broadly in security terms.

It’s not only to Washington that Europe feels it has a point to prove.

Russia is watching too.

The various high-profile, big-pledging European emergency meetings must now produce speedy, impressive, practical results, otherwise in the Kremlin’s eyes, Europe looks weak and vulnerable.

Moscow has already gloated about the “splits” it sees in Western unity.

Donald Trump says he trusts Vladimir Putin but he’s been scathing about Nato allies and he called Ukraine’s president a dictator.

Russia knows that, for all Europe’s talk about now determinedly defending itself, any security expert you speak to admits that — at least in the short-to-medium term — Europe still needs the US.

That is why last week in Washington, we saw the French president and the UK prime minister, separately, wooing Donald Trump.

The US has filled the yawning gaps in European defence, left by years of chronic under-investment after the end of the Cold War.

The number of troops in Europe diminished with the end of conscription in most European countries. The US has roughly 100,000 troops and nuclear weapons in various parts of Europe under Nato’s nuclear sharing policy. Many of them are in non-nuclear, major European power Germany, which fears being severely exposed to Russia should Donald Trump withdraw support.

If the UK and France manage to assemble what they call a “coalition of the willing” — European countries that accept to send even a modest number of peacekeeping troops into Ukraine once a ceasefire is agreed — that could stretch European armies and expose gaps in Nato defences.

That is why Poland is unwilling to commit troops to that “coalition”. It says it needs to keep soldiers at home, to defend itself against Russia. It also fervently hopes the US won’t be pulling its troops out of Eastern Europe.

But Europe also relies on the US for military capabilities that ensure the smooth running of operations. These are known as “enablers”.

Ukraine leans heavily on US intelligence, for example, to maintain a strong hand against Russia.

A European peacekeeping or “reassurance” force in Ukraine would need US support to establish an air shield over Ukraine. Europe lacks air-to air refuelling capabilities, as well as munitions that could take out air defences in Russia if necessary.

These enablers “can’t be bought in a hurry at the local cash-and-carry” as one European politician put it to me.

This is why the UK, France and others in Europe are so very keen to keep the US on board for as long and as much as possible.

“Some of my esteemed European colleagues should probably hold back from tweeting in anger,” one frustrated diplomat from a high-profile nation told me.

We were discussing European outrage at the treatment of Ukraine’s president by the US president and vice-president at the Oval Office on Friday.

“Real leadership is not about letting off steam online. It’s about finding the right words to constructively move forward, however complicated the situation.

“Do we need continued US support in Ukraine and Europe? Do we have more in common with the US than with China? Those are the fundamental questions we need to keep in mind.”

Another fundamental question for Europe is, of course, how much cash is needed and how fast to credibly boost defence.

On Ukraine, Europe could arguably quite easily replace current US support, if it put its mind to it.

Germany is the largest donor of military aid to Ukraine after the US. If other European powers followed its lead, it says, Ukraine defence would be covered for the foreseeable future.

Berlin and other northern European countries express resentment against France, for example, which they say, talks big about defending Ukraine – and is strong in leadership and strategy – but has in fact donated relatively little.

As for broader defence spending, the EU Commission Chief Ursula von der Leyen declared on Tuesday that “Europe is in an era of re-armament”.

She suggested the EU alone could mobilise a total of 800bn euros for defence spending by:

1. Using its joint budget more creatively
2. Providing 150bn euros in loans to benefit the defence of the EU as a whole — so, for example, in air and missile defence, anti-drone systems, and military mobility
3. Suspending EU fiscal rules to allow individual EU countries to spend more on defence

EU leaders will debate her proposals and others at their summit on Thursday – including whether frozen Russian assets in Europe could be used in funding for Ukraine.

But potential and very public European splits loom large. Many fuelled by member states’ domestic politics.

Hungary, close to Russia and Donald Trump’s administration, is a spoke in the wheel of pretty much every EU debate to help Ukraine. Brussels fears Slovakia is going the same way.

Countries near Russia’s borders do not need to explain to voters why defence spending needs to be high. Tiny, exposed Baltic nations Estonia and Lithuania already spend over 3% of GDP on defence. They want to raise that to 5% in the near future.

Meanwhile, big European economies Italy and Spain, geographically much further from Russia, fail to spend the Nato minimum requirement of 2% of GDP on defence.

In Germany, France and the UK, according to a study by the London-based Focaldata research group, most voters want to maintain or reduce defence spending, preferring their government to focus on other voter priorities.

But Nato Secretary General Mark Rutte is warning Europeans to wake up and smell the coffee brewing in Washington and Moscow.

European nations need to spend more than 3% of GDP now to effectively wean the continent off its deep reliance on the US, he says.

If Donald Trump pulls out of Europe altogether, never mind Ukraine, that would mean spending 4-6% of GDP, according to defence experts: a political, social and economic earthquake Europe’s leaders hope they will not have to face.

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.

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.

A $53bn (£41.4 billion) reconstruction plan to rival President Donald Trump’s idea for the US to “take over Gaza” and move out more than two million Palestinians has been approved by Arab leaders at an emergency summit in the Egyptian capital Cairo.

“The Egypt plan is now an Arab plan,” announced the secretary general of the Arab League Ahmed Aboul Gheit at the end of this hours-long gathering.

Without referring specifically to President Trump’s ideas, he underlined that “the Arab stance is to reject any displacement, whether it is voluntary or forced”.

Egypt had produced a detailed blueprint, with a 91-page glossy document including images of leafy neighbourhoods and grand public buildings, to counter a US scheme labelled as a “Middle East Riviera” which shocked the Arab world and beyond.

What sets this new plan apart is it is not just about property development; its banners are politics and the rights of Palestinians.

In his opening remarks, Egypt’s President Abdul Fattah al-Sisi also called for a parallel plan alongside the physical reconstruction to move towards what is known as the two state solution – a Palestinian state alongside Israel. This is widely seen by Arab states, and many others, as the only lasting solution to this perpetual conflict, but it is firmly ruled out by Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his allies.

This new plan proposes that Gaza would be run, temporarily, by a “Gaza management committee under the umbrella of the Palestinian government” comprised of qualified technocrats.

It glosses over the issue of what role, if any, Hamas, will play. There is a vague reference to the “obstacle” of militant groups and said this issue would be resolved if the causes of the conflict with Israel were removed.

Some Arab states are known to be calling for the complete dismantling of Hamas; others believe those decisions should be left up to the Palestinians. Hamas is said to have accepted it will not play a role in running Gaza but has made it clear that disarming is a red line.

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

The other sensitive issue of security was dealt with by calling on the UN Security Council to deploy international peacekeepers.

And a major international conference will be held next month to raise the huge sums of money necessary for this rebuilding project.

Wealthy Gulf states appear willing to foot some of the colossal bill. But no one is ready to invest unless they are absolutely convinced buildings won’t come crashing down in another war.

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

This new Arab plan to rebuild Gaza would unfold in three phases including an initial period of about six months, called the early recovery stage, to start clearing the massive amounts of rubble as well as unexploded ordinance. Two subsequent stages would last several years.

During this time displaced Palestinians, said to number 1.5 million, would be housed in temporary containers. Photographs in the glossy brochure present them as well-built and designed housing units set in pretty landscaped areas.

President Trump continues to wonder aloud “Why wouldn’t they want to move?” His description of Gaza as a “demolition site” underlines how 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 US President deepened the shock and anger around his ideas when he posted an AI-generated video of a golden Gaza on his Truth Social account which featured a shimmering statue of himself, his close ally Elon Musk enjoying snacks on the beach, and he and the Israeli leader 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 proposal 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.

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

Now it is up to the Arab states and their allies to prove that their plan is the only plan.

A Hong Kong-based company has agreed to sell most of its stake in two key ports on the Panama Canal to a group led by US investment firm BlackRock.

The sale comes after weeks of complaining by President Donald Trump that the canal is under Chinese control and that the US should take control of the major shipping route.

Through a subsidiary, CK Hutchison Holding operates ports at the Atlantic Ocean and Pacific Ocean entrances to the canal.

It said Tuesday that it would sell its interests as part of a deal worth $22.8bn (£17.8bn).

CK Hutchison, founded by Hong Kong billionaire Li Ka-shing, is not owned by the Chinese government. But its base in Hong Kong means it operates under Chinese financial laws. It has operated the ports since 1997.

The deal includes a total of 43 ports in 23 countries around the world, including the two canal terminals. It will require approval by the Panamanian government.

The 51-mile (82km) Panama Canal cuts across the central American nation and is the main link between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans.

Up to 14,000 ships travel through it each year, including container ships carrying cars, natural gas and other goods, and military vessels.

It was built in the early 1900s. The US maintained control over the canal zone until 1977, when treaties gradually ceded the land back to Panama.

After a period of joint control, Panama took sole control in 1999.

Trump has made several arguments for retaking control of the canal and the surrounding area. He argued that Chinese influence is a national security threat, that the US investment in the initial building of the canal justifies taking back control, and that US ships are charged too much for using the waterway.

In a visit to Panama in February, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio demanded that the country make “immediate changes” to what he calls the “influence and control” of China over the canal.

• Does China ‘operate’ Panama Canal, as Trump says?

Panama rejected the US government claims and President Jose Raul Mulino has said the canal “is and will remain” in the central American country’s hands.

In a statement announcing the business deal, Frank Sixt, co-managing director of CK Hutchison, said: “I would like to stress that the transaction is purely commercial in nature and wholly unrelated to recent political news reports concerning the Panama Ports.”

BlackRock is one of the world’s largest asset management companies. The group buying the ports also includes Terminal Investment Limited, a Swiss company.

Senator Elissa Slotkin, a Democrat who won the US Senate seat in the swing state of Michigan last year, will provide her party’s response to President Donald Trump’s address to a joint session of Congress on Tuesday.

A former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) analyst, Slotkin became the youngest Democratic woman elected to the Senate at 48 when she won her seat in a state that former Vice-President Kamala Harris lost last November.

Slotkin will give her speech after Trump’s, which is not a traditional State of the Union address but is expected to serve the same purpose.

She is due to lay out the Democrats’ vision for the US to rebut Trump’s speech.

“From our economic security to our national security, we’ve got to chart a way forward that actually improves people’s lives in the country we all love, and I’m looking forward to laying that out,” Slotkin said in a statement.

In her rebuttal, she plans to “communicate that Democrats are fighting to lower the cost of living and protect Social Security and Medicaid while Republicans cut taxes for their billionaire donors and Elon Musk”, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, a Democrat, said.

Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer called Slotkin a “rising star” in the party last week as he announced her as the pick to provide the Democratic Party’s rebuttal. He said she was “great on both economic and national security” topics.

Slotkin is new to the US Senate, but she served in Congress as a member of Michigan’s delegation to the House of Representatives. She was first elected in Democrats’ 2018 wave of success, flipping a Republican seat.

Prior to her political career, she held a variety of government jobs. She held national security positions in Presidents George W Bush and Barack Obama’s administrations.

She served in Bush’s National Security Council, and, under Obama, she served as acting assistant secretary of defence for international security affairs and in the State Department.

The CIA recruited Slotkin, who is fluent in Arabic and Swahili, shortly after she earned a graduate degree in international affairs at Columbia University in New York City. She served three tours in Iraq as a CIA analyst.

The moderate Democrat focused her 2024 Senate campaign on lowering costs for Americans, a move that helped propel her to a narrow victory over former Congressman Mike Rogers, even as Trump won the state.

Slotkin is a member of the committees on Armed Forces; Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs; Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry; and Veterans Affairs.

The speaker of the house in New Zealand’s parliament says he will not consider any further complaints from lawmakers over the use of the country’s Māori name in proceedings.

“Aotearoa is regularly used as a name of New Zealand,” Speaker Gerry Brownlee said in a ruling in Parliament on Tuesday.

His comments come after Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters asked Brownlee to bar the use of the name Aotearoa, and suggested a referendum would be needed for anyone to use it in parliament.

While New Zealand is the legal name of the country and can only be changed by law, Aotearoa, which translates to “land of the long white cloud”, has long been used when referring to New Zealand in Māori.

“It [Aotearoa] appears on our passports and it appears on our currency,” Brownlee said on Tuesday. The name is also used in the Māori version of New Zealand’s national anthem, which is commonly heard before the English version.

“If other members do not like certain words, they don’t have to use them. But it’s not a matter of order, and I don’t expect to have further points of order raised about it,” he added.

MPs are allowed to use any of the country’s three official languages – English, Māori and New Zealand sign language – when speaking in Parliament.

• Thousands gather for Waitangi Day with Māori rights in focus
• New Zealand mountain gets same legal rights as a person

The objection by Peters, who is Māori, arose last month, when Green MP Ricardo Menéndez March used it during a parliamentary session.

“Why is someone who applied to come to this country in 2006 allowed to ask a question of this Parliament that changes this country’s name without the referendum and sanction of the New Zealand people?” Peters asked.

Menéndez March is originally from Mexico but is a New Zealand citizen, as all MPs must be.

Shane Jones, another government minister who is a member of Peters’ New Zealand First party and is also Māori, questioned “the appropriateness of recent immigrants telling Māori what the name of our country should be?”

At the time, Brownlee encouraged lawmakers to use the name Aotearoa New Zealand instead in order to avoid any confusion but said it was not a requirement.

Not all Māori have the same connection to the name Aotearoa, which was originally used to describe New Zealand’s North Island only. However, it is often used by non-Māori out of respect for indigenous people.

Winston Peters said on Tuesday that he disagreed with Brownlee’s ruling, Radio New Zealand (RNZ) reported.

He added that he only had a problem with Aotearoa being used in Parliament, not of Māori in general, and that, if a question was addressed to him in future using the name, he would not answer.

The use of Māori in public has grown considerably across New Zealand in recent decades, following advocacy from indigenous leaders.

A petition was launched in 2022 by the Māori Party, an official political party, to officially change the country’s name to Aotearoa, which received more than 70,000 signatures.

“New Zealand is a Dutch name and has no connection to this whenua [land]. How many people in Aotearoa can even point to ‘old’ Zealand on a map?” Māori Party Co-leader Rawiri Waititi said at the time.

Since the current administration came into power in 2023, it has required that government departments prioritise their English names and communicate primarily in English, unless they are specifically related to Māori.

Another of the coalition’s members, the Act party, is also seeking to redefine the terms of New Zealand’s founding document, the Treaty of Waitangi, which has been met with fierce opposition.

Volodymyr Zelensky said he was ready to work under Donald Trump’s “strong leadership” to achieve a lasting peace days after their explosive Oval Office meeting.

The Ukrainian president described the White House showdown as “regrettable” in a lengthy social media post in the wake of the US announcing a pause in military aid to Kyiv.

Zelensky said “it was time to make things right”, after Trump had accused him of not being ready to come to the negotiating table.

The Ukrainian leader also outlined the first stages of how the war could be ended.

“We are ready to work fast to end the war, and the first stages could be the release of prisoners and truce in the sky – ban on missiles, long-ranged drones, bombs on energy and other civilian infrastructure – and truce in the sea immediately, if Russia will do the same,” he wrote.

“Then we want to move very fast through all next stages and to work with the US to agree a strong final deal.”

In his social media post, Zelensky said Friday’s meeting “did not go the way it was supposed to be”, adding: “It is regrettable that it happened this way,” he wrote. “It is time to make things right. We would like future co-operation and communication to be constructive.”

He also reiterated that Ukraine was ready to sign a minerals deal with the US, after the failure to do so at the Washington meeting.

Ukraine woke to the news on Tuesday that the US was “pausing and reviewing” its military aid to the country after a breakdown in diplomacy last week.

In his post, Zelensky offered an overt declaration of gratitude for the help the US has so far given to his country.

“We do really value how much America has done to help Ukraine maintain its sovereignty and independence,” he wrote.

“And we remember the moment when things changed when President Trump provided Ukraine with Javelins. We are grateful for this,” he added, referring to the US anti-tank missile system sold to Ukraine during Trump’s first administration.

During Friday’s meeting in the Oval Office, Vice-President JD Vance accused Zelensky of being ungrateful for the military support the US had provided.

“Have you said ‘thank you’ once this entire meeting?” Vance said, before Trump told Zelensky he was not being “very thankful”.

Zelensky defended himself in the meeting, and began an interview with Fox News in the hours afterwards, saying: “I’m very thankful to Americans for all your support.”

The Oval Office meeting between Zelensky and US officials last week was due to conclude with the two parties signing a deal that would grant the US access to rare earth minerals in Ukraine.

After the clash, which saw Trump accuse Zelensky of “gambling with World War III”, the Ukrainian delegation left without signing the deal – Trump told Zelensky “come back when you’re ready for peace”.

Trump is due to deliver an address to Congress later on Tuesday, during which the Reuters news agency reports he plans to announce a minerals deal between US and Ukraine has been signed.

A number of Ukraine’s allies have commented on the latest from the Ukrainian president, including UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, who welcomed Zelensky’s “steadfast commitment to securing peace”.

It is “vital that all parties worked towards a lasting and secure peace for Ukraine as soon as possible”, a statement from No 10 said.

Likewise, French President Emmanuel Macron praised Zelensky’s willingness to “re-engage in dialogue” with Trump, the Elysee Palace said.

Days before his meeting with Zelensky, the US President had met with Macron, who travelled to Washington with a warning to Trump: “You can’t be weak in the face of Putin.”

While European leaders rallied behind Zelensky following the clash, Nato’s secretary general advised the Ukrainian leader to “find a way” to restore his relationship with Trump.

Speaking to the BBC the following day, Mark Rutte said he had told him “we have to respect” what Trump has done for Ukraine so far.

• Follow live: Trump pauses US military aid to Ukraine

Zelensky’s statement falls short of an apology to Trump, which those in the US president’s camp had called for.

In Moscow, Vladimir Putin’s team earlier welcomed the US’s pause to military aid as likely to be the “best” contribution to peace.

“If the US stops, or pauses these supplies, this will probably be the best contribution to the cause of peace,” Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov told the BBC’s Steve Rosenberg.

Trump himself has not commented on the pause to aid, nor Zelensky’s response, however he did earlier berate the Ukrainian leader following his meetings with European allies at the weekend.

A Sunday summit – hosted by the UK prime minister – was intended as a show of support for Ukraine.

After the meeting, Zelensky said a deal to end the war between Ukraine and Russia was “still very, very far away”.

Trump described this as the “worst statement that could have been made by Zelensky”, in a post on his Truth Social platform.

“It is what I was saying, this guy doesn’t want there to be peace as long as he has America’s backing,” the president wrote.

An Indian woman who worked as a domestic helper in the United Arab Emirates has been executed after she was convicted of killing her employers’ baby.

Shahzadi Khan, who worked for an Indian couple, was executed last month, according to the Indian government.

According to Abu Dhabi court documents, Khan asphyxiated the boy, but a doctor who testified at the trial could not confirm this as he had not been allowed to perform a post-mortem.

Khan’s family maintain she was innocent and say the four-month-old died from an incorrect vaccination on the day of his death. They said Khan did not get “adequate representation” during her trial. The BBC contacted UAE authorities for comment.

The execution was carried out on 15 February, but the news was only confirmed by Indian authorities on 3 March after Khan’s parents petitioned the Delhi High Court seeking information about their daughter.

The secrecy surrounding the execution has made headlines in India, which has close ties with United Arab Emirates. Hundreds of thousands of Indians live and work in the country.

According to the petition filed by Khan’s family, she had moved to Abu Dhabi in December 2021 to work for the Indian family as a caregiver.

She was entrusted to look after the baby, who was born in August the following year. According to Khan’s father, she would often call her family back in the north Indian state of Uttar Pradesh and show them the baby over video calls.

But the calls stopped after his death – and the family later learnt that Khan was in jail. According to Khan’s family, the baby died on 7 December 2022, just hours after he received a vaccine.

Police arrested Khan two months later. She insisted that a video recording showing her confessing to killing the baby had been forced, and that she had not received proper legal support in court.

She was sentenced to death in July 2023. Her appeal was rejected in February 2024.

Khan’s family said they last heard from her on 13 February this year when she called from prison, saying that she might be executed the next day.

“She kept crying and said she was put in a separate cell, and that she would not come out alive and that it might be her last call,” her father Shabbir Khan told the BBC.

When Khan’s family did not hear from her after that, they filed a petition with the Delhi High Court, seeking information from the Indian government on whether she had been executed.

Khan’s family said they felt she did not have “adequate representation” which resulted in her receiving the death sentence.

In an interview with the Press Trust of India, her father Shabbir Khan said: “She didn’t get justice. I have tried everywhere, running around since last year. But I didn’t have money to go there [Abu Dhabi] to hire a lawyer.”

In an earlier statement released to BBC Hindi following her conviction, Khan’s employer said: “Shahzadi brutally and intentionally killed my son which is already proven by the United Arab Emirates authorities in the light of all the evidence.

“Misleading information has been provided to media and other authorities to gain [their] sympathy and shift the focus from the actual crime which she committed.”

In February, the Indian government informed parliament that a total of 54 Indians were on death row in foreign countries, including 29 in the UAE.

“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 titled “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.

A second Sydney nurse who allegedly appeared in a video that made threats towards Israeli patients has been charged by police.

Ahmad Rashad Nadir, 27, and Sarah Abu Lebdeh, 26, were both suspended from their duties at Bankstown Hospital in February after the video was released online. It was filmed on an anonymous online platform which pairs people randomly for a chat.

Authorities say there is “no evidence” the pair actually harmed patients.

Mr Nadir was charged on Wednesday with using a carriage service to threaten, menace or harass, and with possessing a prohibited drug.

Carriage services refer to modern communication systems such as phones and the internet.

Ms Lebdeh was charged last week with three offences: threatening violence to a group, using a carriage service to threaten to kill, and using a carriage service to harass or cause offence.

Neither person has entered a plea to the charges, but Mr Nadir apologised last month through his lawyer.

In the footage, which appeared to have been filmed inside a hospital and was published by an Israeli content creator, Ms Abu Lebdeh and Mr Nadir allegedly bragged about refusing to treat Israeli patients, killing them, and said they would go to hell.

The video spread widely online and caused public outcry, with Prime Minister Anthony Albanese describing it as “disgusting” and “vile”.

Earlier this month Australia passed tougher laws against hate crimes following a wave of unrelated antisemitic attacks.

In recent months, there have been a series of arson and graffiti incidents involving homes, cars, and synagogues in Jewish communities across Australia.

There have also been rising incidents of islamophobia. A Western Australian teenager was charged on Wednesday after allegedly threatening to launch a Christchurch massacre-inspired attack on a Sydney mosque.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau slammed Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs on Canada, calling it a “very dumb thing to do” and vowed to conduct a “relentless fight” to protect its economy.

Trump has imposed 25% tariffs on products entering the US from Canada and Mexico, and has increased a levy on goods coming from China.

The Canadian prime minister announced retaliatory tariffs on US exports and warned that a trade war would be costly for both countries.

But Trump pushed even further in a post on Truth Social, saying: “Please explain to Governor Trudeau, of Canada, that when he puts on a Retaliatory Tariff on the U.S., our Reciprocal Tariff will immediately increase by a like amount!”

Trudeau accused the US president of planning “a total collapse of the Canadian economy because that will make it easier to annex us”.

“That is never going to happen. We will never be the 51st state,” he told reporters on Tuesday.

“This is a time to hit back hard and to demonstrate that a fight with Canada will have no winners.”

He said that Canada’s main goal remains to get the tariffs lifted so that they “don’t last a second longer than necessary”.

Trump said he is protecting US jobs and manufacturing, and trying to prevent illegal migration and drug trafficking. The US president said his goal is to clamp down on the powerful opioid fentanyl; he has variously blamed the other countries for the drug’s arrival in the US.

Responding to the accusations, Trudeau said on Tuesday there was “no justification” for the new tariffs, because less than 1% of the fentanyl intercepted at the US border comes 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 too vowed to issue her own “tariff and non-tariff measures” – but said further details would be given on Sunday.

Trump’s tariffs are likely to push up prices for consumers in the US and abroad, said John Rogers, an economics professor at American International University.

The items most likely to be affected the soonest are food – the fruits, vegetables and other produce the US imports from Mexico – followed by the large amounts of oil and gas imported from Canada, Prof Rogers said.

“Prices could go up pretty soon”, Prof Rogers warned, though he was reluctant to say by exactly how much or how quickly.

“We are in pretty uncharted territory,” he told the BBC.

The bigger concern for prof Rogers was the potential damage he said was being done to America’s longstanding trade partners.

“This is kind of sticking your finger in the eye of your neighbour,” he said, adding that, in a potential US-Canada-Mexico trade war, “everybody is a loser”.

The three countries targeted are America’s top trading partners, and the tit-for-tat measures also prompted fears of that very trade war.

“There’s no way you can win a trade war. Everybody suffers, because everybody’s just going to wind up paying higher prices and sacrificing quality,” Prof Rogers said.

Tariffs are a tax on imports from other countries, designed to protect against cheaper competition from elsewhere, and boost businesses and jobs at home.

• 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?

Canada’s retaliatory measures include a 25% reciprocal tariff that 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 of American products will become effective in 21 days’ time

Canada’s 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.

Ontario Premier Doug Ford, whose province is home to Canada’s auto manufacturing industry, told reporters on Tuesday that he anticipates assembly plants will “shut down on both sides of the border” as a result of the tariffs.

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 they 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.

Ford of Ontario mooted the possibility of cutting off Canadian electricity supplies and exports of high-grade nickel to the US, as well as putting an export levy of 25% on electricity sent to power homes in Michigan, New York and Minnesota.

Canada exports enough electricity to power some six million American homes.

Ontario and other provinces have also moved to remove US-made liquor off their shelves. In Nova Scotia, Premier Tim Houston said his province will ban American companies from bidding on provincial contracts, as will Ontario.

Ford also announced that a C$100m ($68m; £55.1) contract with Elon Musk’s satellite internet company Starlink will be cancelled.

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.

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.

Speaking in the French Parliament, France’s Armed Forces Minister Sébastien Lecornu welcomed that Vance had “corrected his remarks”.

He paid tribute to the memory of French soldiers who had died in recent decades, earning applause from French MPs by saying they “deserved the respect of our allies”.

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.

She later told the BBC Vance’s comments “were clearly referring to the UK and France”, adding that they were “deeply disrespectful”.

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.

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.”

Dozens of construction workers have been pulled out alive from metal containers after they were buried by an avalanche in the Himalayas in India’s Uttarakhand state.

They survived – some as long as nearly two days – as the containers in which they were living had enough oxygen to sustain them until rescuers could dig them out, Indian media reported quoting officials.

On Friday, 54 workers were buried when the avalanche hit a construction camp near Mana village. Eight were killed, while the other 46 were rescued.

The operation lasted almost 60 hours in sub-zero temperatures and concluded on Sunday.

Most of the labourers, who were working on a highway expansion project, were able to “withstand the wrecking avalanche” because of the containers, rescuers told The Indian Express newspaper.

“These metal shelters saved most of them. They had just enough oxygen to hold on until we got them out,” a senior rescue official told The Times of India.

The newspaper reported that the force of the avalanche had hurled eight metal containers and a shed down the mountain.

Uttarakhand state Chief Minister Pushkar Singh Dhami has thanked rescue teams for their efforts in challenging conditions.

Members of the Indian army, national and state disaster response forces and local administration had worked to free the workers, using helicopters and drones for the operation.

Many of the rescued workers are receiving treatment at hospitals in the state’s Joshimath town and Rishikesh city.

Satyaprakash Yadav, a migrant worker from Uttar Pradesh who was among those rescued, said the “avalanche hit our container like a landslide”, according to a video released by the army.

He added that the container he was in broke apart when the snow hit and it ended up near a river.

“We managed to get out on our own and reached a nearby army guest house, where we stayed overnight,” he added.

Rajnish Kumar, a worker from Uttarkhand’s Pithoragarh town, said most of them were sleeping when the avalanche struck.

“When the snow hit the container, it sank about 50 to 60 metres down [the mountain]. The Army arrived quickly and rescued us,” he said, according to the army video.

Gaurav Kunwar, a former village council member of Mana, told the BBC on Friday the area where the avalanche hit was a “migratory area” and that it had no permanent residents.

“Only labourers working on border roads stay there in the winter,” he said, adding that it had rained for two days prior to the avalanche.

The India Meteorological Department has warned of rainfall and snow in the northern states of Himachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand, as well as Jammu and Kashmir until Tuesday.

Avalanches and landslides are common in the higher regions of the Himalayas, especially during winter.

Experts say that climate change has made extreme weather more severe and less predictable. There has also been a rapid rise in deforestation and construction in Uttarakhand’s hilly areas in recent years.

In 2021, nearly 100 people died in Uttarakhand after a piece of a Himalayan glacier fell into the river, triggering flash floods.

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 called Noelia 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 want to finish with dignity once and for all,” Noelia told the court on Tuesday.

She claimed to have been “coerced” by religious groups and said people had filled a room in the care centre where she was currently living with “small pictures, crosses and religious symbols”.

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.

A mass trial of around 40 prominent opposition figures began in Tunisia on Tuesday, in a case that lawyers, relatives and rights groups say is politically motivated.

Diplomats, politicians, lawyers, and journalists who are critical of President Kaïs Saïed are among the defendants.

They could face the death penalty if found guilty of charges which include “plotting against state security” and “belonging to a terrorist group”.

Human Rights Watch has labelled it a “mockery of a trial” based on “abusive charges”, while the UN recently urged Tunisian authorities to end “all forms of persecution of political opponents”.

The country’s foreign ministry said it read the UN’s statement with “astonishment” and criticised what it said were “inaccuracies”, and added that “Tunisia can give lessons to those who think they are in a position to make statements”.

Campaigners say the trial highlights Saïed’s authoritarian control over the judiciary, after dissolving parliament in 2021 and ruling by decree.

Since he was first elected six years ago, the former law professor has rewritten the constitution to enhance his powers.

As the trial began on Tuesday, defence lawyers complained that they were not granted access to the full case file.

“You can put an end to this madness and absurdity,” lawyer Abdelaziz Essid told judges in court.

Among those on trial are ex-presidential chief of staff Nadia Akacha, the former leader of the Ennahda opposition party Abdelhamid Jelassi and Jaouhar Ben Mbarek, who was a high-profile critic of the president’s 2021 power grab.

Some of the defendants, including Akacha, were tried in absentia having already fled the north African country.

Among the defendants are people who were arrested two years ago and detained ever since, with Saïed labelling them “terrorists”.

“It is one of the darkest injustices in Tunisia’s history,” said the head of the Tunisian League for the Defence of Human Rights, Bassam Trifi.

Outraged Tunisian activists have been demonstrating outside the court in the capital, Tunis.

Among the banners they carried was the slogan: “No to remote trials, No to a judiciary that does not guarantee rights, freedom for political detainees”.

• Tunisia’s president – saviour or usurper of power?
• Pink flamingos ‘seized from smugglers’ in Tunisia
• ‘My black skin says I don’t belong in Tunisia’
• The fisherman who found a dead baby in his net