Just short of his 80th birthday, Rodrigo Duterte, a man who once vowed to purge his country through a bloody anti-drugs and crime campaign, found himself outmanoeuvred and in custody.

The former president was met by Philippines police as he arrived in Manila on a flight from Hong Kong, where he had been rallying support for his candidates for the upcoming mid-term election among the large Filipino diaspora there.

The much-talked-about warrant for his arrest from the International Criminal Court (ICC) was, it turned out, already in the hands of the Philippines government, which moved swiftly to execute it.

A frail-looking Mr Duterte, walking with a stick, was moved to an air force base within the airport perimeter. A chartered jet was quickly prepared to take him to the ICC in The Hague.

How had this happened? How had a man so powerful and popular, often called “the Trump of Asia”, been brought so low?

In vain, his lawyers and family members protested that the arrest had no legal basis and complained that Duterte’s frail health was being neglected.

While in office, Mr Duterte formed an alliance with the Marcos family – the children of ousted dictator Ferdinand Marcos who had long been working on a political comeback. Mr Duterte could not run again in the 2022 election, but his daughter Sara, mayor of southern city of Davao, was also popular and a strong contender to replace him.

However, Ferdinand Marcos’s son Bongbong, who had been in politics all his life, was also well placed to win and very well-funded.

The two families struck a deal. They would work together to get Bongbong into the presidency and Sara into the vice-presidency, on the assumption that come the next election in 2028, her turn would come and she would have the formidable Marcos machine behind her.

It worked. Both won their positions by a wide margin. Mr Duterte expected that his alliance would protect him from any blowback over his controversial presidency once he was out of power.

The most serious threat hanging over him was an investigation by the ICC into his culpability for thousands of extrajudicial killings carried out during anti-drugs campaigns he ordered – after he became president in 2016, but also during his tenure as mayor of the southern city of Davao from 2011.

Mr Duterte withdrew the Philippines from the jurisdiction of the ICC in 2019, but its prosecutors argued they still had a mandate to look into alleged crimes against humanity committed before that, and launched a formal investigation in 2021. However, President Marcos initially stated that his government would not co-operate with the ICC.

That position only changed after the dramatic breakdown of the Duterte-Marcos alliance. Strains in their relationship were evident from the earliest days of the administration, when Sara Duterte’s request to be given control of the powerful defence ministry was turned down and she was given the education ministry instead.

President Marcos also distanced himself from his predecessor’s mercurial policies, mending fences with the US, standing up to China in contested seas, and stopping the blood-curdling threats of retribution against drug dealers.

In the end, these were two ambitious, power-hungry clans aiming to dominate Filipino politics, and there was not enough power for them to share. Relations reached a nadir last year when Sara Duterte announced that she had hired an assassin to kill President Marcos, should anything happen to her.

Late last year, the lower house of Congress, which is controlled by Marcos loyalists, filed a petition to impeach Ms Duterte. That trial is due to take place in the Senate later this year.

If she is impeached, under the constitution, she would be barred from holding high political office, killing her long-standing presidential ambitions and weakening the political power of the Dutertes even further.

President Marcos now appears to have moved deftly to neutralise his main political rival. But his strategy is not risk-free. The Dutertes remain popular in much of the country, and may be able to mobilise protests against the former president’s prosecution.

Sara Duterte has issued a statement accusing the government of surrendering her father to “foreign powers” and of violating Filipino sovereignty.

An early test of the support enjoyed by both clans will be the mid-term elections in May.

In his comments to journalists after the plane carrying his predecessor had taken off from Manila, President Marcos insisted he was meeting the country’s commitments to Interpol, which had delivered the ICC warrant. But he was coy about the fact that it was an ICC warrant he was executing, given that many Filipinos will question what the ICC’s remit is in a country which has already left its jurisdiction.

It is not risk-free for the ICC either. The court is an embattled institution these days, with the Trump administration threatening to arrest its top officials should they travel to the US, and few countries willing to extradite those it has indicted. Getting former President Duterte to The Hague might therefore look like a welcome high-profile success.

But there was a warning, from China – admittedly not a signatory to the ICC and currently at loggerheads with the Philippines – not to politicise ICC cases. This was a thinly-veiled reference to the fact that this case, which is supposed to be about accountability for serious international crimes, has ended up playing a decisive part in a domestic feud in the Philippines between two rival political forces.

Ukraine has said it is ready to accept an immediate 30-day ceasefire with Russia proposed by the US, after a day of US-Ukraine talks in Saudi Arabia.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said he would present the offer to Russia and that “the ball is in their court”.

Ukraine’s President Volodomyr Zelensky said it was now up to the US to convince Russia to agree to the “positive” proposal.

Tuesday’s talks in Jeddah were the first official meeting between the two countries since the extraordinary clash between Zelensky and US President Donald Trump in the Oval Office.

In a joint statement, the US also said it would immediately restart intelligence sharing and security assistance to Ukraine, which Washington had suspended after the unprecedented meeting.

“Both delegations agreed to name their negotiating teams and immediately begin negotiations toward an enduring peace that provides for Ukraine’s long-term security,” the US-Ukraine statement said.

Rubio told a press conference in Jeddah late on Tuesday that he hoped Russia would accept the proposal.

Ukraine was “ready to stop shooting and start talking,” he said, and if Russia rejected the offer “then we’ll unfortunately know what the impediment is to peace here”.

“Today we made an offer that the Ukrainians have accepted, which is to enter into a ceasefire and into immediate negotiations,” he said.

“We’ll take this offer now to the Russians and we hope they’ll say yes to peace. The ball is now in their court,” he added.

The offer of a 30-day ceasefire goes beyond Zelensky’s proposal for a partial truce in the sea and sky.

• Follow live updates on this story
• Analysis: It’s Russia that may now be feeling the pressure

The Ukrainian president thanked Trump for “the constructiveness” of the talks in Jeddah.

In a video message, Zelensky said Russia had to “show its willingness to stop the war or continue the war”.

“It is time for the full truth,” he added.

Moscow has not yet responded. The Kremlin said earlier on Tuesday it would issue a statement after being briefed by Washington on the outcome of the talks.

Russia launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. Moscow currently controls about 20% of Ukrainian territory.

At the White House, Trump told reporters he would speak with President Putin, who would “hopefully” agree to the proposal.

“It takes to two to tango, as they say,” Trump said, adding he hoped the deal would be agreed in the next few days.

“We have a big meeting with Russia tomorrow, and some great conversations hopefully will ensue.”

He added that he was open to inviting Zelensky back to Washington.

Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said Russia had not ruled out talks with US representatives in the next few days, according to Russia’s state-owned news agency Tass.

Asked by a reporter if Trump and Zelensky’s relationship was “back on track,” Rubio said he hoped it was “peace” that was back on track.

“This is not Mean Girls, this is not some episode of some television show,” he said.

“Today people will die in this war, they died yesterday and – sadly – unless there’s a ceasefire, they will die tomorrow.”

The US and Ukrainian teams met after overnight drone attacks killed at least three people in Moscow – which Russia said showed Ukraine had rejected using diplomacy to end the war.

Trump and Zelensky have also agreed to finalise “as soon as possible” a critical minerals deal, the joint statement said.

Ukraine has offered to grant the US access to its rare earth mineral reserves in exchange for US security guarantees – but this was derailed by the White House row.

Rubio said the deal had not been the subject of Tuesday’s talks, but had been negotiated with Ukrainian and US treasuries.

The US delegation in Jeddah also included US national security advisor Mike Waltz and Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff.

Witkoff is due to travel to Russia in the coming days, a source familiar with the planning told the BBC, although this could change quickly.

The joint US-Ukraine statement said Kyiv had “reiterated” that Europe should be involved in any peace process.

The shift in America’s approach to the war – which has included locking Europe out of talks – has prompted several emergency meetings between European leaders in recent weeks.

The EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said the bloc welcomed Tuesday’s “positive development”.

Achieving a swift end to the war in Ukraine has been a key pledge for the US president.

He has placed increasing pressure on Zelensky to accept a ceasefire, without offering the immediate security guarantees insisted upon by the Ukrainian president.

On Friday, Trump issued a rare threat of further sanctions against Moscow in a push for a deal. Russia is already heavily sanctioned by the US over the war.

Trump said he was contemplating the move because “Russia is absolutely ‘pounding’ Ukraine on the battlefield right now”.

Meanwhile, the war continued on the ground on Tuesday.

Three men were killed in the Moscow region in what was described as the largest drone attack on the Russian capital since the start of the full-scale war in Ukraine.

A further 18 people, including three children, were injured, health officials told Russian media.

The Russian defence ministry said 337 drones were intercepted over Russia and 91 of them were shot down over the Moscow region.

Ukrainian officials reported Russian drone attacks on the capital Kyiv and several other regions.

Ukraine’s air force said it had shot down 79 of 126 drones launched by Russia, as well as an Iskander-M ballistic missile.

It was not immediately clear whether there were any casualties.

A war of words has erupted between the chief minister of a southern Indian state and the federal government over an education policy that, among other things, also deals with what languages children are taught in schools.

The National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 was introduced by Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government five years back and is being implemented in stages. It has made headlines recently after Tamil Nadu Chief Minister MK Stalin alleged that the federal government was penalising his state for refusing to implement it – charges Delhi has denied.

A section of the policy recommends that students learn three languages. It doesn’t mention any language specifically, but adds that at least two should be “native to India”.

Stalin has cited a number of reasons for not implementing the NEP. But it is his allegation that the three-language policy will lead to the imposition of Hindi – the northern Indian language that is the most widely spoken in India – in his state that has dominated headlines recently.

India, where states are mostly organised on linguistic lines, has nearly two dozen official languages, including Hindi, Tamil and English. But southern states have often protested against efforts by successive federal governments to privilege Hindi over other languages.

It is an especially sensitive issue in Tamil Nadu, which has historically been at the forefront of such protests.

The issue led to heated exchanges in India’s parliament on Monday, with federal Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan accusing Stalin and his party members of “mischief”.

“Their only job is to raise language barriers. They are undemocratic and uncivilised,” Pradhan said, sparking protests by Stalin’s party, the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, in Tamil Nadu.

Education is a part of the constitution’s “concurrent” list, which means that both the federal and state governments can make and enact laws around it. Schools and colleges follow different syllabi and rules depending on who oversees them – the federal or state governments.

The National Education Policy aims to promote and regulate education in India and the government updates it occasionally, with the NEP 2020 being the fourth iteration.

The three-language formula has found place in the NEP from its first version in 1968 and has often faced pushback from states, including Tamil Nadu. Many of its recommendations were not legally binding on state-run schools – Tamil Nadu, for instance, teaches only two languages, English and Tamil, in schools it runs. The state’s leaders have argued that learning their mother tongue, Tamil, helps children learn subjects better while English opens up more promising opportunities.

Tamil Nadu government schools have also performed well over the years on surveys measuring parameters including access to education and quality of infrastructure.

The latest NEP says that the “three-language policy will continue to be implemented” but adds that – unlike earlier versions – there will be “greater flexibility” and that “no language will be imposed on any state”.

But Stalin and his party – who say they are not against Hindi itself – have argued over the past few weeks that the policy’s eventual aim is to force the language on non-Hindi-speaking states.

The chief minister wrote on X last month that Hindi – which emerged as a standardised language for easy communication during the British era – ended up dominating other languages and dialects spoken in northern India, such as Bhojpuri and Awadhi.

His party’s MP Kanimozhi Karunanidhi also recently questioned why a student should be forced to learn three languages.

“Students have enough burden in schools. You have to learn so many subjects, and on top of that you are forced to learn three languages instead of two,” she told the Indian Express newspaper.

But Pradhan has denied allegations that the policy will force Hindi through.

“We have never said in NEP 2020 that only Hindi will be there; we have only said that education will be based on mother tongue – in Tamil Nadu, it will be Tamil,” he told reporters last week.

The latest controversy has been exacerbated by Tamil Nadu’s claims that it has not been allotted its share of funds for Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan – a school education programme partially funded by the federal government – due to the state’s refusal to implement the NEP.

The Hindu newspaper reported last August that the federal government had asked Tamil Nadu to sign a memorandum of understanding (MoU) to participate in the scheme. However, according to the MoU, participating in the scheme meant that the state had to adopt NEP 2020 “in its entirety”.

In December, a junior federal minister told parliament that Tamil Nadu did not sign the MoU for the scheme despite agreeing initially – a claim the DMK denied, saying it never agreed to do so.

In February, Stalin wrote a letter to Prime Minister Narendra Modi, asking him to urgently release the funds, amounting to around 21.5bn rupees ($247m; £191m).

India is one of the world’s most linguistically diverse countries and some estimates say thousands of languages are spoken here.

But there are only 22 official languages, with Hindi – spoken by more than 46% of the population – being the most widely used, according to the last census held in 2011.

After the British left India in 1947, the newly independent nation sought to promote Hindi as a link language to replace English. The constitution – enacted in 1950 – also nudges the federal government to promote the spread of Hindi.

This invited fierce opposition from non-Hindi-speaking states, prompting the federal government to continue using English as an alternate official language for 15 years after 1950.

As the deadline year of 1965 approached, violent protests over fears of Hindi “imposition” erupted again across Tamil Nadu, leading the federal government to pass a law that assured the continued use of English as an official language.

However, successive federal governments have introduced policies or made announcements that have kept these anxieties simmering.

The 1968 NEP adopted the three-language formula for the first time and, in the same year, the government introduced policies mandating the teaching of Hindi in non-Hindi speaking states, leading to fresh protests.

Over the years, the issue of Hindi versus other languages has made headlines repeatedly. In 2023, Stalin criticised the Modi government for replacing some colonial-era laws with ones bearing Hindi names (the Indian Penal Code, for instance, has been replaced with a law named Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita).

A federal government commission that examined the language policy during 1948-49 acknowledged that the issue’s sentimental nature made it “difficult to consider it in a calm and detached manner”.

“No other problem has caused greater controversy among educationists and evoked more contradictory views from our witnesses,” it said.

The US Department of Education is planning to cut about half of its workforce, as the Trump Administration works to slash the size of the federal government.

The mass layoffs will impact nearly 2,100 people who are set to be placed on leave from 21 March.

Trump has long sought to eliminate the department, a long-cherished goal of some conservatives, but such an action would require approval by Congress.

The department, which has an annual budget of around $238bn (£188bn), employs more than 4,000 people.

Established in 1979, the department oversees funding for public schools, administers student loans and runs programmes that help low-income students.

A common misconception is that it operates US schools and sets curricula – that is done by states and local districts.

And a relatively small percentage of funding for primary and secondary schools – about 13% – comes from federal funds. The majority is made up from states and local groups.

The agency also plays a prominent role in administering and overseeing the federal student loans used by millions of Americans to pay for higher education.

“As part of the Department of Education’s final mission, the department today initiated a reduction in force impacting nearly 50% of the department’s workforce,” a statement from Education Secretary Linda McMahon said on Tuesday.

She said the cuts would impact all divisions in the department and were made to “better serve students, parents, educators, and taxpayers”.

The agency had 4,133 employees when Trump was sworn into office, an announcement from the department states. It has the smallest staff of all the 15 US cabinet-level agencies.

After the cuts, 2,183 people would remain, which included several hundred who retired or accepted a buyout programme earlier this year, the accountment said.

The notice to employees said that all of those who are laid off would continue to receive their normal pay and benefits until 9 June, as well as a severance package or retirement pay based on how long they’d worked at the department.

“The Department of Education will continue to deliver on all statutory programs that fall under the agency’s purview, including formula funding, student loans, Pell Grants, funding for special needs students, and competitive grantmaking,” the email states.

Reports have suggested that Trump, for weeks, has considered signing an executive order impacting the Department of Education, though he has not yet done so.

Several of his executive orders have been met with lawsuits, as have Trump’s dramatic cuts at agencies around Washington.

Several lawsuits have also challenged actions by the Department of Government Efficiency (Doge), a team aiming to slash government spending that’s being led by Elon Musk. The agency has installed deputies at various agencies, slashed staff and accessed data across the government.

For decades, Republicans have floated the idea of axing the Education Department. When Ronald Reagan ran for president in 1980, he pushed for its dismantling.

It hasn’t been done because it would take an act of Congress to accomplish, which in the current makeup would mean Trump would need Democratic support.

Many conservatives have pointed to decentralising education and giving states and local governments more power. More recently, though, Trump and other conservatives have attacked the department for its so-called “woke” agenda, which includes protections on gender and race.

Trump has claimed the agency was “indoctrinating young people with inappropriate racial, sexual, and political material”.

The American Federation of Teachers, the nation’s most powerful education union, condemned the cuts to the department in a statement.

“The massive reduction in force at the Education Department is an attack on opportunity that will gut the agency and its ability to support students, throwing federal education programs into chaos across the country,” the union’s president Randi Weingarten said.

She called for Congress and the courts to intervene.

Don’t call it a breakthrough, as there is still a long way to go before lasting peace.

But Tuesday’s agreement between the US and Ukraine over a proposed temporary ceasefire in the war with Russia represents a remarkable change of course.

Just a week ago, the US suspended military aid and intelligence sharing with Ukraine in the aftermath of the bitter meeting between Volodymyr Zelensky and Donald Trump at the White House.

That US and Ukrainian diplomats were able to improve relations and chart a path forward serves as another illustration of how Trump, despite his apparent bluster and willingness to hurl insults, always appears open to further negotiations.

For him, in fact, the swagger and browbeating are often an integral part of the negotiating process.

But a strategy that involves a whirlwind of public threats and concessions is not without risks, as has been painfully apparent to the more than 60% of Americans with investments in the US stock market in recent weeks.

Major stock indexes continued to tumble on Tuesday after Trump escalated his war of words – and tariffs – with America’s northern neighbour and largest trading partner, Canada.

• Ukraine ready to accept 30-day ceasefire with Russia
• Analysis: It’s Russia that may now be feeling the pressure
• Trump halts plan for 50% steel and aluminium tariffs on Canada

In a caustic post on his Truth Social account, Trump said he would double impending tariffs on Canadian steel and aluminium in response to a planned Canadian surcharge on electricity bound for northern US states.

He said – again – that Canada becoming a US state is the “only thing that makes sense”.

The aggressive style produced results within hours – the premier of Ontario, Doug Ford, backed down from the energy surcharge for now, and then Trump said he would no longer double the 25% tariffs coming into force on Wednesday.

But the ongoing trade dispute has erased trillions of dollars in US stock market wealth. And there is still the prospect of more tariffs – on Canada and other US trading partners – next month.

Meanwhile, despite Ukraine’s acceptance of a time-limited truce if Russia plays its part, there is still no sign of the mineral rights deal which would give the US a share of future Ukrainian mining revenues.

Trump has made clear how much he wants this, and it could be a stumbling block down the road.

There is also no indication of whether Russia will accept the 30-day ceasefire proposal. It is also unclear what the Trump team is willing to do to convince Vladimir Putin to say yes.

Will the same playbook work? Or will Trump have to find another tool in his negotiating kit?

There is, however, clear progress towards Trump’s promise, repeated throughout much of last year’s presidential campaign, that he is the one who can end the war after three years.

He has chosen to perform a high-wire act where success could bring peace and prosperity. The price of failure, however, will be measured in lives lost.

Armed militants in Pakistan’s Balochistan region have attacked a train carrying more than 400 passengers and taken a number of them hostage, military sources told the BBC on Tuesday.

The Baloch Liberation Army (BLA) fired at the Jaffar Express Train as it travelled from Quetta to Peshawar.

The separatist group said it had bombed the track before storming the train in the remote Sibi district, claiming the train was under its control.

At least 16 militants have been killed and 104 passengers rescued as of Wednesday morning, local media reported.

Among those rescued are 17 injured passengers, who have been hospitalised for treatment.

The militants had threatened to kill hostages if authorities did not release Baloch political prisoners within 48 hours, according to local reports.

The rescue operation is ongoing.

There were reports of “intense firing” at the train, a Balochistan government spokesman told local newspaper Dawn on Tuesday.

A senior police official said it “remains stuck just before a tunnel surrounded by mountains”, AFP news agency reports.

A senior army official confirmed to the BBC that there were more than 100 army personnel travelling from Quetta on the train.

The Pakistani authorities – as well as several Western countries, including the UK and US – have designated the BLA as a terrorist organisation.

It has waged a decades-long insurgency to gain independence and has launched numerous deadly attacks, often targeting police stations, railway lines and highways.

On Tuesday, the group warned of “severe consequences” if an attempt was made to rescue those it is holding.

“I can’t find the words to describe how we managed to escape. It was terrifying,” Muhammad Bilal, one of the freed hostages, told AFP news agency.

Allahditta, another passenger, said he was allowed to go because of his heart condition. The 49-year-old recalled how people “began hiding under the seats in panic” when the attackers stormed the train.

A local railway official in Quetta earlier told the BBC that a group of 80 passengers – 11 children, 26 women and 43 men – had managed to disembark the train and walk to the nearest railway station, Panir.

The official said the group was made up of locals from the province of Balochistan.

One man, whose brother-in-law was still being held on the train, described an agonising wait. He said he had tried to drive to the area, but many of the roads were closed.

Meanwhile, anxious families of passengers were trying to get information about their loved ones from the counter at Quetta railway station.

The son of one passenger, Muhammad Ashraf, who left Quetta for Lahore on Tuesday morning, told BBC Urdu he had not been able to contact his father.

Another relative said he was “frantic with worry” about his cousin and her small child, who were travelling from Quetta to Multan to pick up a family member.

“No one is telling me what’s happening or if they’re safe,” Imran Khan told Reuters news agency.

Officials say they are yet to communicate with anyone on the train.

The area has no internet and mobile network coverage, officials told the BBC.

Balochistan is Pakistan’s largest province and the richest in terms of natural resources, but it is the least developed.

Donald Trump has halted a plan to double US tariffs on Canadian steel and metal imports to 50%, just hours after first threatening them.

Tariffs of 25% are still going ahead and will take effect from the 12 March.

The move by the president comes after the Canadian province of Ontario suspended new charges of 25% on electricity that it sends to some northern states in the US, hours after Trump threatened to sharply increase his tariffs on the country.

It marked the latest skirmish in a trade war that risks economic damage to the two North American neighbours.

“Cooler heads prevailed,” said Trump trade adviser Peter Navarro told broadcaster CNBC, confirming that Trump would not move forward with his latest tariff threats.

Canada, one of America’s closest trade partners, has borne the brunt of Trump’s ire as he has launched trade battles in his first months in office.

Trump has hit goods from the country, along with Mexico, with a blanket 25% tariff, though he signed orders temporarily exempting a significant number of items from the new duties, which he said were a response to drug and migrants crossing into the US.

Canada is also facing 25% tariffs on its steel and aluminium, which are set to go into effect on Wednesday, after Trump said he was ending exemptions to the duties previously granted to some countries.

Canada has called Trump’s attacks unjustified and announced retaliation, including new tariffs on C$30bn ($22bn; £16bn) US products.

Ford had announced he would tax electricity exports to the US in an effort to get those tariffs removed.

He had also previously said he would “not hesitate to shut off electricity completely” if the US “escalates”.

Announcing the decision to suspend the electricity duties, Ford said he thought it was the “right decision” to try to start focus the discussions on the wider North American free trade deal.

“With any negotiation that we have, there’s a point that both parties are heated and the temperature needs to come down,” he said, thanking Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick for reaching out about a meeting.

“They understand how serious we are,” he added. “We have both agreed, let cooler heads prevail. We need to sit down and move this forward.”

In his social media post early on Tuesday, which threatened to double levies on Canadian steel and aluminium, Trump said he was responding to Ford’s moves.

He also criticised Canada for relying on the US for “military protection”, and reiterated that he wanted the country to become the 51st US state.

He add that it “would make all tariffs, and everything else, totally disappear” if Canada were to join the US as a state.

The White House declared the episode a win, saying in a statement that Trump had “once again used the leverage of the American economy, which is the best and biggest in the world, to deliver a win for the American people”.

Tariffs are taxes charged on goods imported from other countries.

The companies that bring the foreign goods into the country pay the tax to the government.

• Faisal Islam: Trump is no longer swayed by the stock markets

The back-and-forth came during a turbulent time for markets.

The S&P 500 index of the largest firms listed in the US fell a further 0.7% on Tuesday after dropping 2.7% on Monday, which was its biggest one-day drop since December.

The UK’s FTSE 100 share index, which had edged lower earlier on Tuesday, fell further following Trump’s latest comments and closed down more than 1%. The French Cac 40 index and German Dax followed a similar pattern.

Monday’s stock market sell-off had begun after Trump said the economy was in a “transition” when asked about whether the US was heading for a recession.

Investors have been concerned about the economic effects of Trump’s trade policies, which it is feared could push up inflation in the US and beyond, while uncertainty leads to economic paralyisis.

Even before Tuesday’s comments, Trump’s tariffs had already been causing concern for US businesses.

On Monday, Jason Goldstein, founder of Icarus Brewing, a small beer-maker in New Jersey that employs 50 people, told the BBC that previous tariff announcements had prompted a slew of emails from his suppliers.

They have been warning that price increases for everything from grain and aluminium cans are likely to be coming.

Mr Goldstein has stockpiled an extra month’s supply of cans and held off on new purchases as a result of the uncertainty and rapidly changing situation.

“It’s definitely a worrying time for us,” he said.

“Never before in my life have I had to read so much news, watch so much news to know, here’s what my industry’s going to look like tomorrow.”

Indian Americans are increasingly optimistic about India’s future, but hold deep concerns about US-India relations under a second Donald Trump administration, a new survey finds.

The 2024 Indian-American Survey, conducted by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and YouGov in October, examined Indian-American political attitudes.

Two pivotal elections happened in India and the US last year, amid a deepening – but occasionally strained – partnership. Tensions between the countries flared over a US federal indictment of Indian billionaire Gautam Adani and allegations of a Delhi-backed assassination plot on American soil.

With more than five million Indian-origin residents in the US, the survey asked some key questions: How do Indian Americans view former president Joe Biden’s handling of US-India ties? Do they see Donald Trump as a better option? And how do they assess India’s trajectory post the 2024 election?

Here are some key takeaways from the report, which was based on a nationally representative online survey of 1,206 Indian-American adult residents.

Indian Americans rated the Biden administration’s handling of US-India relations more favourably than Trump’s first term.

A hypothetical Kamala Harris administration was seen as better for bilateral ties than a second Trump term during the polling.

Partisan polarisation plays a key role: 66% of Indian-American Republicans believe Trump was better for US-India ties, while just 8% of Democrats agree.

Conversely, half of Indian-American Democrats favour Biden, compared to 15% of Republicans.

Since most Indian Americans are Democrats, this gives Biden the overall edge.

During their February meeting at the White House, both Trump and Prime Minister Narendra Modi praised each other’s leadership, but Trump criticised India’s high trade tariffs, calling them a “big problem.”

The alleged Indian plot to assassinate a separatist on US soil has not widely registered – only half of respondents are aware of it.

In October, the US charged a former Indian intelligence officer with attempted murder and money laundering for allegedly plotting to assassinate Gurpatwant Singh Pannun, a US-based advocate for an independent Sikh state, Khalistan.

This marked the first time the Indian government has been directly implicated in an alleged assassination attempt on a dissident. India has stated it is co-operating with the US investigation. In January, a panel set up by India to examine Washington’s allegations recommended legal action against an unnamed individual believed to be the former intelligence agent.

A narrow majority of the respondents said that India would “not be justified in taking such action and hold identical feelings about the US if the positions were reversed”.

Indian Americans are split along partisan party lines, with Democrats expressing greater empathy for Palestinians and Republicans leaning pro-Israel.

Four in 10 respondents believe Biden has been too pro-Israel in the ongoing conflict.

The attack in October 2023 by Hamas fighters from Gaza killed around 1,200 people, mostly civilians, inside Israel and saw 251 people taken hostage. Most have been released in ceasefire agreements or other arrangements.

Israel’s military offensive has killed more than 48,000 Palestinians in Gaza, mostly women and children, according to the Hamas-run health ministry.

Talks to prolong the fragile ceasefire, the first phase of which ended on 1 March, are expected to resume in Qatar on Monday.

Forty-seven percent of Indian Americans believe India is heading in the right direction, a 10 percentage point increase from four years ago.

The same share approves of Modi’s performance as prime minister. Additionally, four in 10 respondents feel that India’s 2024 election – where Modi’s party did not get a majority – made the country more democratic.

The survey found that many Indian Americans support Modi and believe India is on the right track, yet half are unaware of the alleged assassination attempt on US soil.

Does this indicate a gap in information access, selective engagement or a tendency to overlook certain actions in favour of broader nationalist sentiment?

“It is hard to tease out the precise reason for this, but our sense is that this has more to do with selective engagement,” Milan Vaishnav, co-author of the study, said.

Data collected by Carnegie in 2020 shows that around 60% of Indian Americans follow Indian government and public affairs regularly, leaving a significant portion who “engage only sporadically”.

“Often people form broad impressions based on a combination of the news, social media and interactions with friends and family. Given the deluge of news in the US of late, it is not entirely surprising that the ‘murder-for-hire’ plot did not break through for a large section of the community,” Mr Vaishnav said.

Indian Americans, while cautious about Trump and generally favouring Biden or Harris for US-India relations, continue to strongly support Modi back in India. Given Modi’s nationalist policies, what accounts for this divergence? Is it driven more by personal impact than ideology?

“This is a case of ‘where you sit is where you stand’,” Mr Vaishnav said.

He said in related research, “we’ve explored this question in depth and found that Indian Americans generally hold more liberal views on US policy issues compared to India”.

“For instance, while Muslim Indian-Americans – minorities both in India and the US – maintain consistently more liberal attitudes, Hindu Indian-Americans express liberal views in the US (where they are a minority) but more conservative stances in India, where they belong to the majority.

“In other words, a person’s majority or minority status plays a key role in shaping their political views,” Mr Vaishnav said.

If Indian Americans viewed Trump as a threat to bilateral ties, why did they embrace him during his first term, as seen at events like ‘Howdy Modi!’? Has their opinion of Trump shifted due to his policies, or is it more about changing political currents?

“We should not generalise from one event or even one segment of the Indian American population. More than 50,000 Indian Americans gathered at ‘Howdy, Modi!’ first and foremost to see Modi, not Trump. Recall that Trump was added at a later date,” Mr Vaishnav said.

“Second, this is a diverse diaspora with a range of political views. While Indian Americans lean overwhelmingly toward the Democratic Party, a very sizeable minority – we estimate around 30% in 2024 – support the Republicans under Trump.”

Indian Americans remain committed to the Democratic Party, but attachment has waned. Some 47% identify as Democrats, down from 56% in 2020, a survey found last year.

Do Indian Americans have a nuanced understanding of political developments in both countries, or are their views more influenced by diaspora-driven narratives and media echo chambers?

Mr Vaishnav said data from 2020 shows that online news was the primary source of information about India, followed by television, social media and word of mouth. Within social media, YouTube, Facebook and WhatsApp were the most common platforms.

“Direct engagement with India is more limited, with foreign-born Indian Americans typically more involved than those born in the US.

“Having said that, one should not overlook the fact that the bonds of cultural connectivity remain quite strong, even with second and third-generation Indian Americans.”

In the end, the survey underscores a complex portrait of the Indian American community – one shaped by a blend of selective engagement, shifting political winds and varying personal experiences.

The captain of a cargo ship has been arrested after it collided with an oil tanker in the North Sea.

The Portuguese-flagged Solong and the US-registered tanker Stena Immaculate crashed off the East Yorkshire coast at about 10:00 GMT on Monday.

Humberside Police said the 59-year-old man had been arrested on suspicion of gross negligence manslaughter following searches for a missing crew member of the Solong.

Smoke is continuing to billow from the Solong, but Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander said both ships were expected to remain afloat.

German firm Ernst Russ, which owns the Solong, confirmed to the BBC that the man arrested is the master of the ship.

It said he, along with the rest of the crew, were assisting the investigation.

A crew member from the cargo ship was still missing and presumed dead after a search and rescue operation ended on Monday evening, according to Transport Minister Mike Kane.

Whitehall sources have told the BBC there were Russians and Filipinos among the crew of the Solong.

The BBC understands all 23 crew on board the Stena Immaculate are Americans. They are all in Grimsby and are likely to be repatriated in due course.

Police said they had begun a criminal investigation into the cause of the collision and was working with the Maritime and Coastguard Agency.

The Marine Accident Investigation Branch was also undertaking a parallel preliminary assessment to establish the causes of the crash, police said.

HM Coastguard confirmed 36 people had been taken safely to shore.

Det Ch Supt Craig Nicholson said: “Humberside Police have taken primacy for the investigation of any potential criminal offences which arise from the collision between the two vessels.”

He said the arrested man was in custody.

“Following inquiries undertaken by my team, we have arrested a 59-year-old man on suspicion of gross negligence manslaughter in connection with the collision.

“This follows the conclusion of search operations by HM Coastguard for the missing crew member of the Solong.

“Our thoughts are with the family of the missing crew member, and I have appointed family liaison officers to make contact and provide support to the family.”

Smoke is continuing to billow from Solong.

The ship’s German owner, Ernst Russ, said it was supporting the missing crew member’s family.

It also confirmed there were no containers on board carrying sodium cyanide, as had been initially feared.

“There are four empty containers that have previously contained the hazardous chemical and these containers will continue to be monitored,” the firm said.

Crowley, the maritime company managing Stena Immaculate, said the vessel was struck by Solong while anchored off the coast of Hull, causing “multiple explosions” on board and an unknown quantity of jet fuel to be released.

The firm said Stena Immaculate was carrying 220,000 barrels of jet fuel in 16 segregated cargo tanks, at least one of which was ruptured when it was struck.

Graham Stuart, MP for Beverley and Holderness, said officials had told him there was no evidence so far of any of the heavy engine oil leaking from either ship, or pollution in the water or the air.

Earlier, Kane told the House of Commons the “working assumption” was that one crew member from the cargo ship had died.

Alexander said she had met with the Maritime and Coastguard Agency and been informed that early indications suggest both vessels are now expected to stay afloat.

She added Solong could be “towed away from the shore, and salvage operations can get under way”.

Stena Immaculate was operating as part of the US government’s tanker security programme, a group of commercial vessels that can be contracted to carry fuel for the military when needed, according to Crowley.

It had been anchored while waiting for a berth to become available at the Port of Killingholme on the River Humber, the company said.

Entire families, including women and children, were killed during the recent violence in Syria’s coastal region, the UN human rights office says.

A spokesman told reporters that the UN had so far verified the killing of 111 civilians since last Thursday, but that the actual figure was believed to be significantly higher.

Many of the cases were summary executions and appeared to have been carried out on a sectarian basis, with predominantly Alawite areas targeted in particular, he added.

Gunmen supporting the Sunni Islamist-led government have been accused of carrying out revenge killings following a deadly ambush on a security patrol by loyalists of president Bashar al-Assad, who is an Alawite.

A monitoring group has reported that more than 1,200 civilians, most of them Alawites, have been killed in Latakia, Tatous, Hama and Homs provinces.

The UN has welcomed the promise by Syria’s interim President Ahmad al-Sharaa to form an independent investigative committee and to hold those responsible to account.

The violence was the worst in Syria since Sharaa led the rebel offensive that overthrew Assad in December, ending 13 years of civil war in which more than 600,000 people were killed.

• Syria says operation against Assad loyalists over after deadly violence
• Syrians describe terror as Alawite families killed in their homes
• Syria leader vows to hunt down those responsible for bloodshed

Syria’s north-west Mediterranean coast is the heartland of the Alawite sect, an offshoot of Shia Islam to which many of the former Assad regime’s political and military elite belonged.

Last week, security forces launched an operation in the region in response to a growing insurgency by Assad loyalists.

The violence escalated on Thursday, after 13 security personnel were killed in an ambush by gunmen in the coastal town of Jableh.

Security forces responded by sending reinforcements to the region, who were joined by armed groups and individuals supporting the government.

They stormed many Alawite towns and villages across the region, where residents said they carried out revenge killings and looted homes and shops.

A spokesperson for the UN human rights office, Thameen Al-Kheetan, said on Tuesday that reports were continuing to emerge of the “distressing scale of the violence”.

He said the UN, using strict verification methods, had so far documented the killings of 90 male civilians, 18 women, two girls and one boy.

Initial reports indicated that the perpetrators were members of armed groups supporting the security forces and elements associated with the Assad regime, he added.

“In a number of extremely disturbing instances, entire families – including women, children and individuals hors de combat – were killed, with predominantly Alawite cities and villages targeted in particular,” he said, referring to combatants who have been captured, expressed an intention to surrender, or are incapacitated.

“According to many testimonies collected by our office, perpetrators raided houses, asking residents whether they were Alawite or Sunni before proceeding to either kill or spare them accordingly. Some survivors told us that many men were shot dead in front of their families.”

Assad loyalists also raided several hospitals in Latakia, Tartous and Baniyas, according to Mr Kheetan. They clashed with security forces, reportedly resulting in dozens of civilian casualties, including patients and medics, was well as damage to the hospitals.

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a UK-based monitoring group, said its civilian death toll had risen to 1,225, after another 132 people were reported killed on Tuesday, including 62 in the town of Baniyas. About 230 security personnel and 250 pro-Assad fighters have also been killed, according to its network of sources.

Mr Kheetan said the UN human rights chief urged Syrian authorities to carry out prompt, thorough, independent and impartial investigations.

“All those found responsible for violations must be held to account, regardless of their affiliation, in line with international law norms and standards. Victims and their families have the right to truth, justice and reparations,” he stressed.

A spokesman for the new investigative committee set up by the government said it was already “gathering and reviewing evidence” and would present a report in 30 days.

“No-one is above the law. The committee will relay all the results to the entity that launched it, the presidency, and the judiciary,” Yasser Farhan told a news conference.

The state-run Sana news agency also reported that four people had been arrested over “bloody violations against civilians” in a coastal village after they were identified in videos.

Meanwhile, residents of the region said the situation appeared calm on Tuesday, with only sporadic gunfire heard overnight.

A man who fled the town of Baniyas three days ago told the BBC that he had managed to get back to his home to check on it because security forces had set up checkpoints in the neighbourhood to prevent further killings and looting.

The man, who asked to remain anonymous, also said the bodies which had been lying on the streets of Baniyas last week were no longer there.

The Syrian Red Crescent, with the help of security forces, was said to be recovering bodies and burying them in mass graves in the town’s cemetery.

However, most families have not returned home, because they are traumatised by what happened and worried about their safety, amid reports of continued killings and looting.

Many sought refuge at the Russian-controlled Hmeimim airbase outside the city of Latakia, sheltered in local schools or fled to rural areas.

Others crossed into neighbouring Lebanon, where a woman told the BBC that armed men had attacked her house in rural Hama two months ago and killed men from her family.

“My nephews were 11 and 12 years old. They rounded them up and lined up all the other young Alawite men,” Hind said.

“One of them asked his friend about our religion. He said, ‘They are Alawites,’ so he pointed his gun and killed all the men in front of him.”

“They see us as guilty just because our president was Alawite. But the truth is we are the poorest. Our young men joined the military only to be taken to fight and to be killed.”

A young man named Wissam said he no longer trusted the government and security forces.

“They’re all the same – armed and with covered faces. They have privileges that no-one else has. They do whatever they want,” he claimed.

Romanian far-right populist Calin Georgescu has lost his appeal against a ruling barring him from participating in May’s presidential election.

The Constitutional Court issued the final ruling on Tuesday afternoon after deliberating for two hours. It said the decision was unanimous.

The Central Electoral Bureau had earlier rejected Georgescu’s candidacy for a rerun of the presidential election in May.

Georgescu had won the first round of last year’s presidential vote, but it was annulled after intelligence revealed Russia had been involved in setting up almost 800 TikTok accounts backing him.

On Sunday, the election bureau said Georgescu’s candidacy did not “meet the conditions of legality”, as he “violated the very obligation to defend democracy”.

Georgescu appealed that verdict the following day.

In a Facebook video on Tuesday night, Georgescu did not call for further protests – but instead suggested supporters could choose another candidate to back in the re-run election in May.

“If you want to support anyone by signing new lists for the presidential campaign, please do as your conscience tells you,” he said. “It seems democracy and freedom are taking their last breath these days.

“But we need to show now, more than any other time, that our choice matters in a peaceful and democratic way,” Georgescu added.

Earlier in the evening, many of the protesters outside the court had Romanian flags draped around their shoulders. Some held up Orthodox Christian icons and one clutched a large wooden crucifix.

A man dressed in a traditional peasant smock scaled a lamppost with a giant Romanian flag and waved it enthusiastically over the crowd.

They chanted “Calin Georgescu is president” and “freedom”, and condemned the judges as traitors. One woman had a sign that read “Stop dictatorship”.

It took a while for news of the ruling upholding the ban to reach the crowd. When it did, there were loud “boos” directed at the judges inside.

The crowd soon became noisy and angry, saying they had come to the streets to defend democracy.

Calin Georgescu, the man they support, has come from the far-right fringes of Romanian politics, but he is now at the forefront and promises to make Romania great again.

On 26 February, he was detained for questioning on his way to register as a candidate for the May election, prompting tens of thousands of Romanians to take to the streets of Bucharest in protest.

Many Romanians believe he is being blocked by a political elite that is corrupt and remote from the people.

George Simion, an ally of Georgescu and the leader of the far-right opposition Alliance for Uniting Romanians (AUR) wrote on Facebook: “Shame! You will not defeat us. The people of Romania have awoken. They will win.”

The presidential election was annulled after Georgescu won the first round in November 2024, when intelligence was released suggesting a giant TikTok promotion campaign for Georgescu had been backed by Russia.

To European leaders and many in Romania it looked like Russia was trying to weaken Europe and undermine its liberal values.

That is still the opinion of many Romanians who fear a man who admires Vladimir Putin and dislikes Nato.

Kremlin press secretary Dmitry Peskov said that suggestions that Russia had links to Georgescu were “absolutely baseless”.

Many people who had been out on the streets of Bucharest on Tuesday evening were demanding the right to vote for Georgescu and they have been denied that.

“I don’t care who you vote for, I just want to be able to vote,” Anna told the BBC.

Soon after Georgescu’s video statement, people began to leave the square.

Several supporters told the BBC they were disappointed more people had not come out in protest.

One man leaving the area said there should have been hundreds of thousands on the streets.

The long-awaited trial of medical staff who treated the late Argentine football legend Diego Maradona has started in the capital, Buenos Aires.

Maradona was convalescing when he died of a heart attack at his home in 2020, aged 60. He had been recovering at home from surgery on a brain blood clot earlier that month.

Prosecutors allege that Maradona’s death could have been avoided and accuse the hospital staff of medical negligence.

The defendants say Maradona had refused further treatment and should have stayed in hospital for longer after his operation.

They risk prison terms between eight and 25 years if convicted on the charge of “homicide with possible intent”.

In an opening statement, the prosecution said it intended to submit “solid” evidence that no member of the team “did what they were supposed to do” in the “horror theatre” that was Maradona’s death bed.

“Today, Diego Armando Maradona, his children, his relatives, those closest to him, and the Argentine people, deserve justice,” prosecutor Patricio Ferrari told the court.

Investigators have classified the case as culpable homicide, a crime similar to involuntary manslaughter, because they said the accused were aware of the seriousness of Maradona’s health condition but did not take the necessary measures to save him.

The defendants in the case are a neurosurgeon, a psychiatrist, a psychologist, a medical co-ordinator, a nursing co-ordinator, a doctor and the night nurse.

The night nurse previously said he had seen “warning signs”, but had received orders “not to wake” Maradona.

More than 100 witnesses will testify at the trial, which is expected to last until July.

Diego Maradona is largely considered to be one of the greatest footballers ever to play the game. He was captain when Argentina won the 1986 World Cup, scoring the famous “Hand of God” goal against England in the quarter-finals.

During the second half of his career, Maradona struggled with cocaine addiction and was banned for 15 months after testing positive for the drug in 1991.

The news of his death threw the football world – and his home country of Argentina – into deep mourning, with many thousands of people queuing for hours to walk by his coffin at the presidential palace in Buenos Aires.

An argument in the White House tore apart the US alliance with Ukraine, shook European leaders and highlighted JD Vance’s key role in forcefully expressing Donald Trump’s foreign policy. The vice-president has come out punching on the global stage – so what is it that drives his worldview?

Vance’s first major foreign speech, at the Munich Security Conference in mid-February, caught many by surprise.

Rather than focusing on the war raging in Ukraine, the US vice-president only briefly mentioned the bloodiest European conflict since World War Two.

Instead, he used his debut on the international stage to berate close US allies about immigration and free speech, suggesting the European establishment was anti-democratic. He accused them of ignoring the wills of their people and questioned what shared values they were truly banding together with the US to defend.

“If you are running in fear of your own voters, there is nothing America can do for you, nor for that matter is there anything you can do for the American people,” he warned.

It was a bold and perhaps unexpected way to introduce himself to the world – by angering European allies. But days later he was back in the news, at the centre of a blistering row with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, whom he accused of being ungrateful.

For those who have been studying the rise of Vance, these two episodes came as no surprise.

The vice-president has come to represent an intellectual wing of the conservative movement that gives expression to Trumpism and in particular how its America First mantra applies beyond its borders. In writings and interviews, Vance has expressed an ideology that seems to join the dots between American workers, global elites and the role of the US in the wider world.

On the campaign trail with Donald Trump last year, Vance spent much of his time sharply criticising Democrats – the usual attack-dog duties that traditionally get dished out to running mates – and sparring with reporters.

• The ‘hillbilly’ Maga loyalist who became vice-president
• Vance took the lead attacking Zelensky. Why?

And while Elon Musk’s outsized and unconventional role in the Trump administration initially overshadowed him, that Munich speech and the Oval Office showdown have raised the profile of Trump’s deputy.

It’s also led to questions about the winding ideological journey he’s made during his years in the conservative movement – and what he truly believes now.

“He’s much more of a pragmatist than an ideologue,” said James Orr, associate professor of philosophy of religion at the University of Cambridge and a friend whom Vance has described as his “British sherpa”.

“He’s able to articulate what is and is not in the American interest,” Orr said. “And the American interest is not the interest of some abstract utopia or matrix of propositions and ideas, but the American people.”

Vance has repeatedly returned to this “America First” – or perhaps “Americans First” – theme in speeches, drawing a line between what he castigates as Washington’s economic and foreign policy orthodoxy abroad and the struggles of the left-behind American working class at home.

At the Republican National Convention last summer, for example, he lamented how in small towns across the US “jobs were sent overseas and children were sent to war”. And he attacked then-President Joe Biden, saying: “For half a century, he’s been a champion of every single policy initiative to make America weaker and poorer.”

But Vance is also someone who, after a tough upbringing in an Ohio family with Appalachian roots and sudden fame on the back of a bestselling memoir, Hillbilly Elegy, has tried out many different views.

Not only is he a former “Never Trumper” who described the US president in 2016 as “reprehensible” and “an idiot”, his book places much of the blame for the plight of the rural poor squarely on the choices made by individuals.

More recently he’s shifted that blame to elites – a group he’s variously defined as Democrats, conventional Republicans, liberals, corporate leaders, globalists and academics.

In speeches, Vance regularly argues that “America is not just an idea… America is a nation.”

He couples this statement with an anecdote about his family’s ancestral graveyard in Kentucky, where he says he, his wife and their children will one day be buried, arguing that family and homeland are more important than some of America’s traditional core ideas.

In Vance’s view, the Trump administration’s priority should be to make life better for Americans who have been in the country for generations, and yet have little of the nation’s vast wealth.

Rod Dreher, a conservative American writer who is also a friend of the vice-president, said Vance’s thinking arises from a belief that “moderate normie Republicans… failed to offer anything to stop the so-called forever wars, and they also failed to offer anything to ordinary Americans like where he comes from, who are suffering economically from globalism and from the effects of mass migration and fentanyl”.

“He got red-pilled, so to speak, by Donald Trump,” Dreher told BBC Radio 4’s Today Programme this week.

“Red-pilled” is internet slang for suddenly waking up to a supposedly hidden truth, as featured in The Matrix movies. It’s commonly used by those on the right online who believe they have special access to reality and that people with liberal, centrist or establishment views are uncritical thinkers.

Vance is a vice-president who, more than his boss, seems extremely plugged into internet culture. He’s an enthusiastic user of X, often jumping directly into arguments rather than using it, as many politicians do, as a platform for announcements.

His appearances on fringe right-wing podcasts, while he was trying to drum up support for a Senate run, provided fodder for his opponents, as did provocative trollish comments such as that the US was being run by “childless cat ladies”.

Married to the daughter of Indian immigrants, he has rejected and been rejected by members of the alt-right even if he does echo some of their views. However, he does have friends and allies both at the top of Silicon Valley and in some of its lesser known corners.

After graduating from Yale Law School, he was brought into the world of venture capital by influential Silicon Valley conservative Peter Thiel, who later funded his US Senate campaign.

He has cited people like the blogger Curtis Yarvin, a key guru in the “neo-reactionary” movement which dreams up fantasies of technologically-assisted, hyper-capitalist societies led by powerful monarchs.

His familiarity with the internet’s fringes was further demonstrated when he spread false rumours about immigrants eating pets and an allegation about Ukrainian corruption – which the BBC traced back to Moscow.

• Why the Danes now feel threatened by Trump
• Greenland heads to polls as Trump eyes territory

“He sort of stews in this online world,” said Cathy Young, a writer for the conservative, anti-Trump media outlet The Bulwark.

At the same time, Young said, his anecdote about family graveyards and homeland suggests another political tendency – a “disturbing undertone of nativism”.

“That bothers some people and rightly so,” she said. “Part of the American legacy is that we are a nation of immigrants. [Former Republican President] Ronald Reagan talked about that, about one of the distinctive things about this country is that anyone can come here from any part of the world and become an American.”

Vance’s “Americans First” thinking clearly extends to the issue of the war in Ukraine. When he was a senator, he was often critical of America’s involvement in the war and the huge sums spent on it, his former Senate colleague Josh Hawley, a Republican from Missouri, recalled.

“His position then was very much like what it is now… that the conflict must end,” Hawley told the BBC. “It needs to end in a way that’s maximally advantageous to the security of the United States and it needs to end in a way that gets our European allies to take increased responsibility.”

Vance regularly accused the Biden administration of being more interested in Ukraine than in stemming illegal immigration. Writing in 2022, during his Senate campaign and after the Russian invasion, he said: “I will be damned if I am going to prioritise Ukraine’s eastern border right now when our own southern border is engulfed by a human tsunami of illegal migrants.”

His views burst out into the open during that dramatic argument with President Zelensky in the Oval Office. Vance accused Zelensky of lacking respect, of sending politicians on a “propaganda tour” of Ukraine and of being insufficiently thankful for US aid.

“Offer some words of appreciation for the United States of America and the president who’s trying to save your country,” he told the Ukrainian president.

The argument left European leaders scrambling to defend Zelensky, while also trying to maintain negotiations over a possible peace deal.

Vance then prompted widespread outrage from allies when he poured scorn on the idea of security guarantees in the form of troops “from some random country that hasn’t fought a war in 30 or 40 years”.

He later denied he was talking about the UK or France, the only two European countries that have publicly stated their willingness to send peacekeepers to Ukraine.

But the vice-president’s willingness to step on the toes of allies reflect a world view which, in his words, has little time for “moralisms about ‘this country is good’, ‘this country is bad'”.

“That doesn’t mean you have to have a complete moral blind spot, but it means that you have to be honest about the countries that you’re dealing with, and there’s a complete failure to do that with most of our foreign policy establishment in this country,” he told a New York Times columnist last year.

His tone has shifted from the two years he spent in the US Senate before being picked by Trump. Democrat Cory Booker remembered Vance as “very pragmatic and thoughtful”.

“That’s why some of this stuff surprises me,” Booker told the BBC.

• Vance’s cousin criticises him for ‘belittling’ Zelensky

Others detect the same disconnect.

David Frum, now a writer for The Atlantic magazine, said that Vance’s views have changed significantly from when he first commissioned the former marine, who was attending Ohio State University at the time, to write for his website on conservative politics more than 15 years ago.

“He was not in any way the culture warrior that he is today,” Frum said.

Frum, a former George W Bush speechwriter and staunch critic of Trump, said that Vance’s view of Russia represented “ideological admiration”.

In Munich, as he spoke about free speech, the vice-president cited cases involving conservatives and Christians in Western countries but avoided any mention of Russia’s harsh clampdowns on expression.

Vance and his allies reject that he is sympathetic to Putin.

“I’ve never once argued that Putin is a kind and friendly person,” Vance, then an Ohio senator, said in a speech at the 2024 Munich Security Conference.

“We don’t have to agree with him. We can contest him and we often will contest him,” he said. “But the fact that he’s a bad guy does not mean we can’t engage in basic diplomacy and prioritising America’s interests.”

The BBC has asked the White House for comment on Vance’s stance in relation to Ukraine and Russia.

A quick end to the conflict in Ukraine is, in Vance’s view, not only about putting a stop to billions of dollars being spent thousands of miles away.

He himself has said that there are bigger issues for the US and its friends to focus on than Ukraine, namely the threat of China, which he has called “our most significant competitor… for the next 20 or 30 years”.

Vance’s views on Ukraine and his willingness to publicly air them provided a dramatic moment in the early days of Trump’s second presidential term.

But it also offered a vivid illustration of the vice-president’s ideology, his prominence in the Trump administration and how he views America’s place in the world.

Follow the twists and turns of Trump’s second presidential term with North America correspondent Anthony Zurcher’s weekly US Politics Unspun newsletter. Readers in the UK can sign up here. Those outside the UK can sign up here.

On the day of the US presidential inauguration I was told by a top US tech chief executive that although he was likely to be hit by retaliatory tariffs, he assumed any trade war would die down.

“Trump lives by the Dow Jones’ reaction,” he said – something markets call the “Trump put”.

This means that whenever a White House announcement that damaged sentiment came out, the president would row back after seeing a stock market fall.

Those assumptions have now changed, after the president gave a TV interview in which he downplayed how much he was moved by markets.

And only a day after US stock markets fell sharply on worries over the impact of Trump’s policies, the president has decided to double tariffs against Canada on steel and aluminium, in response to higher charges for Canadian electricity, worth about $100 per bill, in New York, Minnesota and Michigan.

On Monday, Ontario premier Doug Ford announced a 25% surcharge on US-bound electricity and threatened to “shut off” supply completely.

President Trump has said he is rebuilding wealth based on decades or even a century into the future, and this cannot be measured in the quarterly results of America’s stock market giants.

Alongside comments from his Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, the White House was communicating to markets that the president now has some tolerance for short-term market and economic pain. This has changed the calculus.

There are another two factors at play here. There is evidence of actual potential reversal in the US economic sentiment, raising questions about a recession.

The very latest real-time analysis by the Atlanta branch of the US Federal Reserve predicts a falling US economy in the first three months of the year.

Government cuts could also contribute to such a reading, but private sector sentiment has taken a hit too, especially by the hokey cokey over tariffs.

Above all, the uncertainty threatens to be crippling. The policies change by the day, and even then can get retrospectively paused.

Key US government departments are not entirely clear on the direction of travel in the White House.

On top of all of this, in the case of Canada, a likely election suggests little incentive to compromise.

Indeed, what is there to compromise with when Trump says he wants to use economic leverage to make his northern neighbour his “51st State”?

The direction of travel here is for the trade war to escalate in intensity and scope.

New trade barriers on the European Union may emerge in three weeks’ time based on “reciprocity”.

As other nations see signs of inflation re-emerging in the US, they will be more likely to try to add to it, to bring home to US consumers the consequences of the decisions of their government.

In the past fortnight the world has learnt that President Trump is serious about tariffs, even on his allies. They have been applied in a huge way.

Key trade partners have reciprocated in kind and have an incentive to up the ante. And the White House now wants to communicate it has a high pain threshold for short-term economic and market disruption.

All roads lead to 2 April and the announcement on “reciprocal tariffs”, and for now these tensions do not appear to be heading for a truce, ceasefire or pause.

The Democratic Republic of Congo appears to be turning to the US in its latest efforts to find an ally in its fight against advancing M23 rebels.

Recognising that the White House of President Donald Trump is interested in transactional relationships – and seeing the proposed Ukraine-US mineral deal – the resource-rich DR Congo is hoping to strike its own agreement with Washington.

It has also been reported that Trump is soon to appoint the father-in-law of his daughter, Tiffany, to a key role in the region.

Congolese government spokesperson Patrick Muyaya confirmed to the BBC’s Newsday programme that his country wanted to bring the US on board and supply it “with some critical minerals”.

“Of course… we can also talk about security,” he added.

DR Congo is in trouble militarily.

M23 fighters – backed by neighbouring Rwanda – have made major advances in parts of the mineral-rich east of the country.

Regional forces – first from east and then southern Africa – which were supposed to provide some help have failed to hold back the rebels. The M23 has talked about advancing west in a bid to seize the capital, Kinshasa.

Given the dangers, it is not surprising that President Félix Tshisekedi might be looking at ways to shore up his position.

On 22 February, Tshisekedi was reported by the New York Times to have said that the Trump administration had shown interest in a deal involving strategic minerals.

The day before, the Africa-USA Business Council – a lobby group – wrote to US Secretary of State Marco Rubio on behalf of a Congolese senator describing a possible deal that included an “economic and military partnership”.

DR Congo is estimated to have $24tn-worth (£19tn) of untapped resources – including cobalt, gold and copper.

The country is currently the world’s largest supplier of cobalt – which has defence and aerospace applications as well as being essential for batteries in electric vehicles – but most of this goes to China. It also has significant lithium, tantalum and uranium deposits, which also have military uses.

Though the US is investing in a huge infrastructure project – the Lobito corridor – designed to transport goods out of central Africa to a port in Angola, its companies are not involved in mining in DR Congo.

As China dominates the Congolese mineral sector there could be “a widening strategic gap, where adversarial nations continue to monopolise Africa’s resources”, the letter to Rubio said.

In theory, DR Congo could offer favourable terms to US companies to exploit the resources.

But, according to mining analyst Gregory Mthembu-Salter, as the US, unlike China, relies on private commercial companies to do the work they may decide that it is too risky to do business there.

But this is all highly speculative and a US Department of State spokesperson said that there was “nothing to preview or announce at this time”.

Nevertheless the US “is open to discussing partnerships in this sector” that align with the executive order aimed at making the US a “leading producer and processor of non-fuel minerals, including rare earth minerals”.

One key area could be in “strengthening military co-operation”, as the letter to Rubio puts it.

This would involve:

• Training and equipping soldiers “to protect mineral supply routes”
• Giving the US access to military bases “to protect strategic resources”
• And “replacing ineffective UN peacekeeping operations with direct US-DRC security co-operation”.

The Congolese spokesperson declined to confirm these details, but there is some scepticism about how realistic and immediately effective they could be.

According to Stephanie Wolters, regional analyst for the South African Institute of International Affairs, if Kinshasa wants a US military presence in the east then “that is not very likely to happen”.

Furthermore “weapons and training are longer term issues”, she told BBC Focus on Africa.

“I think the outreach the Congolese government has made is surely because of the active military situation in the east and I’m not convinced that what the US might offer in return is really something that can address the acute need at the moment.”

Congolese mining industry analyst Jean-Pierre Okenda said some oversight of the deal would be wise, suggesting parliament and civil society should also be consulted if it was going to serve the interests of the people.

Looking at the bigger picture he said that moves towards a more peaceful future need to address the “kleptocratic management of the state”.

A previous deal with China that gave mining access in exchange for infrastructure projects was criticised for not delivering on some of what was promised.

Tshisekedi has since renegotiated this, but the lack of transparency in those talks has been criticised.

Nothing concrete is likely to happen soon.

While Muyaya, speaking for Kinshasa, was vague on what we could expect he told the BBC that “in the coming days we can have more details to share”.

He added that there was “the political will [from Tshisekedi] and I think the US has attention on those questions”.

On the US side, according to the news website Semafor, President Trump is due to announce that Massad Boulos will be the White House’s new Great Lakes regional envoy.

He is the father of Michael Boulos, who is married to Trump’s daughter Tiffany, and has been serving as Trump’s senior adviser on Arab and Middle Eastern affairs since December.

Among his business interests is a Nigeria-based company that specialises in the distribution of motor vehicles and equipment across West Africa – and he is expected to fly to Kinshasa at some point in the next few weeks.

• ‘I risked drowning to flee conscription by Congolese rebels’
• Rebels leave families devastated in wake of DR Congo advance
• How DR Congo’s Tutsis become foreigners in their own country
• The evidence that shows Rwanda is backing rebels in DR Congo

Never has there been so much international interest in Greenland and its election, after President Donald Trump said he wanted to make the semi-autonomous Danish territory part of the US.

Around 44,000 Greenlanders out of a population of 57,000 are eligible to vote to elect 31 MPs, as well as the country’s government.

Six parties are on the ballot. Five favour Greenland’s independence from Denmark, differing only on how quickly that should come about.

The current prime minister, Mute B Egede, has made clear that Greenland is not for sale and deserves to be “treated with respect”.

His party Inuit Ataqatigiit (IA) is projected to come out top with 31% of the vote, followed by the social democrat Simiut.

There are 72 polling stations scattered around Greenland’s coast and voting continues until 20:00 (22:00 GMT), with results expected early on Wednesday.

The sheer size of Greenland and the remoteness of many of its settlements and small towns means delivering ballots on time can be a challenge.

No two towns are connected by road or rail, and the island is exposed to extreme Arctic weather.

Back in 2018, the 55 residents of Savissivik in northern Greenland never received their ballots due to inclement weather, according to Danish reports. So an Air Greenland base manager on his 4×4 and a local hunter on dog sled joined forces to deliver the ballots on time.

Planes, helicopters, ships, speedboats, cars, snowmobiles and dog sleds are routinely employed to ensure ballots reach all corners of the country before the election.

When the polls close, stations send their results in by email to Greenland’s five municipalities to be added to the tally.

At the last parliamentary election in Greenland in 2021, the voter turnout was 65.9%.

The state of the healthcare system, social issues, fisheries and the economy have all been discussed over the course of the electoral campaign.

But it is the question of Greenland’s independence from Denmark which has dominated the debate.

Although it now semi-autonomous, Greenland has been controlled by Denmark – nearly 3,000km (1,860 miles) away – for about 300 years.

Naleraq – currently the largest opposition party – has gained momentum and promises to hold a snap vote on independence within three to four years.

Other parties are more careful and have avoided giving exact timelines.

Severing ties with Denmark would be a big blow to Greenland’s economy, which depends on the fisheries sector. Danish subsidies currently contribute more than $565m (£435m) a year – a fifth of its total economic output or GDP.

“At the moment, [Greenland] is not ready for independence,” the director of the Bank of Greenland Martin Kviesgaard told Danish media on the eve of the election. “It will take many years to become completely ready for it, if you are talking about becoming financially self-sufficient… Fishing is not enough.”

Past colonial wrongdoings have meant that Denmark has largely kept out of the independence debate.

Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen has repeatedly said it is for Greenlanders to decide their future.

The US president first floated the idea of buying Greenland in 2019, towards the end of his first term in office.

However, since the start of this year, he has expressed interest in acquiring the Arctic island with increasing frequency, to the alarm of many in Greenland as well as Denmark.

In January, Trump’s son Donald Jr. visited Greenland on what he said was a “personal day-trip” but which sparked real nervousness that the Trumps’ interest was not just fleeting.

Greenland lies on the shortest route from North America to Europe, making it strategically important for the US.

It also has a large American space facility and reserves of valuable minerals which have so far proved hard to exploit.

• Inside the race for Greenland’s mineral wealth

Last week, Trump told the US Congress “we’re going to get [Greenland] – one way or the other”.

The president’s shadow has therefore loomed large over this election.

At the final candidates’ debate on Sunday night, five out of six party leaders said they did not believe the US president could be trusted.

If Greenland does eventually choose independence from Denmark, it would then have the freedom to pursue closer ties and become far more exposed to US interest.

So it is unsurprising that in January Donald Trump reposted a 2019 poll that indicated 68% of Greenlanders supported independence from Denmark.

Trump’s comments on Greenland caused barely concealed panic in Copenhagen earlier this year.

Mette Frederiksen spent much of January holding crisis talks with her government as well as other Scandinavian and European leaders. She also spoke to Trump on the phone on more than one occasion.

The frantic diplomacy has cooled in recent weeks as Ukraine and other global issues took centre stage in Washington.

But as Greenlanders voted on Tuesday, Danish foreign minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen made an oblique reference to President Trump, saying that “major powers have a different interest in Greenland than they have had before”.

Of course it was important, he added diplomatically, “that Greenland elects some steadfast politicians to lead the country through it”.

A shorter winter has literally left Nitin Goel out in the cold.

For 50 years, his family’s clothing business in India’s northwestern textile city of Ludhiana has made jackets, sweaters and sweatshirts. But with the early onset of summer this year, the company is staring at a washout season and having to shift gears.

“We’ve had to start making t-shirts instead of sweaters as the winter is getting shorter with each passing year. Our sales have halved in the last five years and are down a further 10% during this season,” Goel told the BBC. “The only recent exception to this was Covid, when temperatures dropped significantly.”

Across India as cool weather beats a hasty retreat, anxieties are building up at farms and factories, with cropping patterns and business plans getting upended.

Data from the Indian Meteorological Department shows that last month was India’s hottest February in 125 years. The weekly average minimum temperature was also above normal by 1-3C in many parts of the country.

Above-normal maximum temperatures and heatwaves are likely to persist over most parts of the country between March and May, the weather agency has warned.

For small business owners like Goel, such erratic weather has meant much more than just slowing sales. His whole business model, practised and perfected over decades, has had to change.

Goel’s company supplies clothes to multi-brand outlets across India. And they are no longer paying him on delivery, he says, instead adopting a “sale or return” model where consignments not sold are returned to the company, entirely transferring the risk to the manufacturer.

He has also had to offer bigger discounts and incentives to his clients this year.

“Big retailers haven’t picked up goods despite confirmed orders,” says Goel, adding that some small businesses in his town have had to shut shop as a result.

Nearly 1,200 miles away in Devgad town on India’s western coast, the heat has wreaked havoc on India’s much-loved Alphonso mango orchards.

“Production this year would be only around 30% of the normal yield,” said Vidyadhar Joshi, a farmer who owns 1,500 trees.

The sweet, fleshy and richly aromatic Alphonso is a prized export from the region, but yields across the districts of Raigad, Sindhudurg and Ratnagiri, where the variety is predominantly grown, are lower, according to Joshi.

“We might make losses this year,” Joshi adds, because he has had to spend more than usual on irrigation and fertilisers in a bid to salvage the crop.

According to him, many other farmers in the area were even sending labourers, who come from Nepal to work in the orchards, back home because there wasn’t enough to do.

Scorching heat is also threatening winter staples such as wheat, chickpea and rapeseed.

While the country’s agriculture minister has dismissed concerns about poor yields and predicted that India will have a bumper wheat harvest this year, independent experts are less hopeful.

Heatwaves in 2022 lowered yields by 15-25% and “similar trends could follow this year”, says Abhishek Jain of the Council on Energy, Environment and Water (Ceew) think tank.

India – the world’s second largest wheat producer – will have to rely on expensive imports in the event of such disruptions. And its protracted ban on exports, announced in 2022, may continue for even longer.

Economists are also worried about the impact of rising temperatures on availability of water for agriculture.

Reservoir levels in northern India have already dropped to 28% of capacity, down from 37% last year, according to Ceew. This could affect fruit and vegetable yields and the dairy sector, which has already experienced a decline in milk production of up to 15% in some parts of the country.

“These things have the potential to push inflation up and reverse the 4% target that the central bank has been talking about,” says Madan Sabnavis, Chief Economist with Bank of Baroda.

Food prices in India have recently begun to soften after remaining high for several months, leading to rate cuts after a prolonged pause.

GDP in Asia’s third largest economy has also been supported by accelerating rural consumption recently after hitting a seven-quarter low last year. Any setback to this farm-led recovery could affect overall growth, at a time when urban households have been cutting back and private investment hasn’t picked up.

Think tanks like Ceew say a range of urgent measures to mitigate the impact of recurrent heatwaves needs to be thought through, including better weather forecasting infrastructure, agriculture insurance and evolving cropping calendars with climate models to reduce risks and improve yields.

As a primarily agrarian country, India is particularly vulnerable to climate change.

Ceew estimates three out of every four Indian districts are “extreme event hotspots” and 40% exhibit what is called “a swapping trend” – which means traditionally flood-prone areas are witnessing more frequent and intense droughts and vice-versa.

The country is expected to lose about 5.8% of daily working hours due to heat stress by 2030, according to one estimate. Climate Transparency, the advocacy group, had pegged India’s potential income loss across services, manufacturing, agriculture and construction sectors from labour capacity reduction due to extreme heat at $159bn in 2021- or 5.4% of its GDP.

Without urgent action, India risks a future where heatwaves threaten both lives and economic stability.

Reflecting back on the Netflix hit based on his own life, there are two things that come to mind for Palestinian comedian Mo Amer.

Pride and hurt.

“It’s very difficult to talk about without breaking down at some point,” he tells BBC Newsbeat.

He is the star of the semi-autobiographical show titled Mo, playing the role of Mo Najjar.

The character is a Palestinian refugee learning to adapt to his new world as he seeks to gain US citizenship by navigating a complicated immigration process – all while trying to bring together his cultures and languages.

Making a show so closely tied to his life was “very taxing” because of “the sheer amount of emotion” involved.

“I’m extremely proud of it. I put my soul into it and I’m still hurting from making it,” Mo says.

There was another challenge to navigate – when this second season would be set.

The final episode, which depicts Mo’s visit to his family home in the West Bank, is set on 6 October 2023.

That’s a day before the armed Palestinian group Hamas launched an unprecedented cross-border attack on Israel, killing about 1,200 people and taking more than 250 hostages.

This triggered a massive Israeli military offensive in Gaza, which has killed more than 48,000 Palestinians, most of them civilians, according to the Hamas-run health ministry.

Avoiding 7 October in the storyline was “very intentional”, Mo says.

The show is ultimately “grounded in comedy”, he says, and episodes set post-attack drew focus away from the storyline and the characters.

“You weren’t really tracking them, the emotions of them,” says Mo.

Mo says he wanted to keep the “greater context” in mind and that focusing on 7 October and its aftermath “almost insinuates this just started”.

“That couldn’t be further from the truth,” he says, referring to the long history of the conflict.

There was a practical consideration too, he says, due to the length of time between filming and release being over a year.

“That was kind of like scary territory to write about something, and then all these things would happen.

“And then whatever you had written and composed in the series could be irrelevant.”

The show has broadly had a positive reception, with the finale being emotional for fans – and Mo.

It tracks the character’s journey with his family to the Israeli-occupied West Bank and their experience of life there.

From his perspective, it shows the complicated day-to-day Palestinians can face, such as being subjected to closer scrutiny at checkpoints controlled by Israeli soldiers.

Mo’s character is also shown being tear-gassed.

The West Bank – land between Israel and the River Jordan – is home to an estimated three million Palestinians and half a million Jewish settlers.

Along with East Jerusalem and Gaza, it is part of what is widely known as the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

Israel occupied the areas in the 1967 Middle East war and built settlements, which are considered illegal under international law. Israel disputes this.

Palestinians claim the areas for a future independent state and want all the settlements removed.

“I’ve gotten so many calls from people just completely in shambles after watching the last episode and how meaningful it was to them to watch,” Mo says.

He adds it was “not only Palestinians” contacting him.

Mo says the final episode – originally 60 minutes long – was “almost like we filmed a movie” before it was eventually edited down to 39 minutes.

He says he wanted to cover “the main strokes”, which included how difficult it can be to enter and live as a Palestinian once there.

“Immediately, you’re not on vacation,” he says. “You’re on edge, actually.”

Mo feels there has generally been limited representation of Palestinians in TV and film, which means more pressure on his shoulders.

“There’s a lot of [pressure] from the fans… more outside voices of what I should say and not say – both Palestinian and non-Palestinian,” he says.

“You really have to put the blinders on and stay focused on telling the story that I know and that I’ve experienced first-hand.”

Mo says he can’t “walk away” from being seen as a spokesperson for Palestinians, admitting to feeling “like public property at this point”.

“I think that everyone just needs to manage their expectations. But I’m not going to shy away from it,” he says.

“Those that agree with me or disagree with me… it’s important to continue the dialogue and have a conversation.”

The ceasefire agreement in Gaza has provided some hope that there could be an end to fighting, but it has also felt fragile with concern that deal could collapse.

Mo says he is “always hopeful” things can get better.

“I never lose hope.

“If you do, then it becomes a really, really sad place whenever you’re devoid of hope,” he says.

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

Thousands of people have been gathering in southern Ethiopia for one of the country’s biggest cultural events.

The week-long Gada ceremony, which ended on Sunday, sees the official transfer of power from one customary ruler to his successor – something that happens every eight years.

The tradition of regularly appointing a new Abbaa Gadaa has been practised by the Borana community for centuries – and sees them gather at the rural site of Arda Jila Badhasa, near the Ethiopian town of Arero.

It is a time to celebrate their special form of democracy as well as their cultural heritage, with each age group taking the opportunity to wear their different traditional outfits.

These are paraded the day before the official handover during a procession when married women march with wooden batons, called “siinqee”.

The batons have symbolic values of protection for women, who use them during conflict.

If a siinqee stick is placed on the ground by a married woman between two quarrelling parties, it means the conflict must stop immediately out of respect.

During the procession, younger women lead at the front, distinguished from the married women by the different colour of their clothing.

In this pastoralist society women are excluded from holding the top power of Abbaa Gadaa, sitting on the council of elders or being initiated into the system as a child.

But their important role can be seen during the festival as they build all the accommodation for those staying for the week – and prepare all the food.

And the unique Gada system of governance, which was added to the UN’s cultural heritage list in 2016, allows for them to attend regular community meetings and to voice their opinions to the Abbaa Gadaa.

Gada membership is only open to boys whose fathers are already members – young initiates have their heads shaven at the crown to make their rank clear.

The smaller the circle, the older he is.

As the global cultural body Unesco reports, oral historians teach young initiates about “history, laws, rituals, time reckoning, cosmology, myths, rules of conduct, and the function of the Gada system”.

Training for boys begins as young as eight years old.

Later, they will be assessed for their potential as future leaders.

As they grow up, tests include walking long distances barefoot, slaughtering cattle efficiently and showing kindness to fellow initiates.

Headpieces made from cowrie shells are traditionally worn by young trainees. The only other people allowed to wear them are elderly women.

Both groups are revered by Borana community members.

Men aged between 28 and 32 are identified by the ostrich feathers they wear, which are known in the Afaan Oromo language as “baalli”.

Their attendance at the Gada ceremony is an opportunity to learn, prepare and bond as it is already known who the Abbaa Gadaa from this age group will be taking power in 2033.

The main event at the recent Gada ceremony was the handover of power, from the outgoing 48-year-old Abbaa Gadaa to his younger successor.

Well-wishers crossed the border from Kenya and others travelled from as far as Ethiopia’s capital, Addis Ababa, to witness the spectacle. The governor of Kenya’s Marsabit county was among the honoured guests.

Thirty-seven-year-old Guyo Boru Guyo, seen here holding a spear, was chosen to lead because he impressed the council of elders during his teenage years.

He becomes the 72nd Abbaa Gadaa and will now oversee the Borana community across borders – in southern Ethiopia and north-western Kenya.

As their top diplomat, he will also be responsible for solving feuds that rear their heads for pastoralists.

These often involve cattle raiding and disputes over access to water in this drought-prone region.

During his eight years at the helm, his successor will finish his training to take on the job in continuation of this generations-old tradition.

• The Ethiopians changing their names as a show of pride
• How royal divorce papers have shaken the Zulu kingdom
• LISTEN: Tanzania’s Maasai people evicted from ancestral lands

Staff at the US Agency for International Development (USAID) have been told to shred and burn classified documents and personnel files.

The request raised alarm among employees and labour groups amid the ongoing dismantling of the agency.

Acting Executive Secretary Erica Y Carr sent an email that thanked staff for clearing out classified safes and personnel documents from a Washington DC office and told them to meet in the building’s lobby for an all-day disposal event on Tuesday.

“Shred as many documents first, and reserve the burn bags for when the shredder becomes available or needs a break,” her email to staff read.

Typically, documents placed in burn bags for disposal are sealed and then taken to a secure site for incineration.

The email asked staff not to overfill the burn bags and label them with the words “SECRET” and “USAID (B/IO)” – which stands for bureau, or independent office – using permanent markers.

The BBC has viewed a copy of the email, which was also reported by its US partner, CBS News. It was first reported by ProPublica.

The US State Department did not immediately return a request for comment.

It was not immediately clear if the agency had preserved copies of the documents marked for destruction.

The American Foreign Service Association (AFSA), a union representing USAID staff, was aware employees had been asked to shred documents, spokesperson Nikki Gamer told the BBC.

The union said it was “alarmed” by the reports and warned that such documents “may be relevant to ongoing litigation regarding the termination of USAID employees and the cessation of USAID grants”.

The Trump administration faces multiple lawsuits over its dismantling of USAID, which began shortly after Trump took office in January. Unions and other groups have challenged the administration’s power to shut down an agency and freeze funds that had been established and approved by the US Congress.

AFSA noted that federal law dictates that government records must be preserved as they are “essential to transparency, accountability, and the integrity of the legal process”.

The union warned that ” the unlawful destruction of federal records could carry serious legal consequences for anyone directed to act in violation of the law.”

Government agencies do occasionally destroy paper records of classified materials and other documents, but strict procedures govern the process.

The Federal Records Act of 1950 sets out guidelines for the proper disposal of documents and creating backup or archival records, including electronic records.

The email sent by Carr did not contain some of the details traditionally found in a records disposal request, raising concerns about procedure, experts told the BBC.

“There is no indication in this email order that any thought is being given to proper retention or even identifying which records can be destroyed and which records cannot,” said Kel McClanahan, executive director of the National Security Counselors, a non-profit law firm in Washington.

Mr McClanahan filed a complaint with the National Archives and Records Administration, asking them to “take immediate measures” to stop the destruction of records.

The loss of personnel records could also cause serious complications for federal employees who need to verify or process their employment benefits.

USAID was one of the first targets of the Department of Government Efficiency (Doge), which was established by the Trump administration to root out what they view as waste and fraud in the federal bureaucracy. Billionaire Elon Musk is helping lead the agency.

Musk referred to the agency as “evil” and the White House has argued that the agency’s international programmes were a wasteful use of taxpayer dollars.

Over a few dramatic weeks, the agency was essentially shut down, with thousands of employees being laid off or placed on administrative leave. Many foreign service officers stationed abroad received little to no instructions for how to return home.

Many USAID staff remain on administrative leave, which allows them to receive pay but keeps their lives and careers in limbo.

The Trump administration named Secretary of State Marco Rubio the acting head of USAID in February and announced that Pete Marocco, who works at the State Department, would oversee its daily operations.

The Trump administration also ordered a temporary freeze on foreign aid that included funds distributed by USAID, which sent shockwaves through the international development community and forced some private companies and nonprofits to lay off staff.

On Monday, Rubio announced on X that the administration was cancelling “83% of the programmes at USAID.”

“The 5200 contracts that are now cancelled spent tens of billions of dollars in ways that did not serve, (and in some cases even harmed), the core national interests of the United States,” he wrote. The State Department would administer the roughly 1,000 remaining grants.

An Indonesian TikToker has been sentenced to almost three years in prison after reportedly ‘talking’ to a picture of Jesus on her phone and telling him to get a haircut.

Ratu Thalisa, a Muslim transgender woman with more than 442,000 TikTok followers, had been on a livestream, and was responding to a comment that told her to cut her hair to look more like a man.

On Monday, a court in Medan, Sumatra found Thalisa guilty of spreading hatred under a controversial online hate-speech law, and sentenced her to two years and 10 months in jail.

The court said her comments could disrupt “public order” and “religious harmony” in society, and charged her with committing blasphemy.

The court ruling came after multiple Christian groups filed police complaints against Ms Thalisa for blasphemy.

The sentence has been condemned by human rights groups, including Amnesty International, who described it as “a shocking attack on Ratu Thalisa’s freedom of expression” and called for it to be quashed.

“The Indonesian authorities should not use the country’s Electronic Information and Transactions (EIT) law to punish people for comments made on social media,” Amnesty International Indonesia’s Executive Director Usman Hamid said in a statement.

“While Indonesia should prohibit the advocacy of religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence, Ratu Thalisa’s speech act does not reach that threshold.”

Mr Hamid called on Indonesian authorities to overturn Ms Thalisa’s conviction and ensure her immediate release from custody.

He also urged them to repeal or make substantial revisions to what he described as “problematic provisions” in the EIT Law – namely, those criminalising alleged immorality, defamation and hate speech.

First introduced in 2008 and amended in 2016 to address online defamation, the EIT Law was designed to safeguard the rights of individuals in online spaces.

It has been roundly criticised, however, by rights groups, press groups and legal experts, who have long raised concerns about the law’s potential threat to freedom of expression.

At least 560 people were charged with alleged violations of the EIT Law while exercising their freedom of expression between 2019 and 2024, and 421 were convicted, according to data from Amnesty International.

Those charged with offenses of defamation and hate speech have included several social media influencers.

In September 2023, a Muslim woman was sentenced to two years’ prison for blaspheming Islam, after she posted a viral TikTok video where she said an Islamic phrase before eating pork.

In 2024, another TikToker was detained for blasphemy after they posted a quiz asking children what kind of animals can read the Quran, according to Amnesty International.

Indonesia is home to many religious minorities, including Buddhists, Christians and Hindus. But a vast majority of Indonesians are Muslim – and most cases of people found in violation of the EIT Law have typically related to religious minorities allegedly insulting Islam.

Ms Thalisa’s case, where a Muslim woman is accused of invoking hate speech against Christianity, is less common.

Prosecutors previously demanded that she receive a sentence of more than four years, and immediately appealed against Monday’s verdict. Ms Thalisa was given seven days to appeal.

The government of Portuguese Prime Minister Luís Montenegro has lost a vote of confidence, almost certainly pitching the country into its third general election in barely three years.

MPs voted against him by 142 to 88 with no abstentions, toppling his right-of-centre minority government.

While Portugal’s President, Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa, is not obliged to dissolve the assembly, he had made clear that he would if the government lost Tuesday’s vote, with fresh elections likely in May.

The confidence motion was tabled by the government itself, after the opposition Socialists announced plans for a parliamentary inquiry into Montenegro’s business dealings.

A company called Spinumviva, set up by Luís Montenegro, continued to receive sizeable sums from clients he had previously secured, even after he was elected Social Democratic Party (PSD) president and leader of the opposition in 2022, and had transferred ownership to his wife and two sons.

The legality of the transfer to his wife was questioned by the opposition, given that the marriage is one in which assets are jointly held; the couple have since made their sons sole owners.

But questions remain about the sources of the company’s income – which until a few days ago included €4,500 (£3,800) a month from hotels and casino group Solverde, whose gambling concession is up for review – as well as the identity of other clients, which the prime minister has declined to reveal, and the services Spinumviva offers.

The prime minister, a trained lawyer, says the firm provides consultancy services relating to data privacy laws, outsourcing work to external experts – given that his wife is a childminder, one son a student and the other a new graduate.

The Bar Association is now looking into whether the company is illicitly offering services that only lawyers may offer.

In recent days, Montenegro’s cabinet has approved a battery of spending and other measures, in what is being seen as a bid to show that it is working hard for the country.

The situation might seem to offer ideal conditions for far-right Chega, the third-largest party in parliament, to renew its attacks on corruption in politics.

Chega also benefited from the resignation of Montenegro’s Socialist predecessor, António Costa, who is now president of the European Council. His name had come up in a criminal investigation into government contracts, although he has never been made a suspect.

But in recent weeks, Chega has been hit by scandals of its own, with three of its MPs accused of crimes, including one charged with stealing suitcases at Lisbon airport.

Until recently, Luís Montenegro’s coalition with the conservative People’s Party was still ahead of the Socialists in the opinion polls, having narrowly won the 2024 general election a year ago.

However, they are now trailing the Socialists, led by Pedro Nuno Santos, who served as a minister under António Costa.

None of the major parties appear keen on a snap election – not least because they fear voters will not be enthusiastic at having to choose a new government when the current one has been in office for less than a year – and the timing is poor in geopolitical terms.

However, Portugal appears set on an unswerving path for May elections.

Not only has the prime minister chosen to appeal to voters rather than face an inquiry, a stance described as “cowardly” by the leader of the opposition.

But Pedro Nuno Santos has long pledged not to vote in favour of any government confidence motion.

A rare Medieval bishop’s ring found by a retired firefighter in a Norfolk field is expected to fetch up to £18,000 at auction.

The gold ring, which has a central hexagonal cabochon sapphire with two emeralds and two garnets, was uncovered by detectorist Mark Sell, 63, in King Row, Shipdham, in 2019.

Mr Sell said he was “amazed” when he spotted some gold glistening in the mud and planned to split the money with the landowner.

The ring, which dates from the late 12th to early 13th Century, will go under the hammer at Noonans Mayfair on 26 March.

Mr Sell said he had been in the field a couple of times before, but had not found anything of importance.

After trying again for a couple of hours before it got dark one evening in November 2019, his metal detector picked up a faint signal.

He dug down about nine inches (23cm) and could not believe his luck.

“I was amazed to see a thin line of gold in the clod of mud that I had dug up, and as I wiped away the mud, I could see the bezel of a medieval gold jewelled ring,” he said.

“I could also see that the ring was complete with all of the original jewels still in place and was in pristine condition.”

He reported it to the landowner and it was left with the county’s Finds Liaison Officer.

It was then temporarily displayed at the British Museum before being prepared for auction.

Laura Smith, jewellery expert at Noonans Mayfair, said: “The village of Shipdham was well established by the time of the Norman Conquest, extensively detailed in the Domesday Book of 1086, and at that time recorded as being within the largest 20% of settlements in England.

“This form of Medieval ring, with a principal cabochon stone – usually a sapphire – surrounded by smaller collet set satellite stones (garnets or rubies, and emeralds), can be securely dated to the late 12th or early 13th Century, and is associated with the bishopric.”

Indian Americans are increasingly optimistic about India’s future, but hold deep concerns about US-India relations under a second Donald Trump administration, a new survey finds.

The 2024 Indian-American Survey, conducted by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and YouGov in October, examined Indian-American political attitudes.

Two pivotal elections happened in India and the US last year, amid a deepening – but occasionally strained – partnership. Tensions between the countries flared over a US federal indictment of Indian billionaire Gautam Adani and allegations of a Delhi-backed assassination plot on American soil.

With more than five million Indian-origin residents in the US, the survey asked some key questions: How do Indian Americans view former president Joe Biden’s handling of US-India ties? Do they see Donald Trump as a better option? And how do they assess India’s trajectory post the 2024 election?

Here are some key takeaways from the report, which was based on a nationally representative online survey of 1,206 Indian-American adult residents.

Indian Americans rated the Biden administration’s handling of US-India relations more favourably than Trump’s first term.

A hypothetical Kamala Harris administration was seen as better for bilateral ties than a second Trump term during the polling.

Partisan polarisation plays a key role: 66% of Indian-American Republicans believe Trump was better for US-India ties, while just 8% of Democrats agree.

Conversely, half of Indian-American Democrats favour Biden, compared to 15% of Republicans.

Since most Indian Americans are Democrats, this gives Biden the overall edge.

During their February meeting at the White House, both Trump and Prime Minister Narendra Modi praised each other’s leadership, but Trump criticised India’s high trade tariffs, calling them a “big problem.”

The alleged Indian plot to assassinate a separatist on US soil has not widely registered – only half of respondents are aware of it.

In October, the US charged a former Indian intelligence officer with attempted murder and money laundering for allegedly plotting to assassinate Gurpatwant Singh Pannun, a US-based advocate for an independent Sikh state, Khalistan.

This marked the first time the Indian government has been directly implicated in an alleged assassination attempt on a dissident. India has stated it is co-operating with the US investigation. In January, a panel set up by India to examine Washington’s allegations recommended legal action against an unnamed individual believed to be the former intelligence agent.

A narrow majority of the respondents said that India would “not be justified in taking such action and hold identical feelings about the US if the positions were reversed”.

Indian Americans are split along partisan party lines, with Democrats expressing greater empathy for Palestinians and Republicans leaning pro-Israel.

Four in 10 respondents believe Biden has been too pro-Israel in the ongoing conflict.

The attack in October 2023 by Hamas fighters from Gaza killed around 1,200 people, mostly civilians, inside Israel and saw 251 people taken hostage. Most have been released in ceasefire agreements or other arrangements.

Israel’s military offensive has killed more than 48,000 Palestinians in Gaza, mostly women and children, according to the Hamas-run health ministry.

Talks to prolong the fragile ceasefire, the first phase of which ended on 1 March, are expected to resume in Qatar on Monday.

Forty-seven percent of Indian Americans believe India is heading in the right direction, a 10 percentage point increase from four years ago.

The same share approves of Modi’s performance as prime minister. Additionally, four in 10 respondents feel that India’s 2024 election – where Modi’s party did not get a majority – made the country more democratic.

The survey found that many Indian Americans support Modi and believe India is on the right track, yet half are unaware of the alleged assassination attempt on US soil.

Does this indicate a gap in information access, selective engagement or a tendency to overlook certain actions in favour of broader nationalist sentiment?

“It is hard to tease out the precise reason for this, but our sense is that this has more to do with selective engagement,” Milan Vaishnav, co-author of the study, said.

Data collected by Carnegie in 2020 shows that around 60% of Indian Americans follow Indian government and public affairs regularly, leaving a significant portion who “engage only sporadically”.

“Often people form broad impressions based on a combination of the news, social media and interactions with friends and family. Given the deluge of news in the US of late, it is not entirely surprising that the ‘murder-for-hire’ plot did not break through for a large section of the community,” Mr Vaishnav said.

Indian Americans, while cautious about Trump and generally favouring Biden or Harris for US-India relations, continue to strongly support Modi back in India. Given Modi’s nationalist policies, what accounts for this divergence? Is it driven more by personal impact than ideology?

“This is a case of ‘where you sit is where you stand’,” Mr Vaishnav said.

He said in related research, “we’ve explored this question in depth and found that Indian Americans generally hold more liberal views on US policy issues compared to India”.

“For instance, while Muslim Indian-Americans – minorities both in India and the US – maintain consistently more liberal attitudes, Hindu Indian-Americans express liberal views in the US (where they are a minority) but more conservative stances in India, where they belong to the majority.

“In other words, a person’s majority or minority status plays a key role in shaping their political views,” Mr Vaishnav said.

If Indian Americans viewed Trump as a threat to bilateral ties, why did they embrace him during his first term, as seen at events like ‘Howdy Modi!’? Has their opinion of Trump shifted due to his policies, or is it more about changing political currents?

“We should not generalise from one event or even one segment of the Indian American population. More than 50,000 Indian Americans gathered at ‘Howdy, Modi!’ first and foremost to see Modi, not Trump. Recall that Trump was added at a later date,” Mr Vaishnav said.

“Second, this is a diverse diaspora with a range of political views. While Indian Americans lean overwhelmingly toward the Democratic Party, a very sizeable minority – we estimate around 30% in 2024 – support the Republicans under Trump.”

Indian Americans remain committed to the Democratic Party, but attachment has waned. Some 47% identify as Democrats, down from 56% in 2020, a survey found last year.

Do Indian Americans have a nuanced understanding of political developments in both countries, or are their views more influenced by diaspora-driven narratives and media echo chambers?

Mr Vaishnav said data from 2020 shows that online news was the primary source of information about India, followed by television, social media and word of mouth. Within social media, YouTube, Facebook and WhatsApp were the most common platforms.

“Direct engagement with India is more limited, with foreign-born Indian Americans typically more involved than those born in the US.

“Having said that, one should not overlook the fact that the bonds of cultural connectivity remain quite strong, even with second and third-generation Indian Americans.”

In the end, the survey underscores a complex portrait of the Indian American community – one shaped by a blend of selective engagement, shifting political winds and varying personal experiences.

A war of words has erupted between the chief minister of a southern Indian state and the federal government over an education policy that, among other things, also deals with what languages children are taught in schools.

The National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 was introduced by Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government five years back and is being implemented in stages. It has made headlines recently after Tamil Nadu Chief Minister MK Stalin alleged that the federal government was penalising his state for refusing to implement it – charges Delhi has denied.

A section of the policy recommends that students learn three languages. It doesn’t mention any language specifically, but adds that at least two should be “native to India”.

Stalin has cited a number of reasons for not implementing the NEP. But it is his allegation that the three-language policy will lead to the imposition of Hindi – the northern Indian language that is the most widely spoken in India – in his state that has dominated headlines recently.

India, where states are mostly organised on linguistic lines, has nearly two dozen official languages, including Hindi, Tamil and English. But southern states have often protested against efforts by successive federal governments to privilege Hindi over other languages.

It is an especially sensitive issue in Tamil Nadu, which has historically been at the forefront of such protests.

The issue led to heated exchanges in India’s parliament on Monday, with federal Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan accusing Stalin and his party members of “mischief”.

“Their only job is to raise language barriers. They are undemocratic and uncivilised,” Pradhan said, sparking protests by Stalin’s party, the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, in Tamil Nadu.

Education is a part of the constitution’s “concurrent” list, which means that both the federal and state governments can make and enact laws around it. Schools and colleges follow different syllabi and rules depending on who oversees them – the federal or state governments.

The National Education Policy aims to promote and regulate education in India and the government updates it occasionally, with the NEP 2020 being the fourth iteration.

The three-language formula has found place in the NEP from its first version in 1968 and has often faced pushback from states, including Tamil Nadu. Many of its recommendations were not legally binding on state-run schools – Tamil Nadu, for instance, teaches only two languages, English and Tamil, in schools it runs. The state’s leaders have argued that learning their mother tongue, Tamil, helps children learn subjects better while English opens up more promising opportunities.

Tamil Nadu government schools have also performed well over the years on surveys measuring parameters including access to education and quality of infrastructure.

The latest NEP says that the “three-language policy will continue to be implemented” but adds that – unlike earlier versions – there will be “greater flexibility” and that “no language will be imposed on any state”.

But Stalin and his party – who say they are not against Hindi itself – have argued over the past few weeks that the policy’s eventual aim is to force the language on non-Hindi-speaking states.

The chief minister wrote on X last month that Hindi – which emerged as a standardised language for easy communication during the British era – ended up dominating other languages and dialects spoken in northern India, such as Bhojpuri and Awadhi.

His party’s MP Kanimozhi Karunanidhi also recently questioned why a student should be forced to learn three languages.

“Students have enough burden in schools. You have to learn so many subjects, and on top of that you are forced to learn three languages instead of two,” she told the Indian Express newspaper.

But Pradhan has denied allegations that the policy will force Hindi through.

“We have never said in NEP 2020 that only Hindi will be there; we have only said that education will be based on mother tongue – in Tamil Nadu, it will be Tamil,” he told reporters last week.

The latest controversy has been exacerbated by Tamil Nadu’s claims that it has not been allotted its share of funds for Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan – a school education programme partially funded by the federal government – due to the state’s refusal to implement the NEP.

The Hindu newspaper reported last August that the federal government had asked Tamil Nadu to sign a memorandum of understanding (MoU) to participate in the scheme. However, according to the MoU, participating in the scheme meant that the state had to adopt NEP 2020 “in its entirety”.

In December, a junior federal minister told parliament that Tamil Nadu did not sign the MoU for the scheme despite agreeing initially – a claim the DMK denied, saying it never agreed to do so.

In February, Stalin wrote a letter to Prime Minister Narendra Modi, asking him to urgently release the funds, amounting to around 21.5bn rupees ($247m; £191m).

India is one of the world’s most linguistically diverse countries and some estimates say thousands of languages are spoken here.

But there are only 22 official languages, with Hindi – spoken by more than 46% of the population – being the most widely used, according to the last census held in 2011.

After the British left India in 1947, the newly independent nation sought to promote Hindi as a link language to replace English. The constitution – enacted in 1950 – also nudges the federal government to promote the spread of Hindi.

This invited fierce opposition from non-Hindi-speaking states, prompting the federal government to continue using English as an alternate official language for 15 years after 1950.

As the deadline year of 1965 approached, violent protests over fears of Hindi “imposition” erupted again across Tamil Nadu, leading the federal government to pass a law that assured the continued use of English as an official language.

However, successive federal governments have introduced policies or made announcements that have kept these anxieties simmering.

The 1968 NEP adopted the three-language formula for the first time and, in the same year, the government introduced policies mandating the teaching of Hindi in non-Hindi speaking states, leading to fresh protests.

Over the years, the issue of Hindi versus other languages has made headlines repeatedly. In 2023, Stalin criticised the Modi government for replacing some colonial-era laws with ones bearing Hindi names (the Indian Penal Code, for instance, has been replaced with a law named Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita).

A federal government commission that examined the language policy during 1948-49 acknowledged that the issue’s sentimental nature made it “difficult to consider it in a calm and detached manner”.

“No other problem has caused greater controversy among educationists and evoked more contradictory views from our witnesses,” it said.

A man who ran the entire length of Africa has begun his latest challenge – running the full length of New Zealand.

Russ Cook, nicknamed Hardest Geezer, completed his previous endurance challenge in April last year after 352 days.

The 27-year-old, from Worthing, West Sussex, plans to run the 1,864 mile (3,000km) Te Araroa Trail, which will see him take on 60 ultramarathons while navigating mountains, forests, coastlines and cities.

“The incredible, warm welcome I’ve received so far has already given me a glimpse of how special the journey ahead of me will be,” he said.

He has begun the challenge at Stirling Point in Bluff – the southern tip of New Zealand’s South Island – and will run northbound for about 60 days to the finish line in Cape Rēinga, in Northland.

Mr Cook said he expected to climb the equivalent of approximately 10 Mount Everests in elevation over approximately the next 10 weeks.

During the challenge, he is also due to bungee jump off Auckland Harbour Bridge, canyon swing in Queenstown and sky dive in Abel Tasman.

He said he was excited to be “back on the road again” in his first major expedition since running the length of Africa.

“If anything, from my experiences before in Africa, it has made me more finely attuned to the risks that I can take and the risks that I can’t take,” he said.

“A lot of personal growth is done in those little uncomfortable spots.

“You’re not totally 100% sure, but you go for it anyway, and you make it happen, and that’s when you learn.”

Mr Cook raised more than £1m for charity during his previous challenge in Africa, despite complications with visas, health scares, geopolitical issues and an armed robbery.

The extreme challenge began at South Africa’s most southerly point on 22 April 2023, and finished more than 10,190 miles (16,400km) north in Tunisia.

The ultramarathon runner said he planned to continue living adventurously for as long as his body allowed.

“When I’m older, when the body’s keeled over a bit, I expect I’ll pick up where I left off,” he said.

Armed Islamists have stormed a hotel in the city of Beledweyne in central Somalia, and a siege is ongoing, police and witnesses have said.

The attack by al-Shabab began with a car bomb exploding, followed by gunmen entering the hotel, leading to intense clashes with security forces.

Police said at least four people had been killed, but witnesses told the BBC the death toll had risen to 10, with the security forces still battling the gunmen at the Qahira Hotel.

Al-Shabab, which is affiliated to al-Qaeda, has been waging a brutal insurgency in Somalia for more than two decades.

The raid on the hotel took place as politicians, security officials and traditional elders were meeting to discuss plans for an offensive against the group in central Somalia.

Beledweyne is about 335km (208 miles) north of the capital, Mogadishu, and is a strategic location in the campaign against al-Shabab.

Police officer Ali Mahad said many of those in attendance had been rescued, the AFP news agency reports

“Security forces are tackling several gunmen who are cornered in one part of the building,” he is quoted as saying.

A federal lawmaker from Beledweyne, Dahir Amin Jesow, told the BBC that nearly seven gunmen were in the hotel.

“It will be necessary to bring in forces with heavy weaponry to neutralise the situation,” he said.

Parts of the hotel had been reduced to rubble as government forces and gunmen exchanged fire, shopkeeper Ali Suleiman, who witnessed the attack, told the Reuters news agency.

“We first heard a huge blast followed by gunfire, then another blast was heard,” he said.

It is unclear how many people have been wounded, but the lawmaker said they were trying to organise for aeroplanes to fly victims to Mogadishu for treatment.

• Why Trump is on the warpath in Somalia
• The men in sarongs taking on al-Shabab militants
• Somali piracy 2.0 – the BBC meets the new robbers of the high seas

Armed militants in Pakistan’s Balochistan region have attacked a train carrying more than 400 passengers and taken a number of them hostage, military sources told the BBC on Tuesday.

The Baloch Liberation Army (BLA) fired at the Jaffar Express Train as it travelled from Quetta to Peshawar.

The separatist group said it had bombed the track before storming the train in the remote Sibi district, claiming the train was under its control.

At least 16 militants have been killed and 104 passengers rescued as of Wednesday morning, local media reported.

Among those rescued are 17 injured passengers, who have been hospitalised for treatment.

The militants had threatened to kill hostages if authorities did not release Baloch political prisoners within 48 hours, according to local reports.

The rescue operation is ongoing.

There were reports of “intense firing” at the train, a Balochistan government spokesman told local newspaper Dawn on Tuesday.

A senior police official said it “remains stuck just before a tunnel surrounded by mountains”, AFP news agency reports.

A senior army official confirmed to the BBC that there were more than 100 army personnel travelling from Quetta on the train.

The Pakistani authorities – as well as several Western countries, including the UK and US – have designated the BLA as a terrorist organisation.

It has waged a decades-long insurgency to gain independence and has launched numerous deadly attacks, often targeting police stations, railway lines and highways.

On Tuesday, the group warned of “severe consequences” if an attempt was made to rescue those it is holding.

“I can’t find the words to describe how we managed to escape. It was terrifying,” Muhammad Bilal, one of the freed hostages, told AFP news agency.

Allahditta, another passenger, said he was allowed to go because of his heart condition. The 49-year-old recalled how people “began hiding under the seats in panic” when the attackers stormed the train.

A local railway official in Quetta earlier told the BBC that a group of 80 passengers – 11 children, 26 women and 43 men – had managed to disembark the train and walk to the nearest railway station, Panir.

The official said the group was made up of locals from the province of Balochistan.

One man, whose brother-in-law was still being held on the train, described an agonising wait. He said he had tried to drive to the area, but many of the roads were closed.

Meanwhile, anxious families of passengers were trying to get information about their loved ones from the counter at Quetta railway station.

The son of one passenger, Muhammad Ashraf, who left Quetta for Lahore on Tuesday morning, told BBC Urdu he had not been able to contact his father.

Another relative said he was “frantic with worry” about his cousin and her small child, who were travelling from Quetta to Multan to pick up a family member.

“No one is telling me what’s happening or if they’re safe,” Imran Khan told Reuters news agency.

Officials say they are yet to communicate with anyone on the train.

The area has no internet and mobile network coverage, officials told the BBC.

Balochistan is Pakistan’s largest province and the richest in terms of natural resources, but it is the least developed.

Just short of his 80th birthday, Rodrigo Duterte, a man who once vowed to purge his country through a bloody anti-drugs and crime campaign, found himself outmanoeuvred and in custody.

The former president was met by Philippines police as he arrived in Manila on a flight from Hong Kong, where he had been rallying support for his candidates for the upcoming mid-term election among the large Filipino diaspora there.

The much-talked-about warrant for his arrest from the International Criminal Court (ICC) was, it turned out, already in the hands of the Philippines government, which moved swiftly to execute it.

A frail-looking Mr Duterte, walking with a stick, was moved to an air force base within the airport perimeter. A chartered jet was quickly prepared to take him to the ICC in The Hague.

How had this happened? How had a man so powerful and popular, often called “the Trump of Asia”, been brought so low?

In vain, his lawyers and family members protested that the arrest had no legal basis and complained that Duterte’s frail health was being neglected.

While in office, Mr Duterte formed an alliance with the Marcos family – the children of ousted dictator Ferdinand Marcos who had long been working on a political comeback. Mr Duterte could not run again in the 2022 election, but his daughter Sara, mayor of southern city of Davao, was also popular and a strong contender to replace him.

However, Ferdinand Marcos’s son Bongbong, who had been in politics all his life, was also well placed to win and very well-funded.

The two families struck a deal. They would work together to get Bongbong into the presidency and Sara into the vice-presidency, on the assumption that come the next election in 2028, her turn would come and she would have the formidable Marcos machine behind her.

It worked. Both won their positions by a wide margin. Mr Duterte expected that his alliance would protect him from any blowback over his controversial presidency once he was out of power.

The most serious threat hanging over him was an investigation by the ICC into his culpability for thousands of extrajudicial killings carried out during anti-drugs campaigns he ordered – after he became president in 2016, but also during his tenure as mayor of the southern city of Davao from 2011.

Mr Duterte withdrew the Philippines from the jurisdiction of the ICC in 2019, but its prosecutors argued they still had a mandate to look into alleged crimes against humanity committed before that, and launched a formal investigation in 2021. However, President Marcos initially stated that his government would not co-operate with the ICC.

That position only changed after the dramatic breakdown of the Duterte-Marcos alliance. Strains in their relationship were evident from the earliest days of the administration, when Sara Duterte’s request to be given control of the powerful defence ministry was turned down and she was given the education ministry instead.

President Marcos also distanced himself from his predecessor’s mercurial policies, mending fences with the US, standing up to China in contested seas, and stopping the blood-curdling threats of retribution against drug dealers.

In the end, these were two ambitious, power-hungry clans aiming to dominate Filipino politics, and there was not enough power for them to share. Relations reached a nadir last year when Sara Duterte announced that she had hired an assassin to kill President Marcos, should anything happen to her.

Late last year, the lower house of Congress, which is controlled by Marcos loyalists, filed a petition to impeach Ms Duterte. That trial is due to take place in the Senate later this year.

If she is impeached, under the constitution, she would be barred from holding high political office, killing her long-standing presidential ambitions and weakening the political power of the Dutertes even further.

President Marcos now appears to have moved deftly to neutralise his main political rival. But his strategy is not risk-free. The Dutertes remain popular in much of the country, and may be able to mobilise protests against the former president’s prosecution.

Sara Duterte has issued a statement accusing the government of surrendering her father to “foreign powers” and of violating Filipino sovereignty.

An early test of the support enjoyed by both clans will be the mid-term elections in May.

In his comments to journalists after the plane carrying his predecessor had taken off from Manila, President Marcos insisted he was meeting the country’s commitments to Interpol, which had delivered the ICC warrant. But he was coy about the fact that it was an ICC warrant he was executing, given that many Filipinos will question what the ICC’s remit is in a country which has already left its jurisdiction.

It is not risk-free for the ICC either. The court is an embattled institution these days, with the Trump administration threatening to arrest its top officials should they travel to the US, and few countries willing to extradite those it has indicted. Getting former President Duterte to The Hague might therefore look like a welcome high-profile success.

But there was a warning, from China – admittedly not a signatory to the ICC and currently at loggerheads with the Philippines – not to politicise ICC cases. This was a thinly-veiled reference to the fact that this case, which is supposed to be about accountability for serious international crimes, has ended up playing a decisive part in a domestic feud in the Philippines between two rival political forces.

Donald Trump has halted a plan to double US tariffs on Canadian steel and metal imports to 50%, just hours after first threatening them.

Tariffs of 25% are still going ahead and will take effect from the 12 March.

The move by the president comes after the Canadian province of Ontario suspended new charges of 25% on electricity that it sends to some northern states in the US, hours after Trump threatened to sharply increase his tariffs on the country.

It marked the latest skirmish in a trade war that risks economic damage to the two North American neighbours.

“Cooler heads prevailed,” said Trump trade adviser Peter Navarro told broadcaster CNBC, confirming that Trump would not move forward with his latest tariff threats.

Canada, one of America’s closest trade partners, has borne the brunt of Trump’s ire as he has launched trade battles in his first months in office.

Trump has hit goods from the country, along with Mexico, with a blanket 25% tariff, though he signed orders temporarily exempting a significant number of items from the new duties, which he said were a response to drug and migrants crossing into the US.

Canada is also facing 25% tariffs on its steel and aluminium, which are set to go into effect on Wednesday, after Trump said he was ending exemptions to the duties previously granted to some countries.

Canada has called Trump’s attacks unjustified and announced retaliation, including new tariffs on C$30bn ($22bn; £16bn) US products.

Ford had announced he would tax electricity exports to the US in an effort to get those tariffs removed.

He had also previously said he would “not hesitate to shut off electricity completely” if the US “escalates”.

Announcing the decision to suspend the electricity duties, Ford said he thought it was the “right decision” to try to start focus the discussions on the wider North American free trade deal.

“With any negotiation that we have, there’s a point that both parties are heated and the temperature needs to come down,” he said, thanking Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick for reaching out about a meeting.

“They understand how serious we are,” he added. “We have both agreed, let cooler heads prevail. We need to sit down and move this forward.”

In his social media post early on Tuesday, which threatened to double levies on Canadian steel and aluminium, Trump said he was responding to Ford’s moves.

He also criticised Canada for relying on the US for “military protection”, and reiterated that he wanted the country to become the 51st US state.

He add that it “would make all tariffs, and everything else, totally disappear” if Canada were to join the US as a state.

The White House declared the episode a win, saying in a statement that Trump had “once again used the leverage of the American economy, which is the best and biggest in the world, to deliver a win for the American people”.

Tariffs are taxes charged on goods imported from other countries.

The companies that bring the foreign goods into the country pay the tax to the government.

• Faisal Islam: Trump is no longer swayed by the stock markets

The back-and-forth came during a turbulent time for markets.

The S&P 500 index of the largest firms listed in the US fell a further 0.7% on Tuesday after dropping 2.7% on Monday, which was its biggest one-day drop since December.

The UK’s FTSE 100 share index, which had edged lower earlier on Tuesday, fell further following Trump’s latest comments and closed down more than 1%. The French Cac 40 index and German Dax followed a similar pattern.

Monday’s stock market sell-off had begun after Trump said the economy was in a “transition” when asked about whether the US was heading for a recession.

Investors have been concerned about the economic effects of Trump’s trade policies, which it is feared could push up inflation in the US and beyond, while uncertainty leads to economic paralyisis.

Even before Tuesday’s comments, Trump’s tariffs had already been causing concern for US businesses.

On Monday, Jason Goldstein, founder of Icarus Brewing, a small beer-maker in New Jersey that employs 50 people, told the BBC that previous tariff announcements had prompted a slew of emails from his suppliers.

They have been warning that price increases for everything from grain and aluminium cans are likely to be coming.

Mr Goldstein has stockpiled an extra month’s supply of cans and held off on new purchases as a result of the uncertainty and rapidly changing situation.

“It’s definitely a worrying time for us,” he said.

“Never before in my life have I had to read so much news, watch so much news to know, here’s what my industry’s going to look like tomorrow.”

Don’t call it a breakthrough, as there is still a long way to go before lasting peace.

But Tuesday’s agreement between the US and Ukraine over a proposed temporary ceasefire in the war with Russia represents a remarkable change of course.

Just a week ago, the US suspended military aid and intelligence sharing with Ukraine in the aftermath of the bitter meeting between Volodymyr Zelensky and Donald Trump at the White House.

That US and Ukrainian diplomats were able to improve relations and chart a path forward serves as another illustration of how Trump, despite his apparent bluster and willingness to hurl insults, always appears open to further negotiations.

For him, in fact, the swagger and browbeating are often an integral part of the negotiating process.

But a strategy that involves a whirlwind of public threats and concessions is not without risks, as has been painfully apparent to the more than 60% of Americans with investments in the US stock market in recent weeks.

Major stock indexes continued to tumble on Tuesday after Trump escalated his war of words – and tariffs – with America’s northern neighbour and largest trading partner, Canada.

• Ukraine ready to accept 30-day ceasefire with Russia
• Analysis: It’s Russia that may now be feeling the pressure
• Trump halts plan for 50% steel and aluminium tariffs on Canada

In a caustic post on his Truth Social account, Trump said he would double impending tariffs on Canadian steel and aluminium in response to a planned Canadian surcharge on electricity bound for northern US states.

He said – again – that Canada becoming a US state is the “only thing that makes sense”.

The aggressive style produced results within hours – the premier of Ontario, Doug Ford, backed down from the energy surcharge for now, and then Trump said he would no longer double the 25% tariffs coming into force on Wednesday.

But the ongoing trade dispute has erased trillions of dollars in US stock market wealth. And there is still the prospect of more tariffs – on Canada and other US trading partners – next month.

Meanwhile, despite Ukraine’s acceptance of a time-limited truce if Russia plays its part, there is still no sign of the mineral rights deal which would give the US a share of future Ukrainian mining revenues.

Trump has made clear how much he wants this, and it could be a stumbling block down the road.

There is also no indication of whether Russia will accept the 30-day ceasefire proposal. It is also unclear what the Trump team is willing to do to convince Vladimir Putin to say yes.

Will the same playbook work? Or will Trump have to find another tool in his negotiating kit?

There is, however, clear progress towards Trump’s promise, repeated throughout much of last year’s presidential campaign, that he is the one who can end the war after three years.

He has chosen to perform a high-wire act where success could bring peace and prosperity. The price of failure, however, will be measured in lives lost.

Ukraine has said it is ready to accept an immediate 30-day ceasefire with Russia proposed by the US, after a day of US-Ukraine talks in Saudi Arabia.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said he would present the offer to Russia and that “the ball is in their court”.

Ukraine’s President Volodomyr Zelensky said it was now up to the US to convince Russia to agree to the “positive” proposal.

Tuesday’s talks in Jeddah were the first official meeting between the two countries since the extraordinary clash between Zelensky and US President Donald Trump in the Oval Office.

In a joint statement, the US also said it would immediately restart intelligence sharing and security assistance to Ukraine, which Washington had suspended after the unprecedented meeting.

“Both delegations agreed to name their negotiating teams and immediately begin negotiations toward an enduring peace that provides for Ukraine’s long-term security,” the US-Ukraine statement said.

Rubio told a press conference in Jeddah late on Tuesday that he hoped Russia would accept the proposal.

Ukraine was “ready to stop shooting and start talking,” he said, and if Russia rejected the offer “then we’ll unfortunately know what the impediment is to peace here”.

“Today we made an offer that the Ukrainians have accepted, which is to enter into a ceasefire and into immediate negotiations,” he said.

“We’ll take this offer now to the Russians and we hope they’ll say yes to peace. The ball is now in their court,” he added.

The offer of a 30-day ceasefire goes beyond Zelensky’s proposal for a partial truce in the sea and sky.

• Follow live updates on this story
• Analysis: It’s Russia that may now be feeling the pressure

The Ukrainian president thanked Trump for “the constructiveness” of the talks in Jeddah.

In a video message, Zelensky said Russia had to “show its willingness to stop the war or continue the war”.

“It is time for the full truth,” he added.

Moscow has not yet responded. The Kremlin said earlier on Tuesday it would issue a statement after being briefed by Washington on the outcome of the talks.

Russia launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. Moscow currently controls about 20% of Ukrainian territory.

At the White House, Trump told reporters he would speak with President Putin, who would “hopefully” agree to the proposal.

“It takes to two to tango, as they say,” Trump said, adding he hoped the deal would be agreed in the next few days.

“We have a big meeting with Russia tomorrow, and some great conversations hopefully will ensue.”

He added that he was open to inviting Zelensky back to Washington.

Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said Russia had not ruled out talks with US representatives in the next few days, according to Russia’s state-owned news agency Tass.

Asked by a reporter if Trump and Zelensky’s relationship was “back on track,” Rubio said he hoped it was “peace” that was back on track.

“This is not Mean Girls, this is not some episode of some television show,” he said.

“Today people will die in this war, they died yesterday and – sadly – unless there’s a ceasefire, they will die tomorrow.”

The US and Ukrainian teams met after overnight drone attacks killed at least three people in Moscow – which Russia said showed Ukraine had rejected using diplomacy to end the war.

Trump and Zelensky have also agreed to finalise “as soon as possible” a critical minerals deal, the joint statement said.

Ukraine has offered to grant the US access to its rare earth mineral reserves in exchange for US security guarantees – but this was derailed by the White House row.

Rubio said the deal had not been the subject of Tuesday’s talks, but had been negotiated with Ukrainian and US treasuries.

The US delegation in Jeddah also included US national security advisor Mike Waltz and Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff.

Witkoff is due to travel to Russia in the coming days, a source familiar with the planning told the BBC, although this could change quickly.

The joint US-Ukraine statement said Kyiv had “reiterated” that Europe should be involved in any peace process.

The shift in America’s approach to the war – which has included locking Europe out of talks – has prompted several emergency meetings between European leaders in recent weeks.

The EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said the bloc welcomed Tuesday’s “positive development”.

Achieving a swift end to the war in Ukraine has been a key pledge for the US president.

He has placed increasing pressure on Zelensky to accept a ceasefire, without offering the immediate security guarantees insisted upon by the Ukrainian president.

On Friday, Trump issued a rare threat of further sanctions against Moscow in a push for a deal. Russia is already heavily sanctioned by the US over the war.

Trump said he was contemplating the move because “Russia is absolutely ‘pounding’ Ukraine on the battlefield right now”.

Meanwhile, the war continued on the ground on Tuesday.

Three men were killed in the Moscow region in what was described as the largest drone attack on the Russian capital since the start of the full-scale war in Ukraine.

A further 18 people, including three children, were injured, health officials told Russian media.

The Russian defence ministry said 337 drones were intercepted over Russia and 91 of them were shot down over the Moscow region.

Ukrainian officials reported Russian drone attacks on the capital Kyiv and several other regions.

Ukraine’s air force said it had shot down 79 of 126 drones launched by Russia, as well as an Iskander-M ballistic missile.

It was not immediately clear whether there were any casualties.

A plane carrying the former president of the Philippines, Rodrigo Duterte, has left Manila after the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued a warrant accusing him of crimes against humanity over his deadly “war on drugs”.

He was taken into police custody shortly after his arrival at the capital’s international airport from Hong Kong on Tuesday morning.

Duterte, 79, contested his detention but within hours was on a chartered jet en route to The Hague in the Netherlands, where the ICC sits. Current President Ferdinand Marcos Jr said the country was meeting its legal obligations.

During Duterte’s time in office, thousands of small-time drug dealers, users and others were killed without trial.

Marcos said his predecessor would face charges relating to what he described as Duterte’s “bloody war on drugs”.

“Interpol asked for help and we obliged,” President Marcos told a press conference. “This is what the international community expects of us.”

Duterte’s daughter Sara, who said she would accompany him to The Hague, is vice president and a political rival of Marcos. She has said the arrest amounts to persecution.

Rodrigo Duterte has offered no apologies for his brutal anti-drugs crackdown, which saw more than 6,000 suspects killed when he was president from 2016 to 2022, and mayor of Davao city before that.

Nevertheless, he questioned the basis for the warrant, asking: “What crime [have] I committed?” in a video posted online on Tuesday by another daughter, Veronica Duterte.

“If I committed a sin, prosecute me in Philippine courts, with Filipino judges, and I will allow myself to be jailed in my own nation,” he said in a later video.

In response to his arrest, a petition was launched on his behalf in the Supreme Court – urging it not to comply with the request.

According to a statement from the court’s spokesperson, the former president also called for a declaration that the Philippines withdrawal from the ICC in 2019 “effectively terminated” its jurisdiction over the country and its people.

The ICC says it still has authority in the Philippines over alleged crimes committed before the country withdrew as a member.

• Duterte’s downfall marks dramatic end to Philippines power struggle

Some of Duterte’s supporters rallied at the airport compound, where the former president was taken following his arrest.

“I’m sad because I didn’t think it would come to a point where he would be arrested. For me, he did a lot for our country and this is what they did to him,” one supporter, Aikko Valdon, told the Reuters news agency.

State media said more than 370 police had been deployed to the airport and to other “key locations” to ensure peace was maintained.

While his supporters have criticised the arrest, activists have called it a “historic moment” for those who perished in his anti-drug war and their families, the International Coalition for Human Rights in the Philippines (ICHRP) said.

“Duterte’s arrest is the beginning of accountability for the mass killings that defined his brutal rule,” said ICHRP chairman Peter Murphy.

The former leader had been in Hong Kong to campaign among the large Filipino diaspora there for the 12 May mid-term elections, in which he had planned to run again for mayor of Davao.

Duterte’s arrest marks the “beginning of a new chapter in Philippine history”, said political scientist Richard Heydarian. “This is about rule of law and human rights.”

Heydarian added that authorities had arrested Duterte promptly instead of letting the matter take its course through the local courts to “avoid political chaos”.

The Duterte and Marcos families formed a formidable alliance in the last elections in 2022, where against the elder Duterte’s wishes, his daughter Sara ran as Marcos Jr’s vice-president instead of seeking her father’s post.

The relationship unravelled publicly in recent months as the two families pursued separate political agendas.

Marcos initially refused to co-operate with the ICC investigation, but as his relationship with the Duterte family deteriorated, he changed his stance.

The demand for justice in Duterte’s drug war goes “hand in hand” with the political interests of President Marcos, Mr Heydarian said.

Duterte served as mayor of Davao, a sprawling southern metropolis, for 22 years and has made it one of the country’s safest from street crimes.

He cast himself as a tough-talking anti-establishment politician to win the 2016 elections by a landslide.

With fiery rhetoric, he rallied security forces to shoot drug suspects dead. More than 6,000 suspects were killed by police or unknown assailants during the campaign, but rights groups say the number could be higher.

A previous UN report found that most victims were young, poor urban males and that police, who do not need search or arrest warrants to conduct house raids, systematically forced suspects to make self-incriminating statements or risk facing lethal force.

Critics said the campaign targeted street-level pushers and failed to catch big-time drug lords. Many families also claimed that the victims – their sons, brothers or husbands – were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Investigations in parliament pointed to a shadowy “death squad” of bounty hunters targeting drug suspects. Duterte has denied the allegations of abuse.

“Do not question my policies because I offer no apologies, no excuses. I did what I had to do, and whether or not you believe it… I did it for my country,” Duterte told a parliament investigation in October.

“I hate drugs, make no mistake about it.”

The ICC first took note of the alleged abuses in 2016 and started its investigation in 2021. It covered cases from November 2011, when Duterte was mayor of Davao, to March 2019, before the Philippines withdrew from the ICC.

Since taking power, Marcos has scaled back Duterte’s anti-narcotics campaign and promised a less violent approach to the drug problem, but hundreds of drug-related killings have been recorded during his administration.

Duterte remains widely popular in the Philippines as he is the country’s first leader from Mindanao, a region south of Manila, where many feel marginalised by the leaders in the capital.

He often speaks in Cebuano, the regional language, not Tagalog, which is more widely-spoken in Manila and northern regions.

When he stepped down in 2022, nearly nine in 10 Filipinos said they were satisfied with his performance as president – a score unseen among his predecessors since the restoration of democracy in 1986, according to the Social Weather Stations research institute.

His populist rhetoric and blunt statements earned him the moniker “Donald Trump of the East”. He has called Russian President Vladimir Putin his “idol” and under his administration, the Philippines’ pivoted foreign policy to China away from the US, its long-standing ally.

Marcos restored Manila’s ties with Washington and criticised the Duterte government for being “Chinese lackeys” as the Philippines is locked in sea dispute with China.

China’s foreign ministry said on Tuesday that it was “closely monitoring the development of the situation” and warned the ICC against “politicisation” and “double standards” in the arrest of Duterte.

His political heir, Sara, is tipped as a potential presidential candidate in 2028. The incumbent, Marcos, is barred by the constitution from seeking re-election.

Staff at the US Agency for International Development (USAID) have been told to shred and burn classified documents and personnel files.

The request raised alarm among employees and labour groups amid the ongoing dismantling of the agency.

Acting Executive Secretary Erica Y Carr sent an email that thanked staff for clearing out classified safes and personnel documents from a Washington DC office and told them to meet in the building’s lobby for an all-day disposal event on Tuesday.

“Shred as many documents first, and reserve the burn bags for when the shredder becomes available or needs a break,” her email to staff read.

Typically, documents placed in burn bags for disposal are sealed and then taken to a secure site for incineration.

The email asked staff not to overfill the burn bags and label them with the words “SECRET” and “USAID (B/IO)” – which stands for bureau, or independent office – using permanent markers.

The BBC has viewed a copy of the email, which was also reported by its US partner, CBS News. It was first reported by ProPublica.

The US State Department did not immediately return a request for comment.

It was not immediately clear if the agency had preserved copies of the documents marked for destruction.

The American Foreign Service Association (AFSA), a union representing USAID staff, was aware employees had been asked to shred documents, spokesperson Nikki Gamer told the BBC.

The union said it was “alarmed” by the reports and warned that such documents “may be relevant to ongoing litigation regarding the termination of USAID employees and the cessation of USAID grants”.

The Trump administration faces multiple lawsuits over its dismantling of USAID, which began shortly after Trump took office in January. Unions and other groups have challenged the administration’s power to shut down an agency and freeze funds that had been established and approved by the US Congress.

AFSA noted that federal law dictates that government records must be preserved as they are “essential to transparency, accountability, and the integrity of the legal process”.

The union warned that ” the unlawful destruction of federal records could carry serious legal consequences for anyone directed to act in violation of the law.”

Government agencies do occasionally destroy paper records of classified materials and other documents, but strict procedures govern the process.

The Federal Records Act of 1950 sets out guidelines for the proper disposal of documents and creating backup or archival records, including electronic records.

The email sent by Carr did not contain some of the details traditionally found in a records disposal request, raising concerns about procedure, experts told the BBC.

“There is no indication in this email order that any thought is being given to proper retention or even identifying which records can be destroyed and which records cannot,” said Kel McClanahan, executive director of the National Security Counselors, a non-profit law firm in Washington.

Mr McClanahan filed a complaint with the National Archives and Records Administration, asking them to “take immediate measures” to stop the destruction of records.

The loss of personnel records could also cause serious complications for federal employees who need to verify or process their employment benefits.

USAID was one of the first targets of the Department of Government Efficiency (Doge), which was established by the Trump administration to root out what they view as waste and fraud in the federal bureaucracy. Billionaire Elon Musk is helping lead the agency.

Musk referred to the agency as “evil” and the White House has argued that the agency’s international programmes were a wasteful use of taxpayer dollars.

Over a few dramatic weeks, the agency was essentially shut down, with thousands of employees being laid off or placed on administrative leave. Many foreign service officers stationed abroad received little to no instructions for how to return home.

Many USAID staff remain on administrative leave, which allows them to receive pay but keeps their lives and careers in limbo.

The Trump administration named Secretary of State Marco Rubio the acting head of USAID in February and announced that Pete Marocco, who works at the State Department, would oversee its daily operations.

The Trump administration also ordered a temporary freeze on foreign aid that included funds distributed by USAID, which sent shockwaves through the international development community and forced some private companies and nonprofits to lay off staff.

On Monday, Rubio announced on X that the administration was cancelling “83% of the programmes at USAID.”

“The 5200 contracts that are now cancelled spent tens of billions of dollars in ways that did not serve, (and in some cases even harmed), the core national interests of the United States,” he wrote. The State Department would administer the roughly 1,000 remaining grants.

As US Secretary of State Marco Rubio says, “the ball is now in Russia’s court.” This is a significant moment.

The joint statement from the US and Ukraine, after a long day of talks in Jeddah, contains several key lines, perhaps none more important than this: “The United States will communicate to Russia that Russian reciprocity is the key to achieving peace.”

We’ve heard a lot, in recent weeks, about what Donald Trump expects from Ukraine and what sort of blunt instruments the White House is used to bend Kyiv to its will.

Now, it seems, it’s time for Russia’s intentions to be tested, in public.

Donald Trump’s dealings with Vladimir Putin have so far been shrouded in uncertainty, with no obvious sign of pressure to balance that being exerted on Volodymyr Zelensky.

Tuesday’s US-Ukrainian statement doesn’t imply that Mr Trump has suddenly changed his tune towards Mr Zelensky. Theirs is a thorny relationship, born of many years of mutual mistrust.

But the ugly cloud of acrimony generated by that fractious Oval Office encounter 11 days ago may start to dissipate as the real business of peace-making gets under way.

With the immediate resumption of US intelligence sharing and security assistance to Ukraine, after a suspension that lasted mere days, it’s Russia that may now be feeling the pressure.

These are still early days, with a mass of detail to be settled in subsequent negotiations.

The statement speaks of “substantive details” on a permanent end to the war and the sort of guarantees Ukraine can expect “for their long-term security and prosperity”.

But the wording of the last paragraph echoes Washington’s view that security and prosperity can be achieved through the conclusion of the much-discussed critical minerals deal, rather than the sort of concrete military assurances Kyiv has been seeking.

Zelensky and Trump, it says, have agreed to strike a deal “as soon as possible”. How a purely commercial arrangement can prevent hostile Russian action in the future is something that still has to be fleshed out.

The statement also says the Ukrainian delegation “reiterated that European partners shall be involved in the peace process”, but sheds no light on how Washington views the likely parameters of European involvement.

The meeting in Saudi Arabia feels like a timely reset after the turbulence of recent days. It doesn’t mean that the US and Ukraine are fully aligned on the way forward.

If President Zelensky ever had any doubts, he now knows that he’s dealing with a capricious, volatile American president for whom past loyalties and traditional diplomatic behaviour mean very little.

He’ll do what he can to keep the ball in Russia’s court, but he knows there’s every chance it could end up back in his.

The captain of a cargo ship has been arrested after it collided with an oil tanker in the North Sea.

The Portuguese-flagged Solong and the US-registered tanker Stena Immaculate crashed off the East Yorkshire coast at about 10:00 GMT on Monday.

Humberside Police said the 59-year-old man had been arrested on suspicion of gross negligence manslaughter following searches for a missing crew member of the Solong.

Smoke is continuing to billow from the Solong, but Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander said both ships were expected to remain afloat.

German firm Ernst Russ, which owns the Solong, confirmed to the BBC that the man arrested is the master of the ship.

It said he, along with the rest of the crew, were assisting the investigation.

A crew member from the cargo ship was still missing and presumed dead after a search and rescue operation ended on Monday evening, according to Transport Minister Mike Kane.

Whitehall sources have told the BBC there were Russians and Filipinos among the crew of the Solong.

The BBC understands all 23 crew on board the Stena Immaculate are Americans. They are all in Grimsby and are likely to be repatriated in due course.

Police said they had begun a criminal investigation into the cause of the collision and was working with the Maritime and Coastguard Agency.

The Marine Accident Investigation Branch was also undertaking a parallel preliminary assessment to establish the causes of the crash, police said.

HM Coastguard confirmed 36 people had been taken safely to shore.

Det Ch Supt Craig Nicholson said: “Humberside Police have taken primacy for the investigation of any potential criminal offences which arise from the collision between the two vessels.”

He said the arrested man was in custody.

“Following inquiries undertaken by my team, we have arrested a 59-year-old man on suspicion of gross negligence manslaughter in connection with the collision.

“This follows the conclusion of search operations by HM Coastguard for the missing crew member of the Solong.

“Our thoughts are with the family of the missing crew member, and I have appointed family liaison officers to make contact and provide support to the family.”

Smoke is continuing to billow from Solong.

The ship’s German owner, Ernst Russ, said it was supporting the missing crew member’s family.

It also confirmed there were no containers on board carrying sodium cyanide, as had been initially feared.

“There are four empty containers that have previously contained the hazardous chemical and these containers will continue to be monitored,” the firm said.

Crowley, the maritime company managing Stena Immaculate, said the vessel was struck by Solong while anchored off the coast of Hull, causing “multiple explosions” on board and an unknown quantity of jet fuel to be released.

The firm said Stena Immaculate was carrying 220,000 barrels of jet fuel in 16 segregated cargo tanks, at least one of which was ruptured when it was struck.

Graham Stuart, MP for Beverley and Holderness, said officials had told him there was no evidence so far of any of the heavy engine oil leaking from either ship, or pollution in the water or the air.

Earlier, Kane told the House of Commons the “working assumption” was that one crew member from the cargo ship had died.

Alexander said she had met with the Maritime and Coastguard Agency and been informed that early indications suggest both vessels are now expected to stay afloat.

She added Solong could be “towed away from the shore, and salvage operations can get under way”.

Stena Immaculate was operating as part of the US government’s tanker security programme, a group of commercial vessels that can be contracted to carry fuel for the military when needed, according to Crowley.

It had been anchored while waiting for a berth to become available at the Port of Killingholme on the River Humber, the company said.

The US Department of Education is planning to cut about half of its workforce, as the Trump Administration works to slash the size of the federal government.

The mass layoffs will impact nearly 2,100 people who are set to be placed on leave from 21 March.

Trump has long sought to eliminate the department, a long-cherished goal of some conservatives, but such an action would require approval by Congress.

The department, which has an annual budget of around $238bn (£188bn), employs more than 4,000 people.

Established in 1979, the department oversees funding for public schools, administers student loans and runs programmes that help low-income students.

A common misconception is that it operates US schools and sets curricula – that is done by states and local districts.

And a relatively small percentage of funding for primary and secondary schools – about 13% – comes from federal funds. The majority is made up from states and local groups.

The agency also plays a prominent role in administering and overseeing the federal student loans used by millions of Americans to pay for higher education.

“As part of the Department of Education’s final mission, the department today initiated a reduction in force impacting nearly 50% of the department’s workforce,” a statement from Education Secretary Linda McMahon said on Tuesday.

She said the cuts would impact all divisions in the department and were made to “better serve students, parents, educators, and taxpayers”.

The agency had 4,133 employees when Trump was sworn into office, an announcement from the department states. It has the smallest staff of all the 15 US cabinet-level agencies.

After the cuts, 2,183 people would remain, which included several hundred who retired or accepted a buyout programme earlier this year, the accountment said.

The notice to employees said that all of those who are laid off would continue to receive their normal pay and benefits until 9 June, as well as a severance package or retirement pay based on how long they’d worked at the department.

“The Department of Education will continue to deliver on all statutory programs that fall under the agency’s purview, including formula funding, student loans, Pell Grants, funding for special needs students, and competitive grantmaking,” the email states.

Reports have suggested that Trump, for weeks, has considered signing an executive order impacting the Department of Education, though he has not yet done so.

Several of his executive orders have been met with lawsuits, as have Trump’s dramatic cuts at agencies around Washington.

Several lawsuits have also challenged actions by the Department of Government Efficiency (Doge), a team aiming to slash government spending that’s being led by Elon Musk. The agency has installed deputies at various agencies, slashed staff and accessed data across the government.

For decades, Republicans have floated the idea of axing the Education Department. When Ronald Reagan ran for president in 1980, he pushed for its dismantling.

It hasn’t been done because it would take an act of Congress to accomplish, which in the current makeup would mean Trump would need Democratic support.

Many conservatives have pointed to decentralising education and giving states and local governments more power. More recently, though, Trump and other conservatives have attacked the department for its so-called “woke” agenda, which includes protections on gender and race.

Trump has claimed the agency was “indoctrinating young people with inappropriate racial, sexual, and political material”.

The American Federation of Teachers, the nation’s most powerful education union, condemned the cuts to the department in a statement.

“The massive reduction in force at the Education Department is an attack on opportunity that will gut the agency and its ability to support students, throwing federal education programs into chaos across the country,” the union’s president Randi Weingarten said.

She called for Congress and the courts to intervene.