US President Donald Trump has held what he described as a “very good” hour-long phone call with his Ukrainian counterpart Volodymyr Zelensky, a day after speaking to Russia’s President Vladimir Putin.

Zelensky said afterwards that he believed that “lasting peace can be achieved this year” under Trump’s leadership.

They also discussed possible US ownership of the Russian-held Zaporizhzhia power plant, Zelensky said.

The apparently cordial mood of the conversation is in marked contrast to Zelensky’s visit to the White House last month, in which the two leaders – along with US Vice-President JD Vance – were involved in a tense exchange.

Wednesday marked the first time the two men have spoken since the meeting in the Oval Office – although since then, their teams have met in Saudi Arabia and negotiated a proposed 30-day ceasefire.

While it is backed by Ukraine and the US, Putin rejected the proposal for a widespread pause in the conflict during his phone call with the US president on Tuesday.

During his conversation with Donald Trump, Zelensky said he was open to a partial ceasefire involving a halt on strikes on energy infrastructure, rail and port facilities that could be established quickly – but the Ukrainian president warned his country would retaliate if Moscow violated the terms of the ceasefire.

“I understand that until we agree (with Russia), until there is a corresponding document on even a partial ceasefire, I think that everything will fly,” he said, referring to drones and missiles.

Writing on his social media platform Truth Social, Trump said the call was aimed at aligning Ukraine and Russia “in terms of their requests and needs”, adding that ceasefire efforts were on track.

Later, in a more detailed statement, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Trump had agreed to help Ukraine source additional air defence systems, particularly in Europe.

The two leaders “agreed to share information closely between their defence staffs as the battlefield situation evolved”, he said.

The developments will come as a relief for Zelensky, who described his conversation with Trump as “positive”, “frank”, and “very substantive”, during an online briefing to journalists on Wednesday.

“We believe that together with America, with President Trump, and under American leadership, lasting peace can be achieved this year,” he wrote on X.

During the video call with reporters, Zelensky said he believed Putin would not agree to a full ceasefire while Ukrainian troops remained in Russia’s western Kursk region, after Kyiv launched a surprise attack on the region in August last year.

Both Zelensky and Putin have said they would agree to halt attacks on energy infrastructure. However, both have since accused each other of continued attacks.

• Agreement shows a deal is never dead with Trump
• Putin gives Trump bare minimum

Trump said Wednesday’s call with Zelensky lasted about an hour.

“Much of the discussion was based on the call made yesterday with President Putin in order to align both Russia and Ukraine in terms of their requests and needs,” he wrote on Truth Social.

Technical teams from Ukraine and the US are expected to now meet in Saudi Arabia in the coming days.

In the White House last month, Trump told Zelensky he was not thankful enough for US military and political support, and that he was “gambling with World War Three”.

The US temporarily then suspended military aid and intelligence sharing with Ukraine, but diplomats were able to improve relations and on 11 March the two sides agreed on a ceasefire.

During his call with Trump on Tuesday, Putin agreed to halt Russian attacks on Ukraine’s energy infrastructure.

But he said a full ceasefire would only work if Ukraine’s supporters stopped giving military assistance – a condition Kyiv’s European allies have previously rejected.

Hours later both Ukraine and Russia launched attacks, with Kyiv saying hospitals had been targeted.

Officials in the southern Russian region of Krasnodar said that a Ukrainian drone attack sparked a small fire at an oil depot.

Despite the strikes, Kyiv and Moscow carried out an exchange of prisoners on Wednesday. Each side released 175 POWs.

Zelensky described the swap as “one of the largest”, adding that Russia included an extra 22 “severely wounded” soldiers.

Israel says it has extended its ground operations in Gaza, after launching a wave of air strikes that the Hamas-run health ministry says killed more than 430 people in two days.

The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) said troops had moved in up to the Netzarim Corridor, which divides the north and south of the Strip.

The renewed assault on Gaza marks the end of the fragile ceasefire deal that had been in place since January.

Earlier, the UN said two people – including one of its staff – had been killed after an explosion at its compound in Deir al-Balah.

A foreign ministry spokesman said it would launch an investigation, but denied Israel was to blame.

The IDF said it had begun “targeted ground activities” to create what it called a “partial buffer between the north and south” in Gaza.

The BBC has seen evacuation orders issued to areas the military is moving into including Beit Hanoun in northern Gaza.

It has issued numerous orders to Gazans to leave a huge area along the three sides of the territory’s land borders, suggesting that a larger ground operation could shortly take place.

The orders sent panic among Palestinian families, many of whom had been displaced repeatedly by the war and had returned home during the ceasefire.

Families have been seen carrying what they could and leaving by foot, by cart or vehicle, to seek safety away from the areas marked by the Israeli military.

In a video message on Wednesday, Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz issued a “last warning” to the Palestinian territory calling for the return of the remaining hostages being held there.

Israel says Hamas is still holding 59 hostages, 24 of whom are believed to be alive.

Katz also repeated the call for the end of Hamas, saying if neither demands are met the alternative would be “total destruction and devastation”.

The movement of troops comes after the UN said a member of staff had been killed when its compound in Deir al-Balah was damaged on Wednesday.

The UN Office for Project Services (UNOPS) said an “explosive ordnance was dropped or fired” at the building, which was in an “isolated” location. It added there was no confirmation on the nature of the incident or the type of artillery used.

The head of the UNOPS, Jorge Moreira da Silva, said: he believed “this was not an accident”, adding that the situation in Gaza is “unconscionable”.

UN Secretary General António Guterres has called for a full investigation.

On Tuesday, Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said it had “resumed combat in full force” and any ceasefire negotiations would now take place “under fire”.

Air strikes continued on Wednesday, but the initial bombardment marked the heaviest since a fragile ceasefire and hostage exchange deal came into effect on 19 January.

Israel and Hamas failed to agree how to take the ceasefire beyond the first phase, with negotiations expected to have started six weeks ago.

Hamas did not agree to a renegotiation of the ceasefire on Israel’s terms, although it did offer to release a living American hostage (and four bodies), to extend the current arrangement.

Israel blocked all food, fuel and medical supplies entering Gaza at the beginning of March in order to put pressure on Hamas.

Now, Israel is demonstrating its willingness to also use its troops and severe military force to push Hamas into signing the renegotiated ceasefire deal it is proposing with the United States.

The 7 October 2023 attack by Hamas on Israel saw about 1,200 people killed and the capturing of 251 hostages – 25 of whom were released alive during the first phase of the ceasefire.

Israel responded with a massive military offensive, which has killed more than 48,500 Palestinians, the Hamas-run health ministry says, as well as causing large-scale destruction to homes and infrastructure.

In a poor neighbourhood of the Venezuelan city of Maracay, the mother of 24-year-old Francisco José García Casique was waiting for him on Saturday.

It had been 18 months since he had migrated to the US to begin a new life but he had told her that he was now being deported back to Caracas, Venezuela’s capital, for being in the US illegally. They had spoken that morning, just before he was due to depart.

“I thought it was a good sign that he was being deported [to Caracas],” Myrelis Casique López recalled. She wanted him home.

But he never arrived. And while watching a television news report on Sunday, Ms Casique was shocked to see her son, not in the US or Venezuela but 1,430 miles (2,300km) away in El Salvador.

The footage showed 238 Venezuelans sent by US authorities to the Terrorism Confinement Centre, or Cecot, a notorious mega-jail. She saw men with shaved heads and shackles on their hands and feet, being forcefully escorted by heavily-armed security forces.

The Trump administration says all of the deportees are members of the Tren de Aragua gang, which has found itself in the White House’s crosshairs. The powerful multi-national crime group, which Trump recently declared a foreign terrorist organisation, has been accused of sex trafficking, drug smuggling and murders both at home and in major US cities.

Ms Casique told the BBC she was certain her son was among the detainees, even if no official list of names has been released.

“It’s him. It’s him,” she said, gesturing at a picture in which a man is seated, with his head bowed, on a prison floor alongside a row of others, a tattoo visible on his arm. “I recognize his features.”

She also maintains that he is innocent.

US immigration officials have said the detainees were “carefully vetted” and verified as gang members before being flown to El Salvador. They said they used evidence collected during surveillance, police encounters or testimonies from victims to vet them.

“Our job is to send the terrorists out before anyone else gets raped or murdered,” Deputy White House Chief of Staff Stephen Miller said on Wednesday.

Many of the deportees do not have US criminal records, however, a US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) official acknowledged in court documents. And they were deported under a law last invoked during wartime that doesn’t require them to be charged with a crime.

Those who do have criminal records include migrants with arrests on charges ranging from murder, fentanyl trafficking and kidnapping to home invasion and operating a gang-run brothel, according to the Trump administration.

In Mr García’s case, his mother disputes that her son was involved in criminal activity. He left Venezuela in 2019, first to Peru, seeking new opportunities as overlapping economic, political and social crises engulfed the country, she said. He crossed illegally into the US in September 2023.

His mother has not seen him in person in six years.

“He doesn’t belong to any criminal gang, either in the US or in Venezuela… he’s not a criminal,” Ms Casique said. “What he’s been is a barber.”

“Unfortunately, he has tattoos,” she added, convinced that the roses and names of family members that adorn his body led to his detention and deportation. That is how she, and other family members, recognised him from pictures released of the deportees in El Salvador.

Several other families have said they believe that deportees were mistakenly identified as Tren de Aragua gang members because of their tattoos.

“It’s him,” Ms Casique said tearfully in Maracay, referencing the image from the prison. “I wish it wasn’t him… he didn’t deserve to be transferred there.”

The mother of Mervin Yamarte, 29, also identified her son in the video.

“I threw myself on the floor, saying that God couldn’t do this to my son,” she told the BBC from her home in the Los Pescadores neighbourhood of Maracaibo, Venezuela.

Like Ms Casique, she denies her son was involved with the brutal gang. He had left his hometown and travelled to the US through the Darién Gap, crossing illegally in 2023 with three of his friends: Edwar Herrera, 23; Andy Javier Perozo, 30; and Ringo Rincón, 39.

The BBC spoke with their families and friends, who said they had spotted the four men in the footage from the El Salvador jail.

Mr Yamarte’s mother said her son had worked in a tortilla factory, sometimes working 12-hour shifts. On Sundays, he played football with his friends, who all shared a home in Dallas, Texas.

“He’s a good, noble young man. There’s a mistake,” she said.

President Trump invoked a centuries-old law, the 1798 Alien Enemies Act, to deport the men without due process in the US, saying they were Tren de Aragua gang members.

Despite the US government’s assurances that the deportees were carefully vetted, the move has had a chilling effect on many Venezuelans and Venezuelan-Americans in the US, who fear that Trump’s use of the law could lead to more Venezuelans being accused and swiftly deported without any charges or convictions.

“Of course we’re afraid. We’re terrified,” said Adelys Ferro, the executive-director of the Venezuelan-American Caucus, an advocacy group. “We want every single member of TdA to pay for their crimes. But we don’t know what the criteria is.”

“They [Venezeulans] are living in uncertain times,” she said. “They don’t know what decisions to make – even people with documents and have been here for years.”

Ms Ferro’s concerns were echoed by Brian de la Vega, a prominent Florida-based, Venezuela-born immigration lawyer and military veteran.

Many of his clients are in the Miami area, including Doral – a suburb sometimes given the moniker “Doralzuela” for its large Venezuelan population.

“The majority of Venezuelans in the US are trying to do the right thing. They fear going back to their home country,” Mr de la Vega told the BBC. “The main concern, for me, is how they’re identifying these members. The standard is very low.”

Many Venezuelan expatriates in the US – particularly South Florida – have been broadly supportive of Trump, who has taken a tough stance on the left-wing government of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro which many of them fled.

But in February, the Trump administration terminated Temporary Protected Status – TPS – for Venezuelans, which had shielded many from deportation. The programme officially ends on 7 April and could impact nearly 350,000 Venezuelan nationals living in the US.

“Trump’s speeches have always been strong about the Venezuelan regime, especially during the campaign,” Mr de la Vega said. “I don’t think people expected all this.”

Daniel Campo, a Venezuelan-born naturalised US citizen in Pennsylvania – and ardent Trump supporter – told the BBC that while he remains steadfast in his support of the president, he has some concerns about the deportations to El Salvador and the end of TPS.

“I certainly hope that when they are doing raids to deport Tren de Aragua, especially to the prison in El Salvador, they are being extra careful,” he said.

Among those caught by surprise by the end of TPS and the recent deportations is a 25-year-old Venezuelan man who asked to be identified only as Yilber, who arrived in the US in 2022 after a long, dangerous journey through Central America and Mexico.

He’s now in the US – but unsure about what comes next.

“I left Venezuela because of the repression, and the insecurity. My neighbourhood in Caracas had gangs,” he said. “Now I don’t know what’s going to happen here.”

More than 80 Afghan women studying in Oman on US-funded scholarships – terminated last month due to Trump administration’s sweeping cuts to foreign aid – have received a temporary reprieve.

A US State Department spokesperson has told the BBC that funding will continue until 30 June, 2025.

“This is great news, and we are very grateful,” one student told the BBC, speaking anonymously for fear of reprisals. “But I hope there will be a permanent solution.”

The women fled Taliban ruled Afghanistan to continue their studies abroad, but the abrupt freeze on US Agency for International Development (USAID) funds put them at risk of being sent back.

Since regaining power in Afghanistan nearly four years ago, the Taliban has imposed draconian restrictions on women, including banning them from universities.

The students in Oman were pursuing graduate and post-graduate degrees under the Women’s Scholarship Endowment (WSE), a USAID program launched in 2018 to fund studies in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.

On 28 February, they were informed their scholarships were ending and that they would be sent back to Afghanistan within two weeks, prompting “shock and tears”.

“We are relieved now, but we are still deeply concerned about our future,” a student said. “If the scholarship is not renewed, we will be left with no option but to return to Afghanistan, where we cannot study, and our safety could be under threat as well.”

The US government has not responded to the BBC’s inquiries on when a final decision will be made.

The BBC has also contacted the government of Oman to find out whether it is seeking alternative funding.

• The Afghan women who escaped to get an education abroad
• Afghan women ‘banned from midwife courses’ in latest blow to rights

Afghanistan’s Taliban government says it has been trying to resolve the issue of women’s education, but has also defended its supreme leader’s diktats, saying they are “in accordance with Islamic Sharia law”.

It has cracked down on women protesting for education and work, with many activists beaten, detained and threatened.

Women in Afghanistan describe themselves as “dead bodies moving around” under the regime’s policies.

Before the funding extension, a WSE staff member had told the BBC they were urgently “searching for alternative funding sources”. Calling the situation “dangerous and devastating”, the staff member warned that the students could face persecution and forced marriages upon return to Afghanistan.

The women, mostly in their 20s, qualified for scholarships in 2021 before the Taliban seized Afghanistan. Many continued their studies in Afghan universities until December 2022, when the Taliban banned higher education for women.

After 18 months in limbo, they said they fled to Pakistan last September.

USAID then facilitated their visas to Oman, where they arrived between October and November 2024.

The decision to slash American aid funding has come under the Trump administration, and been implemented by Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency.

Four Canadians were executed in China on drug-related charges earlier this year, Canadian authorities have confirmed.

All of them were dual citizens, and their identities have been withheld upon the request of their families, Canada’s foreign minister Mélanie Joly told reporters on Wednesday.

She condemned the killings as “irreversible and inconsistent with basic human dignity”, adding that she had “personally asked for leniency”.

A spokesperson for the Chinese embassy in Canada said evidence for the Canadian nationals’ crimes was “solid and sufficient” and urged Canada to “stop making irresponsible remarks”, according to reports.

The Chinese embassy also added that Beijing had “fully guaranteed the rights and interests of the Canadian nationals concerned” and urged the Canadian government to respect “China’s judicial sovereignty”.

China does not recognise dual citizenship and takes a tough stance on drug crimes.

Joly said she had been following the cases “very closely” for months and had tried with other officials, including former prime minister Justin Trudeau, to stop the executions.

In a statement to Canadian media, Global Affairs Canada spokesperson Charlotte MacLeod said Canada had “repeatedly called for clemency for these individuals at the senior-most levels and remains steadfast in its opposition to the use of the death penalty in all cases, everywhere”.

China imposes the death penalty on serious crimes including those related to drugs, corruption and espionage. While the number of executions are kept secret, human rights groups believe China has one of the highest execution rates in the world.

However, it’s rare for the death penalty to be carried out on foreigners.

The executions revealed this week have sparked criticisms from campaigners.

“These shocking and inhumane executions of Canadian citizens by Chinese authorities should be a wake-up call for Canada,” said Ketty Nivyabandi from Amnesty International Canada. “We are devastated for the families of the victims, and we hold them in our hearts as they try to process the unimaginable.”

“Our thoughts also go to the loved ones of Canadian citizens whom China is holding on death row or whose whereabouts in the Chinese prison system are unknown.”

In 2019, Canadian national Robert Lloyd Schellenberg was sentenced to death in China for drug smuggling – in a high-profile case that drew condemnation from Canadian government. He was not among the Canadians that were executed.

“We’ll continue to not only strongly condemn but also ask for leniency for other Canadians that are facing similar situations,” Joly said on Wednesday.

Relations between Canada and China have been icy since 2018 after Canada detained a Chinese telecom executive, Meng Wanzhou, on a US extradition request. China arrested two Canadians shortly afterwards – though all of them have now been released.

Earlier this year, Canadian media released reports, many based on leaked intelligence, about detailed claims of Chinese meddling in the country’s last two federal elections. China has condemned the reports, calling them “baseless and defamatory”.

More recently, China imposed retaliatory tariffs on some Canadian farm and food imports in retaliation for Ottawa’s levies on Chinese electric vehicles, steel and aluminium.

Protests have erupted in Turkey after authorities detained the mayor of Istanbul, just days before he was due to be selected as a presidential candidate.

Ekrem Imamoglu, from the secular Republican People’s Party (CHP), is seen as one of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s strongest political rivals.

Prosecutors accused him of corruption and aiding a terrorist group, calling him a “criminal organisation leader suspect”.

Police detained 100 people – including other politicians, journalists and businessmen – as part of the investigation, and the Istanbul governor’s office has imposed four days of restrictions in the city.

Imamoglu said online “the will of the people cannot be silenced”.

Protesters have taken to the streets and university campuses, and in underground stations, with crowds chanting anti-government slogans. It is a display of public anger not seen in years.

There were reports of clashes between protesters and police in Turkey’s largest city. Footage from Reuters news agency shows police using pepper spray to disperse crowds outside Istanbul University.

Thousands of people rallied in the cold in front of the city hall, shouting: “Erdogan, dictator!” and “Imamoglu, you are not alone!”

The government has banned public gatherings in Istanbul as part of the four days of restrictions. But more protests are anticipated nationwide as opposition leaders, including Imamoglu’s wife, urge people to “raise their voices”.

Many streets in Istanbul have also been closed to traffic, while some metro lines have also cancelled their services.

In a social media video Imamoglu said he filmed while police were outside his home, he vowed to “stand resolute” for the people of Turkey “and all who uphold democracy and justice worldwide”.

And in a handwritten note posted on his X account after his arrest, he said the people of Turkey would respond to “the lies, the conspiracies and the traps” against him.

UK-based internet watchdog Netblocks said on Wednesday Turkey had severely restricted access to social media sites like X, YouTube, Instagram and TikTok.

The arrest comes as part of a major crackdown nationwide in recent months, targeting opposition politicians, municipalities, journalists and figures in the entertainment industry.

Following the Istanbul mayor’s arrest, concerns over Turkey’s shift toward autocracy were expressed on social media, with some calling for an opposition boycott of the upcoming presidential elections, arguing that a fair and democratic vote is no longer possible.

Imamoglu’s party, the CHP, even condemned the arrests as “a coup against our next president”, a sentiment widely echoed by pro-opposition voices.

But Turkey’s justice minister criticised those who linked Erdogan to the arrests.

Yilmaz Tunc said it was “extremely dangerous and wrong” to suggest this was a political move, insisting that nobody was above the law in Turkey.

Erdogan and his party have also denied the claims, insisting that Turkey’s judiciary is independent. He has been in power for 22 years.

Last year, Imamoglu won a second term as Istanbul’s mayor, when his CHP party swept local elections there and in Ankara.

It was the first time since Erdogan came to power that his party was defeated across the country at the ballot box.

The elections were also a personal blow to the president, who grew up in and became mayor of Istanbul on his rise to power.

Dozens of police officers were involved in the early-morning raid on Imamoglu’s house in Istanbul.

The CHP’s presidential candidate selection, in which Imamoglu is the only person running, is set to take place on Sunday.

Imamoglu’s arrest came a day after Istanbul University annulled his degree due to alleged irregularities – a decision which, if upheld, would prevent him from running in presidential elections.

According to the Turkish constitution, presidents must have completed higher education to hold office.

Imamoglu called that move “legally baseless”, adding that universities “must remain independent, free from political interference and dedicated to knowledge”.

Presidential elections are currently scheduled for 2028. Erdogan cannot currently run for office again, as he is in his second term and previously served as prime minister before that.

The only way Erdogan could contest another election would be to change the constitution, or call an early election before his term ends.

As well as being accused of extortion and fraud, Imamoglu is also alleged to have aided the PKK.

The PKK – or Kurdistan Workers’ Party – has waged an insurgency since 1984, and is proscribed as a terrorist group in Turkey, the EU, UK and US.

Earlier this month the group announced its decision to lay down arms, following a call from its imprisoned leader, who had engaged in talks with Turkish officials.

International reaction to the arrest has been negative, with EU, French and German officials all condemning the arrests.

A Council of Europe statement said the detention of Imamoglu “bears all the hallmarks of the pressure on a political figure considered as one of the main candidates in forthcoming presidential elections.”

The Turkish lira, meanwhile, briefly crashed to an all-time low against the US dollar, as markets reacted poorly to the political uncertainty.

While many were shocked to wake up to the news of Imamoglu’s arrest, legal pressure on the popular opposition leader is far from new.

He has faced multiple investigations and was handed a political ban in December 2022 over allegations of insulting Turkey’s electoral board in 2019 – a verdict he appealed, with the final ruling still pending.

Additionally, he has been the subject of cases related to alleged tender irregularities during his tenure as mayor of Istanbul’s Beylikduzu district.

More recently, on 20 January, a new case was filed against him over his criticism of a prosecutor.

India has usually turned to economic reforms in times of distress, with the most famous example being 1991, when the country embraced liberalisation in the face of a deep financial crisis.

Now, with US President Donald Trump’s tit-for-tat tariff wars and the global trade upheaval that has followed, many believe that India finds itself at another crossroad.

Could this be a major opportunity for the world’s fifth largest economy to shed its protectionism and further open up its economy? Will India seize the moment, just as it did more than three decades ago, or will it retreat further?

Trump has repeatedly branded India a “tariff king” and a “big abuser” of trade ties. The problem is that India’s trade-weighted import duties – the average duty rate per imported product – are among the highest in the world. The US average tariff is 2.2%, China’s is 3% and Japan’s is 1.7%. India’s stands at a whopping 12%, according to data from the World Trade Organization.

High tariffs increase costs for companies dependent on global value chains, hindering their ability to compete in international markets. They also mean that Indians pay more on imported goods than foreign consumers. Despite growing exports – primarily driven by services – India runs a significant trade deficit. However, with India’s share of global exports at a mere 1.5%, the challenge becomes even more urgent.

The jury is out on whether Trump’s tariff war will help India break free or double down on protectionism. Narendra Modi’s government, often criticised for its protectionist stance, seems to have shifted gears in recent years.

Last month, ahead of Prime Minister Modi’s meeting with Trump in Washington, India unilaterally lowered tariffs on Bourbon whiskey, motorcycles and some other US products.

Commerce Minister Piyush Goyal has made two trips to the US to discuss a potential trade deal, following Trump’s threatened retaliatory tariffs, looming on 2 April. (Citi Research analysts estimate India could lose up to $7bn annually from reciprocal tariffs, primarily affecting sectors like metals, chemicals and jewellery, with pharmaceuticals, automobiles and food products also at risk.)

Last week, Goyal urged Indian exporters to “come out of their protectionist mindset and encouraged them to be bold and ready to deal with the world from a position of strength and self-confidence”, according to a statement from his ministry.

India is also actively pursuing free trade deals with several countries, including the UK and New Zealand, and the European Union.

In an interesting turn of events, homegrown telecoms giants Reliance Jio and Bharti Airtel have teamed up with Trump ally Elon Musk’s SpaceX to launch satellite internet services via Starlink in India. The move surprised analysts, especially after Musk’s recent clashes with both companies, and came as US and Indian officials negotiate the trade deal.

India’s rapid growth from the late 1990s to the 2000s – 8.1% between 2004-2009 and 7.46% from 2009-2014 – was in large part driven by its gradual integration into global markets, particularly in pharmaceuticals, software, autos, textiles and garments, alongside a steady reduction in tariffs. Since then, India has turned inwards.

Many economists believe that protectionist policies over the past decade have undermined Modi’s Make in India initiative, which prioritised capital- and technology-intensive sectors over labour-intensive ones like textiles. As a result, it has struggled to boost manufacturing and exports.

High tariffs have also fostered protectionism in several Indian industries, discouraging investments in efficiency, according to Viral Acharya, a professor of economics at New York University Stern School of Business.

This has allowed “cosy incumbents” to gain market power by consolidating their positions without facing much competition. As Mr Acharya, a former central banker, noted in a paper by Brookings Institution, restoring industrial balance in India requires “reducing tariffs to increase the country’s share of global goods trade and reduce protectionism”.

With India’s tariffs already higher than those of most countries, further increases could be especially damaging.

“We need to boost exports and a tit-for-tat tariff war won’t help us. China can afford this strategy due to its massive export base, but we can’t, as we hold only a small share of the global market, Rajeshwari Sengupta, an associate professor of economics at Mumbai-based Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research, said. A trade conflict could hurt us more than others,” she added.

In light of this, India finds itself at a crossroad. As the world undergoes a major shift, India has a “unique opportunity to shape a new vision” for global trade, says Aseema Sinha, a trade expert at Claremont McKenna College.

By lowering protectionist barriers in South Asia and strengthening ties with Southeast Asia and the Middle East, India has the chance to lead in shaping a new trade vision, positioning itself as a key player in a “re-globalised” world, Ms Sinha, author of Globalising India, says.

“By reducing tariffs, India could become the regional and cross-regional magnet for trade and economic activity, drawing in varied powers in its orbit,” she adds.

That could help India create the jobs it desperately needs at home. Agriculture, which makes up 15% of its GDP, accounts for a whopping 40% of employment, reflecting extremely low productivity. Construction remains the second-largest employer, absorbing casual daily workers.

India’s challenge isn’t in expanding its thriving service sector, which already makes up nearly half of total exports, but in dealing with the large pool of unskilled workers who lack the basic skills needed for service jobs.

“While high-end services are thriving, the majority of the workforce remains uneducated and underemployed, often relegated to construction or informal jobs. To provide meaningful employment to millions entering the workforce each year, India must ramp up its manufacturing exports, as relying solely on services won’t address the needs of the unskilled labour force,” says Ms Sengupta.

One concern is that reducing tariffs could lead to dumping, where foreign companies flood the market with cheap goods, potentially harming domestic industries.

According to Ms Sengupta, India’s ideal approach to trade would involve a “universal reduction” in import tariffs, as it currently has some of the highest tariffs among its trading partners.

However, there is a caveat: China’s trade struggles, particularly with the US due to the ongoing trade war, could lead to Chinese dumping in India in the “short run”.

“To protect against this, India can use non-tariff barriers against China but only against this one country and only in cases of proven dumping. Barring that, it is in India’s interest to do a wholesale slashing of tariffs,” she says.

There’s also a growing concern that India may be overcompensating in its efforts to flatter the US.

Ajay Srivastava, founder of the Global Trade Research Initiative (GTRI), believes that India’s tendency to soften trade policies “based on rhetoric rather than economic pressure” shows a lack of assertiveness in global trade talks.

If this trend continues, he says, India may end up making even more compromises in its trade deal with the US, further “eroding its bargaining power”.

“In comparison to other major economies, India’s pre-emptive surrender on multiple trade fronts – without the US imposing a single country-specific tariff – makes it appear exceptionally vulnerable to pressure tactics.”

The broader consensus seems to be that India should capitalise on what could be the unintended consequences of Trump’s tariff wars. Pranjul Bhandari, chief India economist at HSBC, believes that “potential US tariffs may have become a catalyst for reforms.“.

“If supply chains are rejigged again during the second Trump presidency due to higher tariffs on large exporters, and the world looks for new producers, India may get a second chance,” she writes.

Creating jobs that manufacture goods for the world won’t be easy. India has largely missed the bus on low-end, unskilled factory work – jobs China dominated for decades. Automation is taking over. Without deeper reforms, India risks being left behind.

More than 2,000 newly released documents related to the investigation into President John F Kennedy’s assassination are notable not just for what they contain – but for what is omitted.

As many experts expected, this latest release by the Trump administration does not answer all lingering questions about one of America’s historic turning points – the 1963 killing of Kennedy in Dallas.

But the latest batch does include documents that are now mostly or fully unredacted – original material is included instead of blacked-out words or blank space.

A US government investigation concluded that Lee Harvey Oswald, a drifter and former US Marine who at one point defected to the then-Soviet Union, acted alone when he shot at Kennedy’s motorcade from a nearby building.

However, the case still prompts questions, along with wild conspiracy theories, more than 60 years later – and the latest release is unlikely to change that. Here are some key takeaways.

• JFK experts scour newly unsealed assassination files

Several experts praised the release as a step forward for transparency. In the past, hundreds of thousands of documents were made available but were partially redacted. Others were held back, with officials citing national security concerns.

Many of the new documents have been released before – but now more complete versions are available. Although experts are still combing through, no earth-shattering stories have surfaced.

Still, Jefferson Morley, a former Washington Post reporter and editor of the JFK Facts blog, calls it “the most exciting news around JFK records since the 1990s”.

“Several very important documents have come into public view,” he said.

The documents further shed light on the Central Intelligence Agency’s (CIA) strong surveillance of Oswald, said Morley, the extent of which has only become clear in the last few years.

“He’s a subject of deep interest to the CIA” long before the assassination, he said.

Philip Shenon, who wrote a 2013 book about the assassination, told the Associated Press that previously released documents described a trip Oswald took to Mexico City in September 1963, months before the assassination.

The CIA was monitoring him at that time, he said, according to the AP. “There’s reason to believe he talked openly about killing Kennedy in Mexico City and that people overheard him say that.”

In a previously released April 1975 memo, the CIA downplayed what it knew about Oswald’s trip to Mexico City, the AP reported. The CIA recorded three phone calls between Oswald and a guard at the Soviet embassy, it said, but Oswald only identified himself in one.

A number of the documents shed light on Kennedy’s relationship with the CIA before his death and on intelligence-gathering techniques – giving a window into Cold War operations.

A newly unredacted memo reveals a more complete version of a note written by Kennedy aide Arthur Schlesinger.

Critical of the CIA and its role in shaping foreign policy, the note shows the agency’s huge presence in US embassies, even in allied countries such as France.

In it, Schlesinger warns Kennedy about the agency’s influence on American foreign policy. Though not directly related to the assassination, the memo details the rocky relationship between the president and intelligence agencies.

The CIA is traditionally opposed to releasing operational or budget information, said David Barrett, a Villanova University professor and expert on the CIA and presidential power.

“It’s a very good thing for the government to release these documents even if there still may be some redactions,” he said.

One document details the use of fluoroscopic scanning – using X-rays to show images of the inside of an object.

The technique was developed to detect hidden microphones possibly used to bug CIA offices.

In another document, the CIA describes a system to secretly tag and identify public phone boxes that are tapped, using a paint only visible under ultraviolent light.

The memo is also notable for one of the names in it – James McCord, who would later gain infamy as one of the men who burgled the Watergate complex. The break-in kicked off the unravelling of the scandal that toppled President Richard Nixon.

Some well-known online accounts claimed that the recent documents reveal new details about long-alleged plots against Kennedy – even though some of the supposed revelations have been public for years.

They includes several viral posts about Gary Underhill – a World War Two military intelligence agent.

Mr Underhill reportedly claimed that a cabal of CIA agents was behind the assassination, a theory openly published in Ramparts, a left-wing magazine, in 1967. Mr Underhill’s death in 1964 was ruled a suicide, but the magazine cast doubt on that as well.

Photos of a seven-page memo regarding Mr Underhill went viral on Tuesday – but the bulk of it is not new. His story has long been discussed online and the CIA memo mentioning it was first released in 2017.

Just a few sentences on one page of the memo were newly unredacted in the latest release.

And crucially the theory is based on a second-hand account published after Mr Underhill’s death and includes no hard evidence.

However, the story was just one of a number of unsubstantiated theories circulating following the release of the files.

A 1992 law required all of the documents related to the assassination to be released within 25 years – but that law also included national security exceptions.

The push for greater transparency has led to more releases over time – both President Trump in his first term and President Biden, as recently as 2023, released batches of documents.

Ahead of the new release, President Trump said that he asked his staff “not to redact anything” from them.

That doesn’t appear to be entirely the case – the new documents still have some redactions. However, experts were largely in agreement that the latest release was a step forward for transparency.

JFK Files journalist Morley said there are further documents in the National Archives yet to be released, and others held by the CIA and FBI that have not yet been accounted for.

Even though there could be more releases to come – as well as promised drops about the killings of Robert F Kennedy Sr and Martin Luther King Jr – the questions around the JFK assassination will almost certainly continue.

“Whenever there is an assassination there will be debates and to some degree there will be conspiracy theories,” said Barrett, the Villanova historian. “That’s not going to change because of these or any other documents.”

Former Labour minister Tulip Siddiq has accused the Bangladeshi authorities of mounting a “targeted and baseless” campaign against her.

In a letter to Bangladesh’s Anti Corruption Commission (ACC), the MP’s lawyers say allegations of corruption are “false and vexatious” and have never been formally put to her by investigators, despite being briefed to the media.

Siddiq resigned as economic secretary to the Treasury, with responsibility for tackling corruption in the UK’s financial markets, in January.

The Hampstead and Highgate MP insisted at the time she had done nothing wrong but that she did not want to be a “distraction” to the government.

ACC chairman Mohammad Abdul Momen told the BBC the allegations “are by no means ‘targeted and baseless'” and its investigation was “based on documentary evidence of corruption”.

“Ms Tulip Siddiq must not shy away from the court proceedings in Bangladesh.

“I would welcome Ms. Siddiq come and defend her case and with the best possible legal support accompanying her,” he added.

He also rejected her lawyer’s claims that the ACC was interfering in UK politics, adding: “ACC briefing to the media is a regular phenomenon, it is delivered professionally and with all accuracy.”

Siddiq had referred herself to the PM’s ethics adviser Sir Laurie Magnus when the corruption allegations first surfaced in January.

Sir Laurie said in his report that he had “not identified evidence of improprieties”.

But he added it was “regrettable” that Siddiq had not been more alert to the “potential reputational risks” of the ties to her aunt Sheikh Hasina, the deposed prime minister of Bangladesh and leader of Awami League party.

In a letter accepting her resignation, Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, a close friend of Siddiq who represents a neighbouring constituency in North London, said the “door remains open” to her return.

The ACC is examining claims Sheikh Hasina and her family embezzled up to £3.9bn from infrastructure spending in Bangladesh.

The investigation is based on a series of allegations made by Bobby Hajjaj, a political opponent of Hasina.

Court documents seen by the BBC show Hajjaj has accused Siddiq of helping to broker a deal with Russia in 2013 that overinflated the price of a new nuclear power plant in Bangladesh.

In its letter to the ACC, Siddiq’s lawyers, Stephenson Harwood, repeat her claim that she was not involved in the nuclear plant deal in any way, despite being pictured at a signing ceremony in the Kremlin in 2013, with Sheikh Hasina and Russian president Vladimir Putin.

“It is not uncommon for family members to be invited to accompany Heads of State on state visits,” the letter says, adding that she had no knowledge of any alleged financial irregularities.

It says claims that a £700,000 flat in London King’s Cross gifted to Siddiq in 2004 was “in some way the fruits of embezzlement” were “absurd” and “cannot be true” because it was 10 years before the nuclear deal.

In his investigation into the allegations, Sir Laurie Magnus said that “over an extended period, she was unaware of the origins of her ownership of her flat in Kings Cross, despite having signed a Land Registry transfer form relating to the gift at the time”.

She “remained under the impression that her parents had bought the property for her”, Sir Laurie added, but had to correct the record when she became a government minister.

He describes this as an “unfortunate misunderstanding” which meant the public had been “inadvertently misled about the identity of the donor of this gift”.

In their letter to the ACC, Siddiq’s lawyers confirm that the King’s Cross flat was given to her by Abdul Motalif, who is described as “an Iman and a very close family friend, akin to Ms Siddiq’s godfather”.

The letter also contains a detailed rebuttal of allegations made by the ACC to the media that Siddiq was involved in the appropriation of land in Dhaka.

It describes ACC briefings to the media as an “unacceptable attempt to interfere with UK politics”.

“At no point have any allegations been put to her fairly, properly and transparently, or indeed at all, by the ACC or anyone else with proper authority on behalf of the Bangladeshi government, ” the letter says.

“We require that you immediately stop manufacturing false and vexatious allegations against Ms Siddiq and further media briefings and public comments designed to harm her reputation.”

The letter says the ACC must put questions to Siddiq “promptly” and “in any event by no later than 25 March 2025″ or ” we shall presume that there are no legitimate questions to answer”.

The ACC say they have written a response to Siddiq’s lawyers.

In the letter, which has been seen by the BBC, a spokesman for the ACC claims Siddiq had “spent most of her adult life residing in homes owned by cronies of the notoriously venal Awami League” and that this was evidence she had benefitted from the party’s corruption.

The MP’s “claims to have been unaware of the nature of the Hasina regime” strained credulity, the spokesman added, and the ACC would be in touch with her lawyers “in due course”.

“This has been our family car for three years, and it has been an absolute dream,” says Ben Kilbey as he shows me his gleaming pearl-white Tesla Model Y.

Ben is a staunch electric car advocate. He runs a communications firm that promotes sustainable businesses in the UK. Yet now, he says, the Model Y has to go – because he disapproves vehemently of Tesla CEO Elon Musk’s actions, especially the way he has handled firing US government employees.

“I’m not a fan of polarisation, or of doing things without kindness,” he says. “There are ways of doing things that don’t ostracise people or belittle them. I don’t like belittlement.”

Ben is part of a wider backlash against the Tesla boss that appears to have been gathering momentum in recent weeks, since Musk was appointed head of the controversial Department for Government Efficiency (DOGE), charged with taking an axe to federal government spending.

Musk has also intervened in politics abroad, making a video appearance at a rally for the far-right party Alternative für Deutschland ahead of Germany’s parliamentary election, as well as launching online attacks on British politicians, including Prime Minister Keir Starmer.

For some who do not share his views, it has all become too much.

There have been protests outside dozens of Tesla dealerships, not only in the US, but also in Canada, the UK, Germany and Portugal.

Although most of them have been peaceful, there have been cases of showrooms, charging stations and vehicles being vandalised. In separate incidents in France and Germany, several cars were set on fire.

In the US, the Tesla Cybertruck, an angular metallic pickup truck, appears to have become a particular magnet for anti-Musk sentiment. A number of social media videos have shown vehicles daubed with swastikas, covered with rubbish or used as skateboard ramps.

US President Donald Trump was quick to show his support to Tesla, by allowing the company to show off its vehicles outside the White House, and pledging to buy one. He said violence against US showrooms should be treated as “domestic terrorism”.

Musk has also been unequivocal in his response. “This level of violence is insane and deeply wrong,” he said in a recent interview with Fox News. “Tesla just makes electric cars and has done nothing to deserve these evil attacks.”

What is hard to quantify is exactly how much impact all this has had on Tesla as a business – and the extent to which Musk’s views and involvement in the Trump administration has affected the brand and alienated some traditional electric vehicle buyers.

And if that is the case, can Tesla really build on its past success with Musk remaining at the helm?

Two decades ago, Tesla was a tiny Silicon Valley start-up, with a handful of employees and big dreams of revolutionising the motor industry. Today it is the best-selling producer of electric vehicles in a growing global market, with giant factories around the world. It is also widely credited with having proven that EVs could be fast, powerful, fun and practical.

Musk, the figurehead of the company, has driven this all forward, since he joined Tesla in 2004 as its chairman and principal funder. He became chief executive four years later, and has held that role throughout the company’s rise to prominence.

“Tesla was the pioneer,” says Stephanie Valdez Streaty, director of industry insights at car sector marketing and software firm Cox Automotive. “They kind of got EVs into the mainstream, got other manufacturers to start investing, and really created a lot of awareness.”

It is easy to forget that electric cars were once derided as slow, uninspiring and impractical, with minimal range between charges. The Tesla Model S, which went on sale in 2012, had sports car performance and a range of more than 250 miles. It played a key role in changing perceptions, and provided a springboard for rapid growth.

Nowadays, Tesla is not just a producer of electric vehicles. It has invested heavily in autonomous driving systems, with the goal of building fleets of driverless “robotaxis”. It also has a fast-growing energy-storage business, and is developing a general-purpose humanoid robot, known as Optimus.

Like the late Steve Jobs at Apple, Musk became the embodiment of his brand, ever present as the front man at company events and product launches, with a devoted following among EV enthusiasts.

But recently the champion of sustainable technology has become equally well known for promoting his political views, amplifying them through his own social network, X. At the same time, Tesla itself has been facing mounting challenges.

Although its Model Y was the best-selling car worldwide last year, overall sales fell for the first time in more than a decade, dropping from 1.81 million to 1.79 million.

The decline was relatively small, and Tesla retained its position as the world’s best-selling maker of electric vehicles, but for a growth-focused business, it raised alarm bells. Profits for the year were also down.

This year has also begun badly, notably in Europe, where there was a 45% fall in new registrations in January compared to the same month in 2024. There were further falls in major European markets in February – although the UK was an outlier, with sales rising 21% – as well as in Australia.

Meanwhile, shipments of Tesla’s Chinese-made cars, which are produced for sale both in China and abroad, fell more than 49% in the same month.

In early March, Joseph Spak, Wall Street analyst at Swiss bank USB, published a research note in which he predicted a decline in Tesla’s worldwide sales this year of 5%. That forecast, which countered market expectations of 10% growth, helped to send Tesla’s share price tumbling. It fell 15% in a single day – adding to an overall decline of 40% since the start of the year.

Sales can fall for many reasons, but research by brand monitoring firm Morning Consult Intelligence suggests Musk’s activities have indeed harmed Tesla, particularly in the EU and Canada – although not in China, which remains one of its biggest markets.

In the US, it says, the situation is more nuanced, with many consumers approving of DOGE cuts in government spending. However it adds: “Musk may be turning off those US consumers most likely to buy a Tesla. Among high-income consumers who say they plan to purchase an EV in the future, Tesla now ranks lower compared with competitors than it did one year ago.”

Tesla did not respond to the BBC’s questions concerning its fall in sales.

But experts believe Tesla’s problems run deeper than simply questions about the public image of the CEO.

To start with, the current model range, which was once cutting edge, now looks uninspiring. The once ground-breaking Model S has been on sale since 2012, the Model X since 2015. Even the more recent and more affordable Model 3 and Model Y are beginning to look dated in an increasingly competitive market.

“If you look at their product line-up, they haven’t had any fresh models recently, except for the Cybertruck, which is really niche,” says Ms Valdez Streaty. “They’ve had a refresh of the Model Y, but it’s not a big splash. And there’s so much more competition out there.”

Prof Peter Wells, director of Cardiff University’s Centre for Automotive Industry Research, makes a similar point: “We’ve not seen the level of innovation in terms of the product range that perhaps Elon Musk should have been looking for. I think that is a big part of their problem.”

Competition come from a number of directions. Traditional manufacturers have invested huge sums in moving towards EV production, with the likes of Korea’s Kia and Hyundai building a growing reputation for making good quality battery-powered cars.

At the same time, an array of new EV brands has emerged from China. They include the likes of BYD, which has expanded rapidly by supplying cars with good performance at low prices, as well as the more upmarket Xpeng and Nio, which have focused on luxury and advanced technology.

“China has amazing incentives and subsidies for EVs,” says Ms Valdez Streaty.

“You can see how Chinese firms, especially BYD, continue to grow not only in China but in other parts of the world. So that definitely is a huge threat, not just for Tesla but for other manufacturers as well.”

The extent of that threat was demonstrated in mid-March, when BYD announced it had developed an ultra-fast charging system that would provide a car with 250 miles of range in just five minutes – significantly faster than Tesla’s own supercharger network.

Musk’s comments during Tesla’s earnings calls suggests his priorities lie elsewhere, particularly in driverless vehicles.

In January, he claimed Tesla would have a robotaxi service operating in Texas by June. But this attracted a cynical response from some commentators who pointed out that Musk has been promising this kind of thing for a long time.

In 2019, for example, he said that within a year there would be a million Teslas on the road capable of acting as robotaxis. Meanwhile Tesla’s “Full Self Driving” package, available to Tesla buyers, remains a “hands-on” system that requires the driver to be paying attention at all times.

“Every year we get a new promise from Elon Musk about how his autonomous cars are just around the corner. The trouble is, they never seem to be able to find the corner to emerge from,” says Jay Nagley of automotive consultancy Redspy.

Arguably, Tesla needs strong leadership right now. But regardless of his politics, the chief executive is spinning a large number of plates. He owns or runs an array of other businesses, notably his social media platform X; the artificial intelligence firm xAI; and the private space firm SpaceX, which has experienced failures on the last two launches of its giant Starship rocket.

Asked in a recent interview with Fox Business how he was combining all of this with his new government role, Musk responded “with great difficulty”.

“It’s hard to tell exactly how much Tesla is hands-on managed nowadays by Musk,” says Prof Wells.

“If he’s making the key decisions over things like product placing and where factories are built and so forth, then those decisions have to be correct. And I think you need someone with a hands-on, 100% commitment to understanding the automotive industry, and making those decisions correctly.”

Ever since he joined Tesla in 2004, Elon Musk’s position has been unassailable. There is no obvious sign at the moment of that changing. He remains the company’s largest single shareholder, with a 13% stake – currently worth more than $95bn.

That is more or less matched by the combined holdings of investment giants Vanguard and Blackrock, while a number of other financial institutions including State Street Bank and Morgan Stanley hold smaller stakes.

For those investors, the recent falls in the share price will have made grim reading. But it is still almost 30% higher than it was a year ago. In fact, the recent decline has simply wiped out the effects of a dramatic surge that occurred immediately after the election, which almost doubled Tesla’s market valuation.

Today, Tesla is still valued at more than 100 times its earnings – a far higher margin than automotive rivals such as Ford, General Motors or Toyota, which suggests shareholders are continuing to pin their hopes on technological breakthroughs and rapid growth.

“Tesla is being valued as a company that is either going to dominate electric vehicles – which is clearly not going to happen, given the strength of the Chinese manufacturers – or that is going to dominate robotaxis and autonomous vehicles,” says Mr Nagley.

None of the major investors appears to be agitating for change at the moment – although in media interviews this week, one long-term shareholder-turned-vocal critic, the investment fund manager Ross Gerber, did call for Mr Musk to step down.

But analysts say the business would benefit from new blood at the top. “A new CEO for Tesla would without question be the best thing for the company right now,” says Matthias Schmidt of Schmidt Automotive Research.

“It would address the toxic contagion from Musk, offer a solution for the conflict of interest regarding his DOGE position, and allow a dedicated CEO to focus entirely on the job in hand.”

“I think that’s the clear direction of travel at the moment.” says Prof Wells. “I think they need somebody with strong automotive experience. Someone who knows how to rationalise the business.

“It needs a significant change of direction now.”

The Malaysian cabinet has approved a fresh search for the wreckage of Malaysia Airlines flight MH370, more than a decade after the aircraft vanished.

The search will cover a 15,000 sq km area in the southern Indian Ocean, under a “no find, no fee” agreement with the exploration firm Ocean Infinity.

The company will receive $70m (£56m) if the wreckage is found, transport minister Loke Siew Fook announced.

Flight MH370 disappeared in 2014 with 239 people on board while travelling from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing. Its disappearance is one of the world’s greatest aviation mysteries, which continues to haunt the families of the passengers.

Despite extensive searches in the years since it vanished, no wreckage has been found. Previous efforts, including a multinational search that cost $150m (£120m), ended in 2017.

The governments of the three nations involved – Malaysia, Australia and China – said the search would only be resumed “should credible new evidence emerge” of the aircraft’s location.

A 2018 search for the wreckage by Ocean Infinity under similar terms ended unsuccessfully after three months.

In December, Malaysia’s government agreed in principle to resume the search. However, the final negotiations were not completed until March.

Malaysia’s final approval on Wednesday will now allow the search to begin.

Loke said in a statement: “The government is committed to continuing the search operation and providing closure for the families of the MH370 passengers.”

Flight MH370 took off from Kuala Lumpur in the early hours of 8 March 2014. Less than an hour after takeoff, it lost communication with air traffic control, and radar showed that it had deviated from its planned flight path.

Investigators generally agree that the plane crashed somewhere in the southern Indian Ocean, though the reason for the crash remains unclear.

Pieces of debris, believed to be from the plane, have washed up on the shores of the Indian Ocean in the years following its disappearance.

The aircraft’s disappearance has given rise to a host of conspiracy theories, including speculation that the pilot had deliberately brought the plane down and claims that it had been shot down by a foreign military.

An investigation in 2018 into the aircraft’s disappearance found that the plane’s controls were likely deliberately manipulated to take it off course, but drew no conclusions behind it.

Investigators said at the time that “the answer can only be conclusive if the wreckage is found”.

The passengers included people from more than a dozen countries: just under two-thirds were Chinese nationals, followed by 38 Malaysians, with others from Australia, Indonesia, India, France, Ukraine, the US and several other nations.

Family members of missing Chinese MH370 passengers met with officials in Beijing earlier in March to discuss the renewed search for the wreckage and express their hopes for an independent search. Some relatives voiced their frustration over a lack of direct communication from the Malaysian authorities.

“It was promised that we would be informed immediately [but] we can only find out about this kind of news online,” said Li Eryou, a 68-year-old father who lost his 29-year-old son.

“Many families don’t even know how to access this information, so they are completely unaware,” he told AFP.

Grieving families gathered outside the Malaysian embassy in Beijing on the eleventh anniversary of the flight’s disappearance earlier this month, chanting: “Give us back our loved ones!”

Cheng Liping, whose husband had been in Malaysia for a film shoot and had been returning to China on MH370, said she hoped Beijing would communicate more with Malaysia to uncover the truth.

“Everyone has been left trapped in pain,” she told reporters. “What exactly happened is still unknown.”

The fresh search prompted mixed reactions from the families of passengers when it was announced in December – with some calling it a step towards closure, while others describing the news as bittersweet.

A North Dakota jury has found Greenpeace liable for defamation, ordering it to pay more than $660m (£507m) in damages to an oil company for the environmental group’s role in one of the largest anti-fossil fuel protests in US history.

Texas-based Energy Transfer also accused Greenpeace of trespass, nuisance and civil conspiracy over the demonstrations nearly a decade ago against the Dakota Access Pipeline.

The lawsuit, filed in state court, argued that Greenpeace was behind an “unlawful and violent scheme to cause financial harm to Energy Transfer”.

Greenpeace, which vowed to appeal, said last month it could be forced into bankruptcy because of the case, ending over 50 years of activism.

Protests against the pipeline near the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation drew thousands, but Greenpeace argued it did not lead the demonstration and that the lawsuit threatened free speech. Instead, it said the protests were led by local indigenous leaders who were opposed to the pipeline.

The nine-person jury reached a verdict on Wednesday after about two days of deliberating.

The case was heard at a court in Mandan, about 100 miles (160km) north of where the protests took place.

Trey Cox, a lawyer for Energy Transfer, said during closing arguments that Greenpeace’s actions caused between $265m to $340m in damages. He asked the jury to award the company that amount, plus additional damages.

Construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline gained international attention during President Donald Trump’s first term, as Native American groups set up an encampment trying to block it from passing near Standing Rock.

The protests, which saw acts of violence and vandalism, started in April 2016 and ended in February 2017, when the National Guard and police cleared away the demonstrators.

At the peak, over 10,000 protesters were on site. The group included more than 200 Native American tribes, hundreds of US military veterans, actors and political leaders – including current US Health Secretary Robert F Kennedy, Jr.

The 1,172-mile pipeline has been operating since 2017. However, it still lacks a key permit to operate under Lake Oahe in South Dakota, and local tribes have pushed for an extensive environmental review of the project.

During the three-week trial, jurors heard from Energy Transfer’s co-founder and board chairman Kelcy Warren, who said in a video deposition that protesters had created “a total false narrative” about his company.

“It was time to fight back,” he said.

Energy Transfer’s lawyer Mr Cox told the court that Greenpeace had exploited the Dakota Access Pipeline to “promote its own selfish agenda”.

Attorneys for Greenpeace argued that the group did not lead the protests, but merely helped support “nonviolent, direct-action training”.

In response to the verdict, Greenpeace International’s general counsel Kristin Casper said “Energy Transfer hasn’t heard the last of us in this fight”.

“We will not back down, we will not be silenced,” she said.

Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond in Virginia, said he believes “the verdict’s magnitude will have a chilling effect on environmental and other public interest litigation”.

“It may encourage litigants in other states to file similar lawsuits,” he told the BBC.

Energy Transfer’s legal action named Greenpeace USA, as well as its Washington DC-based funding arm Greenpeace Fund Inc and its Amsterdam-based parent group Greenpeace International.

Greenpeace has counter-sued Energy Transfer in Dutch court, claiming the oil firm is attempting to unfairly use the legal system to silence critics.

The lawsuit, filed earlier this month, seeks to recover all damages and costs.

The mysterious force called Dark Energy, which drives the expansion of the Universe, might be changing in a way that challenges our current understanding of time and space, scientists have found.

Some of them believe that they may be on the verge of one of the biggest discoveries in astronomy for a generation – one that could force a fundamental rethink.

This early-stage finding is at odds with the current theory which was developed in part by Albert Einstein.

More data is needed to confirm these results, but even some of the most cautious and respected researchers involved in the study, such as Prof Ofer Lahav, from University College London, are being swept up by the mounting evidence.

“It is a dramatic moment,” he told BBC News.

“We may be witnessing a paradigm shift in our understanding of the Universe.”

The discovery of Dark Energy in 1998 was in itself shocking. Up until then the view had been that after the Big Bang, which created the Universe, its expansion would slow down under the force of gravity.

But observations by US and Australian scientists found that it was actually speeding up. They had no idea what the force driving this was, so they gave it a name signifying their lack of understanding – Dark Energy.

Although we don’t know what Dark Energy is – it is one of the greatest mysteries in science – astronomers can measure it and whether it is changing by observing the acceleration of galaxies away from each other at different points in the history of the Universe.

Several experiments were built to find answers, including the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument (DESI) at the Kit Peak National Observatory near Tucson Arizona. It consists of 5,000 optical fibres, each one of which is a robotically controlled telescope scanning galaxies at high speed.

Last year, when DESI researchers found hints that the force exerted by dark energy had changed over time, many scientists thought that it was a blip in the data which would go away.

Instead, a year on, that blip has grown.

“The evidence is stronger now than it was,” said Prof Seshadri Nadathur at the University of Portsmouth

“We’ve also performed many additional tests compared to the first year, and they’re making us confident that the results aren’t driven by some unknown effect in the data that we haven’t accounted for,” he said.

The data has not yet passed the threshold of being described as a discovery, but has led many astronomers, such as Scotland’s Astronomer Royal, Prof Catherine Heymans, of Edinburgh University, to sit up and take notice.

“Dark Energy appears to be even weirder than we thought,” she told BBC News.

“In 2024 the data was quite new, no-one was quite sure of it and people thought more work needed to be done.

“But now, there’s more data, and a lot of scrutiny by the scientific community, so, while there is still a chance that the ‘blip’ may go away, there’s also a possibility that we might be edging to a really big discovery.”

So what is causing the variation?

“No one knows!” Prof Lahav admits, cheerfully.

“If this new result is correct, then we need to find the mechanism that causes the variation and that might mean a brand new theory, which makes this so exciting.”

DESI will continue to take more data over the next two years, with plans to measure roughly 50 million galaxies and other bright objects, in an effort to nail down whether their observations are unequivocally correct.

“We’re in the business of letting the Universe tell us how it works, and maybe it is telling us it’s more complicated than we thought it was,” said Andrei Cuceu, a postdoctoral researcher at the Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, in California.

More details on the nature of Dark Energy will be obtained by the European Space Agency’s (ESA) Euclid mission, a space telescope which will probe further than DESI and obtain even greater detail. It was launched in 2023 and ESA released the new images from the spacecraft today.

The DESI collaboration involves more than 900 researchers from more than 70 institutions, around the world, including Durham, UCL and Portsmouth University from the UK.

Gwyneth Paltrow has said she told an on-set intimacy co-ordinator to “step a little bit back” when filming sex scenes with Timothée Chalamet, because she would feel “very stifled” by someone telling them what to do.

Chalamet, 29, stars in new movie Marty Supreme as a ping pong protégé, while Paltrow, 52, plays the wife of a rival professional who falls into bed with him.

“I mean, we have a lot of sex in this movie,” Paltrow told Vanity Fair. “There’s a lot – .”

However, she said she had been unaware of the increasingly common use in Hollywood of specialists to oversee such scenes. “There’s now something called an intimacy co-ordinator, which I did not know existed.”

Intimacy co-ordinators became fixtures on productions in order to make actors feel safe in the wake of the Me Too movement, which exposed abuse in the industry.

Actress-turned-wellness guru Paltrow, whose last starring film role came 10 years ago, recalled how the Marty Supreme co-ordinator asked if she would be comfortable with a certain move during one intimate scene.

“I was like, ‘Girl, I’m from the era where you get naked, you get in bed, the camera’s on’,” she said.

“We said, ‘I think we’re good. You can step a little bit back’.”

Paltrow continued: “I don’t know how it is for kids who are starting out, but… if someone is like, ‘OK, and then he’s going to put his hand here,’ I would feel, as an artist, very stifled by that.”

In 2022, Dame Emma Thompson defended the use of intimacy co-ordinators on film and TV sets, calling them “fantastically important”, after fellow actor Sean Bean said they “spoil the spontaneity” of sex scenes.

Paltrow joked that the age difference between her and Chalamet only really dawned on her when they were filming the sex scenes.

“OK, great,” she recalled thinking. “I’m 109 years old. You’re 14.”

She described her co-star, who was recently nominated for an Oscar for Bob Dylan biopic A Complete Unknown, as “a thinking man’s sex symbol”.

“He’s just a very polite, properly raised, I was going to say kid… he’s a man who takes his work really seriously and is a fun partner.”

Paltrow won an Oscar in 1999 for the Harvey Weinstein-produced Shakespeare in Love, and was later among the first high-profile people to accuse Weinstein of sexual harassment.

She has played Pepper Potts in several Marvel movies in recent years and appeared in the Netflix series The Politician, but said she considers Marty Supreme to be her first serious film role since 2010’s Country Strong.

Spending time in space and having an unrivalled view of planet Earth is an experience many of us dream of.

However, the human body evolved to function in the gravity of Earth. So time in the weightlessness of space can take years to fully recover from.

Astronauts Suni Williams and Butch Wilmore are back on Earth after their eight-day mission aboard the International Space Station (ISS) unexpectedly became a nine-month enforced stay. Now, their recovery begins.

“Space is by far the most extreme environment that humans have ever encountered and we’ve just not evolved to handle the extreme conditions,” Prof Damian Bailey, who studies human physiology, at the University of South Wales, says.

Entering space changes the human body – and initially that feels awesome.

“It feels like a holiday,” astronaut Tim Peake, who went to the ISS in 2015, says.

“Your heart is having an easy time.

“Your muscles and bones are having an easy time.

“You’re floating around the space station in this wonderful zero-gravity environment.”

Imagine spending weeks lounging around in bed and never having to get up – this is actually one technique scientists use to investigate the impact of zero gravity – and you start to get the picture.

But when it comes to muscle, it is a case of use it or lose it.

Even the simple act of standing still uses muscles throughout the body to hold you upright.

And that is not happening in the microgravity on board the ISS.

Muscle strength takes on a different meaning when everything is practically weightless.

The heart and your blood vessels also have an easier time as they no longer have to pump blood against gravity – and they start to weaken.

And the bones become weaker and more brittle.

There should be a balance between the cells breaking down old bone and those making new.

But that balance is disrupted without the feedback and resistance of working against gravity.

“Every month, about 1% of their bone and muscles are going to wither away – it’s accelerated ageing,” Prof Bailey says.

And this becomes apparent on the return to Earth.

The video below shows the astronauts needing support to get their bodies out of the capsule and on to a stretcher.

All of this is why astronauts go up to space in tip-top physical condition.

Then, their daily routine involves two hours of exercise – a combination of treadmill, cycling machine and weights – to maintain as much muscle and bone health as possible.

And now, Suni and Butch will start an intense exercise training programme to regain their lost function.

“It will probably take them a few months to build up their muscle mass,” Dr Helen Sharman, who was the first Briton in space, says.

Bone mass could take a “couple of years” until it recovers – but even then, there are “subtle changes in the type of bone that we do rebuild after returning to Earth that may never return to completely normal”.

But that is just muscle and bone – space changes the whole body.

Even the types of good bacteria living in us – the microbiome – are altered.

The fluids in the body also shift in microgravity.

Instead of being pulled down towards the legs as on Earth, fluid drifts up towards the chest and face.

A puffy face is one of the first noticeable changes in the body.

But this can also lead to swelling in the brain and changes in the eye, including to the optic nerve, retina and even the shape of the eye.

And this “spaceflight-associated neuro-ocular syndrome” can lead to blurred vision and potentially irreversible damage.

Microgravity also distorts the vestibular system, which is how you balance and sense which way is up.

In space, there is no up, down or sideways.

It can be disorientating when you go up – and again when you return to Earth.

Tim Peake says: “That initial phase of stopping feeling dizzy, of regaining your balance and having strength to walk around normally, that’s just two or three days.

“Those first two or three days back on Earth can be really punishing.”

India has usually turned to economic reforms in times of distress, with the most famous example being 1991, when the country embraced liberalisation in the face of a deep financial crisis.

Now, with US President Donald Trump’s tit-for-tat tariff wars and the global trade upheaval that has followed, many believe that India finds itself at another crossroad.

Could this be a major opportunity for the world’s fifth largest economy to shed its protectionism and further open up its economy? Will India seize the moment, just as it did more than three decades ago, or will it retreat further?

Trump has repeatedly branded India a “tariff king” and a “big abuser” of trade ties. The problem is that India’s trade-weighted import duties – the average duty rate per imported product – are among the highest in the world. The US average tariff is 2.2%, China’s is 3% and Japan’s is 1.7%. India’s stands at a whopping 12%, according to data from the World Trade Organization.

High tariffs increase costs for companies dependent on global value chains, hindering their ability to compete in international markets. They also mean that Indians pay more on imported goods than foreign consumers. Despite growing exports – primarily driven by services – India runs a significant trade deficit. However, with India’s share of global exports at a mere 1.5%, the challenge becomes even more urgent.

The jury is out on whether Trump’s tariff war will help India break free or double down on protectionism. Narendra Modi’s government, often criticised for its protectionist stance, seems to have shifted gears in recent years.

Last month, ahead of Prime Minister Modi’s meeting with Trump in Washington, India unilaterally lowered tariffs on Bourbon whiskey, motorcycles and some other US products.

Commerce Minister Piyush Goyal has made two trips to the US to discuss a potential trade deal, following Trump’s threatened retaliatory tariffs, looming on 2 April. (Citi Research analysts estimate India could lose up to $7bn annually from reciprocal tariffs, primarily affecting sectors like metals, chemicals and jewellery, with pharmaceuticals, automobiles and food products also at risk.)

Last week, Goyal urged Indian exporters to “come out of their protectionist mindset and encouraged them to be bold and ready to deal with the world from a position of strength and self-confidence”, according to a statement from his ministry.

India is also actively pursuing free trade deals with several countries, including the UK and New Zealand, and the European Union.

In an interesting turn of events, homegrown telecoms giants Reliance Jio and Bharti Airtel have teamed up with Trump ally Elon Musk’s SpaceX to launch satellite internet services via Starlink in India. The move surprised analysts, especially after Musk’s recent clashes with both companies, and came as US and Indian officials negotiate the trade deal.

India’s rapid growth from the late 1990s to the 2000s – 8.1% between 2004-2009 and 7.46% from 2009-2014 – was in large part driven by its gradual integration into global markets, particularly in pharmaceuticals, software, autos, textiles and garments, alongside a steady reduction in tariffs. Since then, India has turned inwards.

Many economists believe that protectionist policies over the past decade have undermined Modi’s Make in India initiative, which prioritised capital- and technology-intensive sectors over labour-intensive ones like textiles. As a result, it has struggled to boost manufacturing and exports.

High tariffs have also fostered protectionism in several Indian industries, discouraging investments in efficiency, according to Viral Acharya, a professor of economics at New York University Stern School of Business.

This has allowed “cosy incumbents” to gain market power by consolidating their positions without facing much competition. As Mr Acharya, a former central banker, noted in a paper by Brookings Institution, restoring industrial balance in India requires “reducing tariffs to increase the country’s share of global goods trade and reduce protectionism”.

With India’s tariffs already higher than those of most countries, further increases could be especially damaging.

“We need to boost exports and a tit-for-tat tariff war won’t help us. China can afford this strategy due to its massive export base, but we can’t, as we hold only a small share of the global market, Rajeshwari Sengupta, an associate professor of economics at Mumbai-based Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research, said. A trade conflict could hurt us more than others,” she added.

In light of this, India finds itself at a crossroad. As the world undergoes a major shift, India has a “unique opportunity to shape a new vision” for global trade, says Aseema Sinha, a trade expert at Claremont McKenna College.

By lowering protectionist barriers in South Asia and strengthening ties with Southeast Asia and the Middle East, India has the chance to lead in shaping a new trade vision, positioning itself as a key player in a “re-globalised” world, Ms Sinha, author of Globalising India, says.

“By reducing tariffs, India could become the regional and cross-regional magnet for trade and economic activity, drawing in varied powers in its orbit,” she adds.

That could help India create the jobs it desperately needs at home. Agriculture, which makes up 15% of its GDP, accounts for a whopping 40% of employment, reflecting extremely low productivity. Construction remains the second-largest employer, absorbing casual daily workers.

India’s challenge isn’t in expanding its thriving service sector, which already makes up nearly half of total exports, but in dealing with the large pool of unskilled workers who lack the basic skills needed for service jobs.

“While high-end services are thriving, the majority of the workforce remains uneducated and underemployed, often relegated to construction or informal jobs. To provide meaningful employment to millions entering the workforce each year, India must ramp up its manufacturing exports, as relying solely on services won’t address the needs of the unskilled labour force,” says Ms Sengupta.

One concern is that reducing tariffs could lead to dumping, where foreign companies flood the market with cheap goods, potentially harming domestic industries.

According to Ms Sengupta, India’s ideal approach to trade would involve a “universal reduction” in import tariffs, as it currently has some of the highest tariffs among its trading partners.

However, there is a caveat: China’s trade struggles, particularly with the US due to the ongoing trade war, could lead to Chinese dumping in India in the “short run”.

“To protect against this, India can use non-tariff barriers against China but only against this one country and only in cases of proven dumping. Barring that, it is in India’s interest to do a wholesale slashing of tariffs,” she says.

There’s also a growing concern that India may be overcompensating in its efforts to flatter the US.

Ajay Srivastava, founder of the Global Trade Research Initiative (GTRI), believes that India’s tendency to soften trade policies “based on rhetoric rather than economic pressure” shows a lack of assertiveness in global trade talks.

If this trend continues, he says, India may end up making even more compromises in its trade deal with the US, further “eroding its bargaining power”.

“In comparison to other major economies, India’s pre-emptive surrender on multiple trade fronts – without the US imposing a single country-specific tariff – makes it appear exceptionally vulnerable to pressure tactics.”

The broader consensus seems to be that India should capitalise on what could be the unintended consequences of Trump’s tariff wars. Pranjul Bhandari, chief India economist at HSBC, believes that “potential US tariffs may have become a catalyst for reforms.“.

“If supply chains are rejigged again during the second Trump presidency due to higher tariffs on large exporters, and the world looks for new producers, India may get a second chance,” she writes.

Creating jobs that manufacture goods for the world won’t be easy. India has largely missed the bus on low-end, unskilled factory work – jobs China dominated for decades. Automation is taking over. Without deeper reforms, India risks being left behind.

Six years ago, Amber Clare was a devoted One Direction fan.

Scrolling through Twitter for information about the band’s solo projects, she saw a reply that said “Listen to Icy by Itzy”.

Intrigued, she clicked on the link. It changed her life.

“I’d never listened to K-Pop before that point but I immediately became a fan,” she says.

“And now Itzy is the reason I have my job.”

Today, Clare is the marketing and social media manager for K-Stars, the UK’s first and biggest shop devoted to Korean pop music.

Based in Manchester, it started as a small business in Manchester’s Affleck’s Palace in 2019.

“You’d order things by PayPal, and then the CEO would pack them up by himself and ship everything out,” Clare recalls.

Now it’s a two-storey emporium, based on Deansgate, with a staff of more than 20 dedicated K-Pop enthusiasts.

It’s a sign of how the genre has exploded in the UK, even though radio and television has largely shunned all but the biggest acts, like BTS, aespa and Blackpink.

“It’s still kind of a niche – but it’s not a small niche,” says Clare. “In my head I’m the only Itzy fan, but when I went to see them in concert, it was sold out.

“I was like, ‘Wow, where have all you people been hiding?'”

In fact, the UK is now among the top 10 countries that follow K-Pop on Spotify, with the boyband Ateez placing two records in the top five of the UK album charts last year.

This summer, Blackpink will play two nights at Wembley Stadium, with Stray Kids pulling off the same feat in Tottenham.

Meanwhile, Twickenham Stadium will say “” to one of K-pop’s longest-running festivals.

Established in 2008, the SM Town Live festival is a showcase for artists signed to the SM Entertainment Label, one of the industry’s key players.

To celebrate the company’s 30th anniversary, they’re transplanting the event from Seoul to Middlesex.

“It’s essentially a multi-day festival all in one, because you’ve got so many artists all at the same venue, jam packed into the space of three or four hours,” says Reese Carter, of boyband Dear Alice, who’ll be among the performers in Twickenham.

“It’s non-stop. You’ve got to prep yourself, because you’ll definitely want to dance.”

“It’s very down to earth but it goes straight to your heart,” adds Ten from K-Pop group WayV.

SM holds a unique place in Korea’s musical history. Founded in 1995 by Lee Soo-man, it is widely credited with establishing the K-Pop template.

It was the first company to introduce the trainee system, where young talent goes through intensive training that lasts months, or even years, before making their “debut”.

And it dominated what’s known as the “first generation” of K-Pop idols, with bands like H.O.T. and S.E.S.

The Twickenham show will pay tribute to that three-decade journey, with a line-up that includes everyone from Red Velvet, EXO and Girl’s Generation to current chart-toppers like aespa, Riize and all of the sub-units of boyband NCT – which boasts more than 20 members.

“That’s very rare,” says Ten, one of the group’s most recognisable (and chatty) stars.

“The last time we had an NCT concert as a whole was two years ago. It’s so difficult to schedule every group to be in the same spot at the same time.”

But that’s not all. The concert will also feature what’s been billed as “a group of promising trainees”, known for now as SMTR25 – showcasing the future of the label.

“Performing alongside the senior artists we’ve admired since our trainee days, as well as our talented junior artists, makes this an incredibly meaningful experience for us,” said aespa in an email to the BBC.

The hope is that shows like this will open a few doors – because, for all the strides K-Pop has made in the last couple of years, bands have consistently prioritised America over Europe.

It’s a logical step. The US is the world’s biggest music market, so it offers more opportunities for touring and merchandise sales, while an MTV Award performance or a concert for NPR’s Tiny Desk series travels further internationally than an appearance at the Brit Awards.

“The situation here isn’t as good as what the American industry gets,” acknowledges Amber Clare.

“Every single K-Pop group, if they announce a world tour, America will always be on the map – but European countries are always left wondering if they’re going to be included or not.”

Things are changing, though.

In a crowded market, labels are increasingly turning their attention to the UK – where the anglophone media has international reach, and there’s a baked-in affection for boy and girl groups like Take That, Spice Girls, Girls Aloud and Little Mix.

To make inroads, bands have teamed up with some of Britain’s biggest artists.

Aespa’s 2023 single Better Things was co-written by Raye, while Le Sserafim collaborated with PinkPantheress on club anthem Crazy and with Jungle on their latest song, Come Over.

Last year, SM went one further – creating a British boyband and putting them through the K-Pop machinery.

That group was Dear Alice, whose gruelling traineeship was documented in BBC series Made In Korea.

Having survived the process, the five-piece finally premiered their debut single, Ariana, at a massive SM Town concert in Seoul in January.

“These shows are timed down to the second,” says singer Blaise Noon. “When we got our time to go on stage, it was literally like, 8:30 and 48 seconds. It just shows how so well thought out is.”

Bringing the production to London is evidence that SM has its sights trained on the UK, he confirms.

“In the UK, we produce some really amazing boy groups, so I think we have that connection in the culture. So I think they definitely want to hit it. I can see it getting bigger and bigger every day.”

Ten, who releases a new solo album, Stunner, next week, says he’s already experienced the devotion of UK fans.

When his group WayV last visited England in 2023, “we were surprised that people could sing along to our songs, because we sing in Chinese”, he says.

“This opportunity with SM Town, I feel like it’s going to open a bigger market for K-Pop in the UK.

“I hope so, because I’d like to come and perform my solo stuff to my UK fans too.”

The opportunity is there.

Nine of the 10 best-selling albums in the world last year were by South Korean artists, illustrating the music’s broad appeal – but none of those records charted in the UK’s Top 50.

Lack of radio exposure is one factor – but listeners can also be put off by clunky English lyrics or the sudden-but-deliberate stylistic shifts that characterise K-Pop.

If you’re willing to dig into the genre, though, you can find some of the most audacious and indelible hooks music has to offer.

One by-product of K-pop’s (relative) obscurity is the bond it creates among fans. There’s a sense of belonging that comes from discovering and nurturing your “bias”, outside the glare of the mainstream.

It’s a relationship bands foster by a fire hose stream of social media content, where dance challenges, video diaries and photoshoots are posted daily.

Dear Alice experienced the impact of that effort at a UK meet-and-greet last weekend.

“It felt like we were hanging out with a bunch of our mates,” says Dexter Greenwood.

“They were just cool people,” adds James Sharp. “We’re starting to recognise faces and remember people on this journey – and I think there’s going to be more and more.”

By the time they play Twickenham in June, the group promise to have more new music to showcase.

In the meantime, though, they want to introduce their labelmates to some of the UK’s finer customs.

“We’ve got to order a bunch of Greggs for the SM family,” says Noon.

“A whole banquet of sausage rolls.”

The US government has defunded one programme and left another that both document alleged Russian war crimes in Ukraine.

The Trump administration cut funding for Yale University’s Humanitarian Research Lab (HRL), which had detailed the mass deportation of Ukrainian children to Russia.

It has also withdrawn from a multinational group meant to investigate the leaders responsible for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, including President Vladimir Putin.

These moves come after Trump spoke with Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to negotiate a ceasefire in Ukraine, breaking with the previous US administration’s approach to try and hold Putin responsible for the Russian invasion.

The Humanitarian Research Lab said in a statement that they had been notified “that government funding for their work on the war in Ukraine has been discontinued”.

A bipartisan group of 17 members of Congress pushed back on the funding cut for the HRL, saying their work is a “vital resource” in preserving evidence of children abducted from Ukraine.

In a letter to Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, the lawmakers said the HRL has compiled data on 30,000 children abducted from Ukraine and is “absolutely crucial” to ensuring that they are returned home.

It said these abductions were taking place amid a “concerning reduction in American leadership in countering these crimes”.

It added that the HRL’s work can be credited with being the basis for the International Criminal Court’s indictment of Putin over the abduction of Ukrainian children.

The US State Department responded to the letter saying it has not deleted any of the data collected by the HRL.

On Wednesday, Trump’s Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt responded to claims that the US government had cut funding to the HRL, saying the White House had nothing to do with them.

She added that Trump spoke to Volodymyr Zelensky about the abducted children, and promised to “work closely” with both the Russian and Ukrainian sides to ensure those children are returned home.

But the US has also withdrawn from the International Centre for the Prosecution of the Crime of Aggression against Ukraine (ICPA).

In a statement, the European Union Agency for Criminal Justice Cooperation – the ICPA’s parent organisation – confirmed to the BBC that it had been informed by US authorities that they were leaving the programme.

The ICPA was created to hold Russian leaders accountable for the “crime of aggression” in Ukraine, according to their website, and to preserve evidence and prepare cases for their trials in the future.

In addition to these, Reuters reported that several US national security agencies have stopped work on a coordinated effort to counter Russian cyberattacks and disinformation.

Hungary has passed a law banning Pride marches held by the LGBTQ+ community, sparking outrage in and out of the country.

Parliament voted for the measure just a day after the bill was submitted on Monday, in a process fast-tracked by the ruling right-wing Fidesz party under Prime Minister Viktor Orban.

Orban praised the legislation, which bans the event on alleged grounds it is harmful to children, saying: “We won’t let woke ideology endanger our kids.”

Pride marches had been held for the past 30 years in Hungary. Opposition lawmakers lit flares during the voting session on Tuesday, while demonstrators blocked a bridge in central Budapest. Human rights groups have also condemned the move.

It is the latest measure from Orban’s government targeting Hungary’s LGBTQ+ community.

In 2020, the country abolished its legal recognition of transgender people, and in 2021, politicians passed a law banning the depiction of homosexuality to under-18s.

Under the terms of the new law, it is now “forbidden to hold an assembly in violation” of that 2021 legislation.

Anyone who does faces fines of up to 500 euros ($545; £420). That could include attendees and march organisers. Police are also allowed to use facial recognition technology to identify possible offenders.

MPs also amended Hungary’s right of assembly in parliament on Tuesday.

The law now says that only events “respecting the right of children to proper physical, mental and moral development” may take place.

Opponents of Hungary’s Pride marches, and of the country’s LGBTQ+ community in general, have regularly, and without evidence, accused such demonstrations of being dangerous for minors.

Protesters outside the parliament on Tuesday chanted:”Assembly is a fundamental right”. They blocked off central Budapest’s Margaret Bridge while staring down a police cordon.

The EU’s equality commissioner Hadja Lahbib condemned the move. “Everyone should be able to be who they are, live & love freely,” she wrote on X.

“The right to gather peacefully is a fundamental right to be championed across the European Union. We stand with the LGBTQI community – in Hungary & in all Member States.”

The organisers of Budapest Pride criticised the decision on social media. “This is not child protection, this is fascism,” they wrote.

“A democratic leader would never think of restricting the fundamental rights of those who disagree with him.”

Organisers vowed to continue to hold their planned 30th Pride march in Budapest on 28 June.

In recent months Orban has launched increasing attacks on his critics and announced plans for more conservative law changes, vowing last year to “occupy Brussels” to protect Hungary’s freedom.

His Fidesz party has been in office since 2010. But polls suggest that the new centre-right party Tisza is in the lead nationally ahead of next year’s parliamentary election.

Tisza, which wants a more constructive relationship with the EU, shot up in popularity after Peter Magyar, a one-time Fidesz politician, broke with the ruling party in February 2024 over what he said was its poor running of Hungary.

A former engineer at a Chinese research institute has been sentenced to death for selling classified material to foreign spy agencies, Chinese authorities said.

After he resigned from the institute, the researcher, identified by his surname Liu, came up with a “carefully designed” plan to sell intelligence to foreign agencies, according to an article published on Wednesday by China’s Ministry of State Security.

The ministry did not name Liu’s former employer or the foreign groups that allegedly bought his material.

The announcement comes amid increasing warnings from China that its citizens are being co-opted by foreign entities to serve as spies.

“Desperadoes who want to take shortcuts to heaven will all suffer consequences,” the ministry said in Wednesday’s article.

Believing that he had been treated unfairly at the institute, Liu saved a large amount of classified material before he left, intending to use it for revenge and blackmail, the ministry stated.

He then joined an investment firm and, after failed investments drove him into debt, approached a foreign spy agency which got the material from him at a “very low price”, according to the ministry.

This agency subsequently cut off contact with Liu, the ministry added, and he tried to sell the information abroad.

“In half a year, he secretly travelled to many countries and seriously leaked our country’s secrets,” the article said.

Liu, who confessed after being arrested, has been stripped of political rights for life.

Beijing has been increasingly wary of espionage, and warned that its citizens are being recruited by foreign spy agencies trying to secure Chinese state secrets.

Last November, a former employee at a Chinese state agency was handed the death sentence after his USB work flash drive was allegedly seized by foreign spies and he became their “puppet”, according to Chinese authorities.

In February last year, Australian writer Yang Hengjun, known for blogging about human rights issues in China, was handed a suspended death sentence on espionage charges. That sentence was upheld, and Yang remains behind bars in China, despite Australian leaders calling for his release.

Concerns about Chinese influence and infiltration operations are also brewing among governments across the world, several of which have in recent years stepped up arrests of Chinese nationals on espionage charges.

Don’t judge a blob by its cover.

Once dubbed the world’s ugliest animal for its soft, lumpy appearance, the blobfish has made a stunning comeback: it was crowned this week as Fish of the Year by a New Zealand environmental group.

The annual competition, held by the Mountain to Sea Conservation Trust, aims to raise awareness for New Zealand’s freshwater and marine life.

This year, the blobfish took home the coveted accolade with nearly 1,300 out of more than 5,500 votes cast.

It’s an underdog victory for the blobfish, which burst into mainstream notoriety as the mascot for the Ugly Animal Preservation Society in 2013.

The gelatinous fish lives on the sea bed and grows to about 12in (30cm) in length. They’re mainly found off the coast of Australia, where they live at depths of 2,000-4,000 ft (600-1,200m).

• Why do we love ugly animals?

While the blobfish is known for its misshapen silhouette, in its natural deep-sea habitat it actually resembles a regular fish, with its shape kept together by the high water pressure.

However, when caught and rapidly brought to the water surface its body deforms into its hallmark mushy shape – the same one that has earned it the reputation of being among the ugliest creatures the world has seen.

Coming in second place was the orange roughy, a deep-sea fish in the slimehead family – known for the mucous canals on their heads.

It was “a battle of the deep sea forget-me-nots,” said Kim Jones, co-director of the Mountains to Sea Conservation Trust. “A battle of two quirky deep sea critters, with the blobfish’s unconventional beauty helping get voters over the line.”

The orange roughy had appeared on track for the win, until a couple of local radio station hosts started a passionate campaign for the blobfish.

“There is an up and coming fish, it needs your vote,” Sarah Gandy and Paul Flynn, hosts of local radio network More FM, urged listeners on their show last week. “We need the blobfish to win.”

News of the blobfish’s victory has been celebrated by the radio hosts.

“The blobfish had been sitting patiently on the ocean floor, mouth open waiting for the next mollusc to come through to eat,” the pair said. “He has been bullied his whole life and we thought, ‘Stuff this, it’s time for the blobfish to have his moment in the sun’, and what a glorious moment it is!”

Besides molluscs, the blobfish also eats custaceans like crabs and lobsters, as well as sea urchins.

Instead of a skeleton and scales, the blobfish has a soft body and flabby skin.

Nine of the ten nominees for fish of the year are considered by conservation groups to be vulnerable, according to the Mountains to Sea Conservation Trust. This includes the blobfish, which are vulnerable to deep-sea trawling.

New Zealand also has a Bird of the Year contest, organised by conservation organisation Forest & Bird. The latest winner, crowned last September, was the hoiho, a rare penguin species.

Ben & Jerry’s has said its chief executive, David Stever, was being removed by its parent company, Unilever, in a growing dispute over the ice cream company’s political activism.

The allegation was part of a legal case filed in a US court by Ben & Jerry’s that says Unilever violated a merger agreement by trying to silence its “social mission”.

It comes a month after the ice cream company accused Unilever of demanding that it stops publicly criticising US President Donald Trump.

A Unilever spokesperson said it is “disappointed that the confidentiality of an employee career conversation has been made public”.

It said it had made “repeated attempts to engage the [Ben & Jerry’s] board and follow the correct process”.

The filing with the US District Court for the Southern District of New York said Unilever had “repeatedly threatened Ben & Jerry’s personnel, including CEO David Stever, should they fail to comply with Unilever’s efforts to silence the social mission”.

Ben & Jerry’s has long been known for taking a public stance on social issues since it was founded in 1978 by Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield.

It has often backed campaigns on issues like LGBTQ+ rights and climate change.

The ice cream maker was bought by Unilever in 2000 through a merger agreement that created an independent board tasked with protecting the ice cream brand’s values and mission.

But Unilever and Ben & Jerry’s have been at loggerheads for a while. Their relationship soured in 2021 when Ben & Jerry’s announced it was halting sales in the West Bank.

The dispute escalated over the last year as Ben & Jerry’s advocated for a ceasefire in Gaza.

In November, the ice cream company filed a lawsuit saying Unilever had tried to stop it from expressing support for Palestinian refugees.

Last month, in another court filing, Ben & Jerry’s said Unilever had tried to ban it from publicly criticising Donald Trump.

Mr Stever has been with Ben & Jerry’s since joining the firm in 1988 as a tour guide. He was appointed chief executive in 2023.

Ben and Jerry’s court filing said the decision to oust Mr Stever was made without any consultation, as required in the merger agreement between the two companies.

“Unilever… attempted to force the independent board into rubberstamping the decision,” it added.

The Unilever spokesperson said: “In line with the terms of the acquisition agreement, decisions on the appointment, compensation and removal of the Ben & Jerry’s chief executive will be made by Unilever after good faith consultation and discussion with the B&J’s Independent Board.”

“We hope that the B&J Independent Board will engage as per the original, agreed process,” they added.

More than 80 Afghan women studying in Oman on US-funded scholarships – terminated last month due to Trump administration’s sweeping cuts to foreign aid – have received a temporary reprieve.

A US State Department spokesperson has told the BBC that funding will continue until 30 June, 2025.

“This is great news, and we are very grateful,” one student told the BBC, speaking anonymously for fear of reprisals. “But I hope there will be a permanent solution.”

The women fled Taliban ruled Afghanistan to continue their studies abroad, but the abrupt freeze on US Agency for International Development (USAID) funds put them at risk of being sent back.

Since regaining power in Afghanistan nearly four years ago, the Taliban has imposed draconian restrictions on women, including banning them from universities.

The students in Oman were pursuing graduate and post-graduate degrees under the Women’s Scholarship Endowment (WSE), a USAID program launched in 2018 to fund studies in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.

On 28 February, they were informed their scholarships were ending and that they would be sent back to Afghanistan within two weeks, prompting “shock and tears”.

“We are relieved now, but we are still deeply concerned about our future,” a student said. “If the scholarship is not renewed, we will be left with no option but to return to Afghanistan, where we cannot study, and our safety could be under threat as well.”

The US government has not responded to the BBC’s inquiries on when a final decision will be made.

The BBC has also contacted the government of Oman to find out whether it is seeking alternative funding.

• The Afghan women who escaped to get an education abroad
• Afghan women ‘banned from midwife courses’ in latest blow to rights

Afghanistan’s Taliban government says it has been trying to resolve the issue of women’s education, but has also defended its supreme leader’s diktats, saying they are “in accordance with Islamic Sharia law”.

It has cracked down on women protesting for education and work, with many activists beaten, detained and threatened.

Women in Afghanistan describe themselves as “dead bodies moving around” under the regime’s policies.

Before the funding extension, a WSE staff member had told the BBC they were urgently “searching for alternative funding sources”. Calling the situation “dangerous and devastating”, the staff member warned that the students could face persecution and forced marriages upon return to Afghanistan.

The women, mostly in their 20s, qualified for scholarships in 2021 before the Taliban seized Afghanistan. Many continued their studies in Afghan universities until December 2022, when the Taliban banned higher education for women.

After 18 months in limbo, they said they fled to Pakistan last September.

USAID then facilitated their visas to Oman, where they arrived between October and November 2024.

The decision to slash American aid funding has come under the Trump administration, and been implemented by Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency.

The Heart of the Dalkowskie Hills, a breathtaking 300-year-old beech, has won Poland the European Tree of the Year award for the fourth consecutive time.

Standing tall in Dalków’s historic park, the deep-red beauty is a beloved symbol for the community.

Visitors also have a quirky tradition: tossing peanuts into a hole in it, hoping for their wishes to come true.

The contest celebrates our relationship with nature by showcasing beautiful and unique trees from across the continent.

Here are some of the other trees that scored high in the competition:

Taking second place is the majestic Portuguese Moreton Bay Fig.

This tree was planted in the 19th Century in Coimbra’s romantic Quinta das Lágrimas Gardens from seeds exchanged with Sydney’s Botanical Garden and is a treasured landmark.

In third place is the Pino de Juan Molinera.

A 400-year-old stone pine in Abengibre, Spain, this tree has sheltered generations of locals and witnessed countless celebrations, childhood games and romances.

It has endured floods, snowstorms and a lightning strike, standing as a testament to resilience and history.

The Skipinnish Oak in Scotland, UK is a 400-year-old giant, standing proudly in Lochaber’s woodland.

It is one of the region’s largest oaks and a vital ecosystem for rare lichens like the black-eyed Susan.

Recently crowned the UK winner, it is a beloved local treasure.

The Old Chestnut of Sint-Rafaël in Belgium is a 150– to 200-year-old witness to the history of Sint-Job-in-‘t-Goor.

The Tree of Freedom in Rab, Croatia, is a 105-year-old holm oak that stands as a symbol of community and heritage.

Generations have cherished it, with many families passing down stories of ancestors who helped plant it. Its centennial was celebrated with a grand event, honouring its role in the town’s history.

The Lukavice Oak in the Czech Republic is a 700- to 800-year-old survivor, once threatened by estate owners who tried to remove its soil.

Defying destruction, it still stands strong, symbolising resilience and pride for the local community.

The Peaceful Oak of Saint-Maurice in France is a 200– to 250 year-old guardian of the Laïta River, standing at the entrance of the Abbey of Saint-Maurice.

A haven for wildlife, it even has an otter-shaped bench beside it, honouring its playful regular companion.

The Plane Tree in the Archbishop’s Garden in Hungary is a historic landmark in Eger, known for its grandeur and shaded canopy.

Legend says Hungarian leaders, including Lajos Kossuth, rested beneath it before the 1849 Battle of Kápolna.

The Tasso di Matari in Sardinia, Italy, is one of the island’s oldest yew trees, standing for centuries in the Supramonte di Urzulei.

Overlooking an ancient Nuragic village, it bears carvings on its trunk, marking the passage of time.

The Mēru Grand Oak in Latvia is a 200 year-old giant with a canopy spanning 39 meters.

Linked to an old legend of survival after the Northern War, it is seen as a guardian of the region.

The Oak of Varniškės in Lithuania is a more than 200 year-old symbol of strength, love, and tradition.

A family once built their home and herb farm beside it, making it the heart of their lives.

The Wild Pear from Bošáca, Slovakia, is a 150-year-old tree that grew from a stray seed on Lysica Hill.

It stands in a region known for its rich fruit-growing and is a beloved landmark. Its location attracts paragliders and hosts an annual competition for flying historical model airplanes.

The Ginkgo Biloba in Leiden, Netherlands, is a 240 year-old “living fossil” and the second oldest in Europe.

This ancient species, dating back to the time of dinosaurs, was preserved in China for its symbolic meaning of love and hope.

The White Acacia in Ivano-Frankivsk, Ukraine, is a 140 year-old rarity known as the Witness of Seven Generations.

It has stood in six different states during the course of history.

The full results can be seen on Europe’s Tree of the Year website.

More than 2,000 newly released documents related to the investigation into President John F Kennedy’s assassination are notable not just for what they contain – but for what is omitted.

As many experts expected, this latest release by the Trump administration does not answer all lingering questions about one of America’s historic turning points – the 1963 killing of Kennedy in Dallas.

But the latest batch does include documents that are now mostly or fully unredacted – original material is included instead of blacked-out words or blank space.

A US government investigation concluded that Lee Harvey Oswald, a drifter and former US Marine who at one point defected to the then-Soviet Union, acted alone when he shot at Kennedy’s motorcade from a nearby building.

However, the case still prompts questions, along with wild conspiracy theories, more than 60 years later – and the latest release is unlikely to change that. Here are some key takeaways.

• JFK experts scour newly unsealed assassination files

Several experts praised the release as a step forward for transparency. In the past, hundreds of thousands of documents were made available but were partially redacted. Others were held back, with officials citing national security concerns.

Many of the new documents have been released before – but now more complete versions are available. Although experts are still combing through, no earth-shattering stories have surfaced.

Still, Jefferson Morley, a former Washington Post reporter and editor of the JFK Facts blog, calls it “the most exciting news around JFK records since the 1990s”.

“Several very important documents have come into public view,” he said.

The documents further shed light on the Central Intelligence Agency’s (CIA) strong surveillance of Oswald, said Morley, the extent of which has only become clear in the last few years.

“He’s a subject of deep interest to the CIA” long before the assassination, he said.

Philip Shenon, who wrote a 2013 book about the assassination, told the Associated Press that previously released documents described a trip Oswald took to Mexico City in September 1963, months before the assassination.

The CIA was monitoring him at that time, he said, according to the AP. “There’s reason to believe he talked openly about killing Kennedy in Mexico City and that people overheard him say that.”

In a previously released April 1975 memo, the CIA downplayed what it knew about Oswald’s trip to Mexico City, the AP reported. The CIA recorded three phone calls between Oswald and a guard at the Soviet embassy, it said, but Oswald only identified himself in one.

A number of the documents shed light on Kennedy’s relationship with the CIA before his death and on intelligence-gathering techniques – giving a window into Cold War operations.

A newly unredacted memo reveals a more complete version of a note written by Kennedy aide Arthur Schlesinger.

Critical of the CIA and its role in shaping foreign policy, the note shows the agency’s huge presence in US embassies, even in allied countries such as France.

In it, Schlesinger warns Kennedy about the agency’s influence on American foreign policy. Though not directly related to the assassination, the memo details the rocky relationship between the president and intelligence agencies.

The CIA is traditionally opposed to releasing operational or budget information, said David Barrett, a Villanova University professor and expert on the CIA and presidential power.

“It’s a very good thing for the government to release these documents even if there still may be some redactions,” he said.

One document details the use of fluoroscopic scanning – using X-rays to show images of the inside of an object.

The technique was developed to detect hidden microphones possibly used to bug CIA offices.

In another document, the CIA describes a system to secretly tag and identify public phone boxes that are tapped, using a paint only visible under ultraviolent light.

The memo is also notable for one of the names in it – James McCord, who would later gain infamy as one of the men who burgled the Watergate complex. The break-in kicked off the unravelling of the scandal that toppled President Richard Nixon.

Some well-known online accounts claimed that the recent documents reveal new details about long-alleged plots against Kennedy – even though some of the supposed revelations have been public for years.

They includes several viral posts about Gary Underhill – a World War Two military intelligence agent.

Mr Underhill reportedly claimed that a cabal of CIA agents was behind the assassination, a theory openly published in Ramparts, a left-wing magazine, in 1967. Mr Underhill’s death in 1964 was ruled a suicide, but the magazine cast doubt on that as well.

Photos of a seven-page memo regarding Mr Underhill went viral on Tuesday – but the bulk of it is not new. His story has long been discussed online and the CIA memo mentioning it was first released in 2017.

Just a few sentences on one page of the memo were newly unredacted in the latest release.

And crucially the theory is based on a second-hand account published after Mr Underhill’s death and includes no hard evidence.

However, the story was just one of a number of unsubstantiated theories circulating following the release of the files.

A 1992 law required all of the documents related to the assassination to be released within 25 years – but that law also included national security exceptions.

The push for greater transparency has led to more releases over time – both President Trump in his first term and President Biden, as recently as 2023, released batches of documents.

Ahead of the new release, President Trump said that he asked his staff “not to redact anything” from them.

That doesn’t appear to be entirely the case – the new documents still have some redactions. However, experts were largely in agreement that the latest release was a step forward for transparency.

JFK Files journalist Morley said there are further documents in the National Archives yet to be released, and others held by the CIA and FBI that have not yet been accounted for.

Even though there could be more releases to come – as well as promised drops about the killings of Robert F Kennedy Sr and Martin Luther King Jr – the questions around the JFK assassination will almost certainly continue.

“Whenever there is an assassination there will be debates and to some degree there will be conspiracy theories,” said Barrett, the Villanova historian. “That’s not going to change because of these or any other documents.”

US President Donald Trump has held what he described as a “very good” hour-long phone call with his Ukrainian counterpart Volodymyr Zelensky, a day after speaking to Russia’s President Vladimir Putin.

Zelensky said afterwards that he believed that “lasting peace can be achieved this year” under Trump’s leadership.

They also discussed possible US ownership of the Russian-held Zaporizhzhia power plant, Zelensky said.

The apparently cordial mood of the conversation is in marked contrast to Zelensky’s visit to the White House last month, in which the two leaders – along with US Vice-President JD Vance – were involved in a tense exchange.

Wednesday marked the first time the two men have spoken since the meeting in the Oval Office – although since then, their teams have met in Saudi Arabia and negotiated a proposed 30-day ceasefire.

While it is backed by Ukraine and the US, Putin rejected the proposal for a widespread pause in the conflict during his phone call with the US president on Tuesday.

During his conversation with Donald Trump, Zelensky said he was open to a partial ceasefire involving a halt on strikes on energy infrastructure, rail and port facilities that could be established quickly – but the Ukrainian president warned his country would retaliate if Moscow violated the terms of the ceasefire.

“I understand that until we agree (with Russia), until there is a corresponding document on even a partial ceasefire, I think that everything will fly,” he said, referring to drones and missiles.

Writing on his social media platform Truth Social, Trump said the call was aimed at aligning Ukraine and Russia “in terms of their requests and needs”, adding that ceasefire efforts were on track.

Later, in a more detailed statement, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Trump had agreed to help Ukraine source additional air defence systems, particularly in Europe.

The two leaders “agreed to share information closely between their defence staffs as the battlefield situation evolved”, he said.

The developments will come as a relief for Zelensky, who described his conversation with Trump as “positive”, “frank”, and “very substantive”, during an online briefing to journalists on Wednesday.

“We believe that together with America, with President Trump, and under American leadership, lasting peace can be achieved this year,” he wrote on X.

During the video call with reporters, Zelensky said he believed Putin would not agree to a full ceasefire while Ukrainian troops remained in Russia’s western Kursk region, after Kyiv launched a surprise attack on the region in August last year.

Both Zelensky and Putin have said they would agree to halt attacks on energy infrastructure. However, both have since accused each other of continued attacks.

• Agreement shows a deal is never dead with Trump
• Putin gives Trump bare minimum

Trump said Wednesday’s call with Zelensky lasted about an hour.

“Much of the discussion was based on the call made yesterday with President Putin in order to align both Russia and Ukraine in terms of their requests and needs,” he wrote on Truth Social.

Technical teams from Ukraine and the US are expected to now meet in Saudi Arabia in the coming days.

In the White House last month, Trump told Zelensky he was not thankful enough for US military and political support, and that he was “gambling with World War Three”.

The US temporarily then suspended military aid and intelligence sharing with Ukraine, but diplomats were able to improve relations and on 11 March the two sides agreed on a ceasefire.

During his call with Trump on Tuesday, Putin agreed to halt Russian attacks on Ukraine’s energy infrastructure.

But he said a full ceasefire would only work if Ukraine’s supporters stopped giving military assistance – a condition Kyiv’s European allies have previously rejected.

Hours later both Ukraine and Russia launched attacks, with Kyiv saying hospitals had been targeted.

Officials in the southern Russian region of Krasnodar said that a Ukrainian drone attack sparked a small fire at an oil depot.

Despite the strikes, Kyiv and Moscow carried out an exchange of prisoners on Wednesday. Each side released 175 POWs.

Zelensky described the swap as “one of the largest”, adding that Russia included an extra 22 “severely wounded” soldiers.

“This has been our family car for three years, and it has been an absolute dream,” says Ben Kilbey as he shows me his gleaming pearl-white Tesla Model Y.

Ben is a staunch electric car advocate. He runs a communications firm that promotes sustainable businesses in the UK. Yet now, he says, the Model Y has to go – because he disapproves vehemently of Tesla CEO Elon Musk’s actions, especially the way he has handled firing US government employees.

“I’m not a fan of polarisation, or of doing things without kindness,” he says. “There are ways of doing things that don’t ostracise people or belittle them. I don’t like belittlement.”

Ben is part of a wider backlash against the Tesla boss that appears to have been gathering momentum in recent weeks, since Musk was appointed head of the controversial Department for Government Efficiency (DOGE), charged with taking an axe to federal government spending.

Musk has also intervened in politics abroad, making a video appearance at a rally for the far-right party Alternative für Deutschland ahead of Germany’s parliamentary election, as well as launching online attacks on British politicians, including Prime Minister Keir Starmer.

For some who do not share his views, it has all become too much.

There have been protests outside dozens of Tesla dealerships, not only in the US, but also in Canada, the UK, Germany and Portugal.

Although most of them have been peaceful, there have been cases of showrooms, charging stations and vehicles being vandalised. In separate incidents in France and Germany, several cars were set on fire.

In the US, the Tesla Cybertruck, an angular metallic pickup truck, appears to have become a particular magnet for anti-Musk sentiment. A number of social media videos have shown vehicles daubed with swastikas, covered with rubbish or used as skateboard ramps.

US President Donald Trump was quick to show his support to Tesla, by allowing the company to show off its vehicles outside the White House, and pledging to buy one. He said violence against US showrooms should be treated as “domestic terrorism”.

Musk has also been unequivocal in his response. “This level of violence is insane and deeply wrong,” he said in a recent interview with Fox News. “Tesla just makes electric cars and has done nothing to deserve these evil attacks.”

What is hard to quantify is exactly how much impact all this has had on Tesla as a business – and the extent to which Musk’s views and involvement in the Trump administration has affected the brand and alienated some traditional electric vehicle buyers.

And if that is the case, can Tesla really build on its past success with Musk remaining at the helm?

Two decades ago, Tesla was a tiny Silicon Valley start-up, with a handful of employees and big dreams of revolutionising the motor industry. Today it is the best-selling producer of electric vehicles in a growing global market, with giant factories around the world. It is also widely credited with having proven that EVs could be fast, powerful, fun and practical.

Musk, the figurehead of the company, has driven this all forward, since he joined Tesla in 2004 as its chairman and principal funder. He became chief executive four years later, and has held that role throughout the company’s rise to prominence.

“Tesla was the pioneer,” says Stephanie Valdez Streaty, director of industry insights at car sector marketing and software firm Cox Automotive. “They kind of got EVs into the mainstream, got other manufacturers to start investing, and really created a lot of awareness.”

It is easy to forget that electric cars were once derided as slow, uninspiring and impractical, with minimal range between charges. The Tesla Model S, which went on sale in 2012, had sports car performance and a range of more than 250 miles. It played a key role in changing perceptions, and provided a springboard for rapid growth.

Nowadays, Tesla is not just a producer of electric vehicles. It has invested heavily in autonomous driving systems, with the goal of building fleets of driverless “robotaxis”. It also has a fast-growing energy-storage business, and is developing a general-purpose humanoid robot, known as Optimus.

Like the late Steve Jobs at Apple, Musk became the embodiment of his brand, ever present as the front man at company events and product launches, with a devoted following among EV enthusiasts.

But recently the champion of sustainable technology has become equally well known for promoting his political views, amplifying them through his own social network, X. At the same time, Tesla itself has been facing mounting challenges.

Although its Model Y was the best-selling car worldwide last year, overall sales fell for the first time in more than a decade, dropping from 1.81 million to 1.79 million.

The decline was relatively small, and Tesla retained its position as the world’s best-selling maker of electric vehicles, but for a growth-focused business, it raised alarm bells. Profits for the year were also down.

This year has also begun badly, notably in Europe, where there was a 45% fall in new registrations in January compared to the same month in 2024. There were further falls in major European markets in February – although the UK was an outlier, with sales rising 21% – as well as in Australia.

Meanwhile, shipments of Tesla’s Chinese-made cars, which are produced for sale both in China and abroad, fell more than 49% in the same month.

In early March, Joseph Spak, Wall Street analyst at Swiss bank USB, published a research note in which he predicted a decline in Tesla’s worldwide sales this year of 5%. That forecast, which countered market expectations of 10% growth, helped to send Tesla’s share price tumbling. It fell 15% in a single day – adding to an overall decline of 40% since the start of the year.

Sales can fall for many reasons, but research by brand monitoring firm Morning Consult Intelligence suggests Musk’s activities have indeed harmed Tesla, particularly in the EU and Canada – although not in China, which remains one of its biggest markets.

In the US, it says, the situation is more nuanced, with many consumers approving of DOGE cuts in government spending. However it adds: “Musk may be turning off those US consumers most likely to buy a Tesla. Among high-income consumers who say they plan to purchase an EV in the future, Tesla now ranks lower compared with competitors than it did one year ago.”

Tesla did not respond to the BBC’s questions concerning its fall in sales.

But experts believe Tesla’s problems run deeper than simply questions about the public image of the CEO.

To start with, the current model range, which was once cutting edge, now looks uninspiring. The once ground-breaking Model S has been on sale since 2012, the Model X since 2015. Even the more recent and more affordable Model 3 and Model Y are beginning to look dated in an increasingly competitive market.

“If you look at their product line-up, they haven’t had any fresh models recently, except for the Cybertruck, which is really niche,” says Ms Valdez Streaty. “They’ve had a refresh of the Model Y, but it’s not a big splash. And there’s so much more competition out there.”

Prof Peter Wells, director of Cardiff University’s Centre for Automotive Industry Research, makes a similar point: “We’ve not seen the level of innovation in terms of the product range that perhaps Elon Musk should have been looking for. I think that is a big part of their problem.”

Competition come from a number of directions. Traditional manufacturers have invested huge sums in moving towards EV production, with the likes of Korea’s Kia and Hyundai building a growing reputation for making good quality battery-powered cars.

At the same time, an array of new EV brands has emerged from China. They include the likes of BYD, which has expanded rapidly by supplying cars with good performance at low prices, as well as the more upmarket Xpeng and Nio, which have focused on luxury and advanced technology.

“China has amazing incentives and subsidies for EVs,” says Ms Valdez Streaty.

“You can see how Chinese firms, especially BYD, continue to grow not only in China but in other parts of the world. So that definitely is a huge threat, not just for Tesla but for other manufacturers as well.”

The extent of that threat was demonstrated in mid-March, when BYD announced it had developed an ultra-fast charging system that would provide a car with 250 miles of range in just five minutes – significantly faster than Tesla’s own supercharger network.

Musk’s comments during Tesla’s earnings calls suggests his priorities lie elsewhere, particularly in driverless vehicles.

In January, he claimed Tesla would have a robotaxi service operating in Texas by June. But this attracted a cynical response from some commentators who pointed out that Musk has been promising this kind of thing for a long time.

In 2019, for example, he said that within a year there would be a million Teslas on the road capable of acting as robotaxis. Meanwhile Tesla’s “Full Self Driving” package, available to Tesla buyers, remains a “hands-on” system that requires the driver to be paying attention at all times.

“Every year we get a new promise from Elon Musk about how his autonomous cars are just around the corner. The trouble is, they never seem to be able to find the corner to emerge from,” says Jay Nagley of automotive consultancy Redspy.

Arguably, Tesla needs strong leadership right now. But regardless of his politics, the chief executive is spinning a large number of plates. He owns or runs an array of other businesses, notably his social media platform X; the artificial intelligence firm xAI; and the private space firm SpaceX, which has experienced failures on the last two launches of its giant Starship rocket.

Asked in a recent interview with Fox Business how he was combining all of this with his new government role, Musk responded “with great difficulty”.

“It’s hard to tell exactly how much Tesla is hands-on managed nowadays by Musk,” says Prof Wells.

“If he’s making the key decisions over things like product placing and where factories are built and so forth, then those decisions have to be correct. And I think you need someone with a hands-on, 100% commitment to understanding the automotive industry, and making those decisions correctly.”

Ever since he joined Tesla in 2004, Elon Musk’s position has been unassailable. There is no obvious sign at the moment of that changing. He remains the company’s largest single shareholder, with a 13% stake – currently worth more than $95bn.

That is more or less matched by the combined holdings of investment giants Vanguard and Blackrock, while a number of other financial institutions including State Street Bank and Morgan Stanley hold smaller stakes.

For those investors, the recent falls in the share price will have made grim reading. But it is still almost 30% higher than it was a year ago. In fact, the recent decline has simply wiped out the effects of a dramatic surge that occurred immediately after the election, which almost doubled Tesla’s market valuation.

Today, Tesla is still valued at more than 100 times its earnings – a far higher margin than automotive rivals such as Ford, General Motors or Toyota, which suggests shareholders are continuing to pin their hopes on technological breakthroughs and rapid growth.

“Tesla is being valued as a company that is either going to dominate electric vehicles – which is clearly not going to happen, given the strength of the Chinese manufacturers – or that is going to dominate robotaxis and autonomous vehicles,” says Mr Nagley.

None of the major investors appears to be agitating for change at the moment – although in media interviews this week, one long-term shareholder-turned-vocal critic, the investment fund manager Ross Gerber, did call for Mr Musk to step down.

But analysts say the business would benefit from new blood at the top. “A new CEO for Tesla would without question be the best thing for the company right now,” says Matthias Schmidt of Schmidt Automotive Research.

“It would address the toxic contagion from Musk, offer a solution for the conflict of interest regarding his DOGE position, and allow a dedicated CEO to focus entirely on the job in hand.”

“I think that’s the clear direction of travel at the moment.” says Prof Wells. “I think they need somebody with strong automotive experience. Someone who knows how to rationalise the business.

“It needs a significant change of direction now.”

In a poor neighbourhood of the Venezuelan city of Maracay, the mother of 24-year-old Francisco José García Casique was waiting for him on Saturday.

It had been 18 months since he had migrated to the US to begin a new life but he had told her that he was now being deported back to Caracas, Venezuela’s capital, for being in the US illegally. They had spoken that morning, just before he was due to depart.

“I thought it was a good sign that he was being deported [to Caracas],” Myrelis Casique López recalled. She wanted him home.

But he never arrived. And while watching a television news report on Sunday, Ms Casique was shocked to see her son, not in the US or Venezuela but 1,430 miles (2,300km) away in El Salvador.

The footage showed 238 Venezuelans sent by US authorities to the Terrorism Confinement Centre, or Cecot, a notorious mega-jail. She saw men with shaved heads and shackles on their hands and feet, being forcefully escorted by heavily-armed security forces.

The Trump administration says all of the deportees are members of the Tren de Aragua gang, which has found itself in the White House’s crosshairs. The powerful multi-national crime group, which Trump recently declared a foreign terrorist organisation, has been accused of sex trafficking, drug smuggling and murders both at home and in major US cities.

Ms Casique told the BBC she was certain her son was among the detainees, even if no official list of names has been released.

“It’s him. It’s him,” she said, gesturing at a picture in which a man is seated, with his head bowed, on a prison floor alongside a row of others, a tattoo visible on his arm. “I recognize his features.”

She also maintains that he is innocent.

US immigration officials have said the detainees were “carefully vetted” and verified as gang members before being flown to El Salvador. They said they used evidence collected during surveillance, police encounters or testimonies from victims to vet them.

“Our job is to send the terrorists out before anyone else gets raped or murdered,” Deputy White House Chief of Staff Stephen Miller said on Wednesday.

Many of the deportees do not have US criminal records, however, a US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) official acknowledged in court documents. And they were deported under a law last invoked during wartime that doesn’t require them to be charged with a crime.

Those who do have criminal records include migrants with arrests on charges ranging from murder, fentanyl trafficking and kidnapping to home invasion and operating a gang-run brothel, according to the Trump administration.

In Mr García’s case, his mother disputes that her son was involved in criminal activity. He left Venezuela in 2019, first to Peru, seeking new opportunities as overlapping economic, political and social crises engulfed the country, she said. He crossed illegally into the US in September 2023.

His mother has not seen him in person in six years.

“He doesn’t belong to any criminal gang, either in the US or in Venezuela… he’s not a criminal,” Ms Casique said. “What he’s been is a barber.”

“Unfortunately, he has tattoos,” she added, convinced that the roses and names of family members that adorn his body led to his detention and deportation. That is how she, and other family members, recognised him from pictures released of the deportees in El Salvador.

Several other families have said they believe that deportees were mistakenly identified as Tren de Aragua gang members because of their tattoos.

“It’s him,” Ms Casique said tearfully in Maracay, referencing the image from the prison. “I wish it wasn’t him… he didn’t deserve to be transferred there.”

The mother of Mervin Yamarte, 29, also identified her son in the video.

“I threw myself on the floor, saying that God couldn’t do this to my son,” she told the BBC from her home in the Los Pescadores neighbourhood of Maracaibo, Venezuela.

Like Ms Casique, she denies her son was involved with the brutal gang. He had left his hometown and travelled to the US through the Darién Gap, crossing illegally in 2023 with three of his friends: Edwar Herrera, 23; Andy Javier Perozo, 30; and Ringo Rincón, 39.

The BBC spoke with their families and friends, who said they had spotted the four men in the footage from the El Salvador jail.

Mr Yamarte’s mother said her son had worked in a tortilla factory, sometimes working 12-hour shifts. On Sundays, he played football with his friends, who all shared a home in Dallas, Texas.

“He’s a good, noble young man. There’s a mistake,” she said.

President Trump invoked a centuries-old law, the 1798 Alien Enemies Act, to deport the men without due process in the US, saying they were Tren de Aragua gang members.

Despite the US government’s assurances that the deportees were carefully vetted, the move has had a chilling effect on many Venezuelans and Venezuelan-Americans in the US, who fear that Trump’s use of the law could lead to more Venezuelans being accused and swiftly deported without any charges or convictions.

“Of course we’re afraid. We’re terrified,” said Adelys Ferro, the executive-director of the Venezuelan-American Caucus, an advocacy group. “We want every single member of TdA to pay for their crimes. But we don’t know what the criteria is.”

“They [Venezeulans] are living in uncertain times,” she said. “They don’t know what decisions to make – even people with documents and have been here for years.”

Ms Ferro’s concerns were echoed by Brian de la Vega, a prominent Florida-based, Venezuela-born immigration lawyer and military veteran.

Many of his clients are in the Miami area, including Doral – a suburb sometimes given the moniker “Doralzuela” for its large Venezuelan population.

“The majority of Venezuelans in the US are trying to do the right thing. They fear going back to their home country,” Mr de la Vega told the BBC. “The main concern, for me, is how they’re identifying these members. The standard is very low.”

Many Venezuelan expatriates in the US – particularly South Florida – have been broadly supportive of Trump, who has taken a tough stance on the left-wing government of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro which many of them fled.

But in February, the Trump administration terminated Temporary Protected Status – TPS – for Venezuelans, which had shielded many from deportation. The programme officially ends on 7 April and could impact nearly 350,000 Venezuelan nationals living in the US.

“Trump’s speeches have always been strong about the Venezuelan regime, especially during the campaign,” Mr de la Vega said. “I don’t think people expected all this.”

Daniel Campo, a Venezuelan-born naturalised US citizen in Pennsylvania – and ardent Trump supporter – told the BBC that while he remains steadfast in his support of the president, he has some concerns about the deportations to El Salvador and the end of TPS.

“I certainly hope that when they are doing raids to deport Tren de Aragua, especially to the prison in El Salvador, they are being extra careful,” he said.

Among those caught by surprise by the end of TPS and the recent deportations is a 25-year-old Venezuelan man who asked to be identified only as Yilber, who arrived in the US in 2022 after a long, dangerous journey through Central America and Mexico.

He’s now in the US – but unsure about what comes next.

“I left Venezuela because of the repression, and the insecurity. My neighbourhood in Caracas had gangs,” he said. “Now I don’t know what’s going to happen here.”

India has usually turned to economic reforms in times of distress, with the most famous example being 1991, when the country embraced liberalisation in the face of a deep financial crisis.

Now, with US President Donald Trump’s tit-for-tat tariff wars and the global trade upheaval that has followed, many believe that India finds itself at another crossroad.

Could this be a major opportunity for the world’s fifth largest economy to shed its protectionism and further open up its economy? Will India seize the moment, just as it did more than three decades ago, or will it retreat further?

Trump has repeatedly branded India a “tariff king” and a “big abuser” of trade ties. The problem is that India’s trade-weighted import duties – the average duty rate per imported product – are among the highest in the world. The US average tariff is 2.2%, China’s is 3% and Japan’s is 1.7%. India’s stands at a whopping 12%, according to data from the World Trade Organization.

High tariffs increase costs for companies dependent on global value chains, hindering their ability to compete in international markets. They also mean that Indians pay more on imported goods than foreign consumers. Despite growing exports – primarily driven by services – India runs a significant trade deficit. However, with India’s share of global exports at a mere 1.5%, the challenge becomes even more urgent.

The jury is out on whether Trump’s tariff war will help India break free or double down on protectionism. Narendra Modi’s government, often criticised for its protectionist stance, seems to have shifted gears in recent years.

Last month, ahead of Prime Minister Modi’s meeting with Trump in Washington, India unilaterally lowered tariffs on Bourbon whiskey, motorcycles and some other US products.

Commerce Minister Piyush Goyal has made two trips to the US to discuss a potential trade deal, following Trump’s threatened retaliatory tariffs, looming on 2 April. (Citi Research analysts estimate India could lose up to $7bn annually from reciprocal tariffs, primarily affecting sectors like metals, chemicals and jewellery, with pharmaceuticals, automobiles and food products also at risk.)

Last week, Goyal urged Indian exporters to “come out of their protectionist mindset and encouraged them to be bold and ready to deal with the world from a position of strength and self-confidence”, according to a statement from his ministry.

India is also actively pursuing free trade deals with several countries, including the UK and New Zealand, and the European Union.

In an interesting turn of events, homegrown telecoms giants Reliance Jio and Bharti Airtel have teamed up with Trump ally Elon Musk’s SpaceX to launch satellite internet services via Starlink in India. The move surprised analysts, especially after Musk’s recent clashes with both companies, and came as US and Indian officials negotiate the trade deal.

India’s rapid growth from the late 1990s to the 2000s – 8.1% between 2004-2009 and 7.46% from 2009-2014 – was in large part driven by its gradual integration into global markets, particularly in pharmaceuticals, software, autos, textiles and garments, alongside a steady reduction in tariffs. Since then, India has turned inwards.

Many economists believe that protectionist policies over the past decade have undermined Modi’s Make in India initiative, which prioritised capital- and technology-intensive sectors over labour-intensive ones like textiles. As a result, it has struggled to boost manufacturing and exports.

High tariffs have also fostered protectionism in several Indian industries, discouraging investments in efficiency, according to Viral Acharya, a professor of economics at New York University Stern School of Business.

This has allowed “cosy incumbents” to gain market power by consolidating their positions without facing much competition. As Mr Acharya, a former central banker, noted in a paper by Brookings Institution, restoring industrial balance in India requires “reducing tariffs to increase the country’s share of global goods trade and reduce protectionism”.

With India’s tariffs already higher than those of most countries, further increases could be especially damaging.

“We need to boost exports and a tit-for-tat tariff war won’t help us. China can afford this strategy due to its massive export base, but we can’t, as we hold only a small share of the global market, Rajeshwari Sengupta, an associate professor of economics at Mumbai-based Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research, said. A trade conflict could hurt us more than others,” she added.

In light of this, India finds itself at a crossroad. As the world undergoes a major shift, India has a “unique opportunity to shape a new vision” for global trade, says Aseema Sinha, a trade expert at Claremont McKenna College.

By lowering protectionist barriers in South Asia and strengthening ties with Southeast Asia and the Middle East, India has the chance to lead in shaping a new trade vision, positioning itself as a key player in a “re-globalised” world, Ms Sinha, author of Globalising India, says.

“By reducing tariffs, India could become the regional and cross-regional magnet for trade and economic activity, drawing in varied powers in its orbit,” she adds.

That could help India create the jobs it desperately needs at home. Agriculture, which makes up 15% of its GDP, accounts for a whopping 40% of employment, reflecting extremely low productivity. Construction remains the second-largest employer, absorbing casual daily workers.

India’s challenge isn’t in expanding its thriving service sector, which already makes up nearly half of total exports, but in dealing with the large pool of unskilled workers who lack the basic skills needed for service jobs.

“While high-end services are thriving, the majority of the workforce remains uneducated and underemployed, often relegated to construction or informal jobs. To provide meaningful employment to millions entering the workforce each year, India must ramp up its manufacturing exports, as relying solely on services won’t address the needs of the unskilled labour force,” says Ms Sengupta.

One concern is that reducing tariffs could lead to dumping, where foreign companies flood the market with cheap goods, potentially harming domestic industries.

According to Ms Sengupta, India’s ideal approach to trade would involve a “universal reduction” in import tariffs, as it currently has some of the highest tariffs among its trading partners.

However, there is a caveat: China’s trade struggles, particularly with the US due to the ongoing trade war, could lead to Chinese dumping in India in the “short run”.

“To protect against this, India can use non-tariff barriers against China but only against this one country and only in cases of proven dumping. Barring that, it is in India’s interest to do a wholesale slashing of tariffs,” she says.

There’s also a growing concern that India may be overcompensating in its efforts to flatter the US.

Ajay Srivastava, founder of the Global Trade Research Initiative (GTRI), believes that India’s tendency to soften trade policies “based on rhetoric rather than economic pressure” shows a lack of assertiveness in global trade talks.

If this trend continues, he says, India may end up making even more compromises in its trade deal with the US, further “eroding its bargaining power”.

“In comparison to other major economies, India’s pre-emptive surrender on multiple trade fronts – without the US imposing a single country-specific tariff – makes it appear exceptionally vulnerable to pressure tactics.”

The broader consensus seems to be that India should capitalise on what could be the unintended consequences of Trump’s tariff wars. Pranjul Bhandari, chief India economist at HSBC, believes that “potential US tariffs may have become a catalyst for reforms.“.

“If supply chains are rejigged again during the second Trump presidency due to higher tariffs on large exporters, and the world looks for new producers, India may get a second chance,” she writes.

Creating jobs that manufacture goods for the world won’t be easy. India has largely missed the bus on low-end, unskilled factory work – jobs China dominated for decades. Automation is taking over. Without deeper reforms, India risks being left behind.

Spending time in space and having an unrivalled view of planet Earth is an experience many of us dream of.

However, the human body evolved to function in the gravity of Earth. So time in the weightlessness of space can take years to fully recover from.

Astronauts Suni Williams and Butch Wilmore are back on Earth after their eight-day mission aboard the International Space Station (ISS) unexpectedly became a nine-month enforced stay. Now, their recovery begins.

“Space is by far the most extreme environment that humans have ever encountered and we’ve just not evolved to handle the extreme conditions,” Prof Damian Bailey, who studies human physiology, at the University of South Wales, says.

Entering space changes the human body – and initially that feels awesome.

“It feels like a holiday,” astronaut Tim Peake, who went to the ISS in 2015, says.

“Your heart is having an easy time.

“Your muscles and bones are having an easy time.

“You’re floating around the space station in this wonderful zero-gravity environment.”

Imagine spending weeks lounging around in bed and never having to get up – this is actually one technique scientists use to investigate the impact of zero gravity – and you start to get the picture.

But when it comes to muscle, it is a case of use it or lose it.

Even the simple act of standing still uses muscles throughout the body to hold you upright.

And that is not happening in the microgravity on board the ISS.

Muscle strength takes on a different meaning when everything is practically weightless.

The heart and your blood vessels also have an easier time as they no longer have to pump blood against gravity – and they start to weaken.

And the bones become weaker and more brittle.

There should be a balance between the cells breaking down old bone and those making new.

But that balance is disrupted without the feedback and resistance of working against gravity.

“Every month, about 1% of their bone and muscles are going to wither away – it’s accelerated ageing,” Prof Bailey says.

And this becomes apparent on the return to Earth.

The video below shows the astronauts needing support to get their bodies out of the capsule and on to a stretcher.

All of this is why astronauts go up to space in tip-top physical condition.

Then, their daily routine involves two hours of exercise – a combination of treadmill, cycling machine and weights – to maintain as much muscle and bone health as possible.

And now, Suni and Butch will start an intense exercise training programme to regain their lost function.

“It will probably take them a few months to build up their muscle mass,” Dr Helen Sharman, who was the first Briton in space, says.

Bone mass could take a “couple of years” until it recovers – but even then, there are “subtle changes in the type of bone that we do rebuild after returning to Earth that may never return to completely normal”.

But that is just muscle and bone – space changes the whole body.

Even the types of good bacteria living in us – the microbiome – are altered.

The fluids in the body also shift in microgravity.

Instead of being pulled down towards the legs as on Earth, fluid drifts up towards the chest and face.

A puffy face is one of the first noticeable changes in the body.

But this can also lead to swelling in the brain and changes in the eye, including to the optic nerve, retina and even the shape of the eye.

And this “spaceflight-associated neuro-ocular syndrome” can lead to blurred vision and potentially irreversible damage.

Microgravity also distorts the vestibular system, which is how you balance and sense which way is up.

In space, there is no up, down or sideways.

It can be disorientating when you go up – and again when you return to Earth.

Tim Peake says: “That initial phase of stopping feeling dizzy, of regaining your balance and having strength to walk around normally, that’s just two or three days.

“Those first two or three days back on Earth can be really punishing.”

After nine months in space, Nasa astronauts Butch Wilmore and Suni Williams have finally arrived back on Earth.

Their SpaceX capsule made a fast and fiery re-entry through the Earth’s atmosphere, before four parachutes opened to take them to a gentle splashdown off the coast of Florida.

A pod of dolphins circled the craft.

After a recovery ship lifted it out of the water, the astronauts beamed and waved as they were helped out of the hatch, along with fellow crew members astronaut Nick Hague and cosmonaut Aleksandr Gorbunov.

“The crew’s doing great,” Steve Stich, manager, Nasa’s Commercial Crew Program, said at a news conference.

It brings to an end a mission that was supposed to last for just eight days.

It was dramatically extended after the spacecraft Butch and Suni had used to travel to the International Space Station suffered technical problems.

“It is awesome to have crew 9 home, just a beautiful landing,” said Joel Montalbano, deputy associate administrator, Nasa’s Space Operations Mission Directorate.

Thanking the astronauts for their resilience and flexibility, he said SpaceX had been a “great partner”.

The journey home took 17 hours.

The astronauts were helped on to a stretcher, which is standard practice after spending so long in the weightless environment.

They will be checked over by a medical team, and then reunited with their families.

“The big thing will be seeing friends and family and the people who they were expecting to spend Christmas with,” said Helen Sharman, Britain’s first astronaut.

“All of those family celebrations, the birthdays and the other events that they thought they were going to be part of – now, suddenly they can perhaps catch up on a bit of lost time.”

The saga of Butch and Suni began in June 2024.

They were taking part in the first crewed test flight of the Starliner spacecraft, developed by aerospace company Boeing.

But the capsule suffered several technical problems during its journey to the space station, and it was deemed too risky to take the astronauts home.

Starliner returned safely to Earth empty in early September, but it meant the pair needed a new ride for their return.

So Nasa opted for the next scheduled flight: a SpaceX capsule that arrived at the ISS in late September.

It flew with two astronauts instead of four, leaving two seats spare for Butch and Suni’s return.

The only catch was this had a planned six-month mission, extending the astronauts stay until now.

The Nasa pair embraced their longer-than-expected stay in space.

They carried out an array of experiments on board the orbiting lab and conducted spacewalks, with Suni breaking the record for the woman who spent the most hours outside of the space station. And at Christmas, the team dressed in Santa hats and reindeer antlers – sending a festive message for a Christmas that they had originally planned to spend at home.

And despite the astronauts being described as “stranded” they never really were.

Throughout their mission there have always been spacecraft attached to the space station to get them – and the rest of those onboard – home if there was an emergency.

Now the astronauts have arrived home, they will soon be taken to the Johnson Space Centre in Houston, Texas, where they will be checked over by medical experts.

Long-duration missions in space take a toll on the body, astronauts lose bone density and suffer muscle loss. Blood circulation is also affected, and fluid shifts can also impact eyesight.

It can take a long time for the body to return to normal, so the pair will be given an extensive exercise regime as their bodies re-adapt to living with gravity.

British astronaut Tim Peake said it could take a while to re-adjust.

“Your body feels great, it feels like a holiday,” he told the BBC.

“Your heart is having an easy time, your muscles and bones are having an easy time. You’re floating around the space station in this wonderful zero gravity environment.

“But you must keep up the exercise regime. Because you’re staying fit in space, not for space itself, but for when you return back to the punishing gravity environment of Earth. Those first two or three days back on Earth can be really punishing.”

In interviews while onboard, Butch and Suni have said they were well prepared for their longer than expected stay – but there were things they were looking forward to when they got home.

Speaking to CBS last month, Suni Williams said: “I’m looking forward to seeing my family, my dogs and jumping in the ocean. That will be really nice – to be back on Earth and feel Earth.”

Protests have erupted in Turkey after authorities detained the mayor of Istanbul, just days before he was due to be selected as a presidential candidate.

Ekrem Imamoglu, from the secular Republican People’s Party (CHP), is seen as one of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s strongest political rivals.

Prosecutors accused him of corruption and aiding a terrorist group, calling him a “criminal organisation leader suspect”.

Police detained 100 people – including other politicians, journalists and businessmen – as part of the investigation, and the Istanbul governor’s office has imposed four days of restrictions in the city.

Imamoglu said online “the will of the people cannot be silenced”.

Protesters have taken to the streets and university campuses, and in underground stations, with crowds chanting anti-government slogans. It is a display of public anger not seen in years.

There were reports of clashes between protesters and police in Turkey’s largest city. Footage from Reuters news agency shows police using pepper spray to disperse crowds outside Istanbul University.

Thousands of people rallied in the cold in front of the city hall, shouting: “Erdogan, dictator!” and “Imamoglu, you are not alone!”

The government has banned public gatherings in Istanbul as part of the four days of restrictions. But more protests are anticipated nationwide as opposition leaders, including Imamoglu’s wife, urge people to “raise their voices”.

Many streets in Istanbul have also been closed to traffic, while some metro lines have also cancelled their services.

In a social media video Imamoglu said he filmed while police were outside his home, he vowed to “stand resolute” for the people of Turkey “and all who uphold democracy and justice worldwide”.

And in a handwritten note posted on his X account after his arrest, he said the people of Turkey would respond to “the lies, the conspiracies and the traps” against him.

UK-based internet watchdog Netblocks said on Wednesday Turkey had severely restricted access to social media sites like X, YouTube, Instagram and TikTok.

The arrest comes as part of a major crackdown nationwide in recent months, targeting opposition politicians, municipalities, journalists and figures in the entertainment industry.

Following the Istanbul mayor’s arrest, concerns over Turkey’s shift toward autocracy were expressed on social media, with some calling for an opposition boycott of the upcoming presidential elections, arguing that a fair and democratic vote is no longer possible.

Imamoglu’s party, the CHP, even condemned the arrests as “a coup against our next president”, a sentiment widely echoed by pro-opposition voices.

But Turkey’s justice minister criticised those who linked Erdogan to the arrests.

Yilmaz Tunc said it was “extremely dangerous and wrong” to suggest this was a political move, insisting that nobody was above the law in Turkey.

Erdogan and his party have also denied the claims, insisting that Turkey’s judiciary is independent. He has been in power for 22 years.

Last year, Imamoglu won a second term as Istanbul’s mayor, when his CHP party swept local elections there and in Ankara.

It was the first time since Erdogan came to power that his party was defeated across the country at the ballot box.

The elections were also a personal blow to the president, who grew up in and became mayor of Istanbul on his rise to power.

Dozens of police officers were involved in the early-morning raid on Imamoglu’s house in Istanbul.

The CHP’s presidential candidate selection, in which Imamoglu is the only person running, is set to take place on Sunday.

Imamoglu’s arrest came a day after Istanbul University annulled his degree due to alleged irregularities – a decision which, if upheld, would prevent him from running in presidential elections.

According to the Turkish constitution, presidents must have completed higher education to hold office.

Imamoglu called that move “legally baseless”, adding that universities “must remain independent, free from political interference and dedicated to knowledge”.

Presidential elections are currently scheduled for 2028. Erdogan cannot currently run for office again, as he is in his second term and previously served as prime minister before that.

The only way Erdogan could contest another election would be to change the constitution, or call an early election before his term ends.

As well as being accused of extortion and fraud, Imamoglu is also alleged to have aided the PKK.

The PKK – or Kurdistan Workers’ Party – has waged an insurgency since 1984, and is proscribed as a terrorist group in Turkey, the EU, UK and US.

Earlier this month the group announced its decision to lay down arms, following a call from its imprisoned leader, who had engaged in talks with Turkish officials.

International reaction to the arrest has been negative, with EU, French and German officials all condemning the arrests.

A Council of Europe statement said the detention of Imamoglu “bears all the hallmarks of the pressure on a political figure considered as one of the main candidates in forthcoming presidential elections.”

The Turkish lira, meanwhile, briefly crashed to an all-time low against the US dollar, as markets reacted poorly to the political uncertainty.

While many were shocked to wake up to the news of Imamoglu’s arrest, legal pressure on the popular opposition leader is far from new.

He has faced multiple investigations and was handed a political ban in December 2022 over allegations of insulting Turkey’s electoral board in 2019 – a verdict he appealed, with the final ruling still pending.

Additionally, he has been the subject of cases related to alleged tender irregularities during his tenure as mayor of Istanbul’s Beylikduzu district.

More recently, on 20 January, a new case was filed against him over his criticism of a prosecutor.

Gwyneth Paltrow has said she told an on-set intimacy co-ordinator to “step a little bit back” when filming sex scenes with Timothée Chalamet, because she would feel “very stifled” by someone telling them what to do.

Chalamet, 29, stars in new movie Marty Supreme as a ping pong protégé, while Paltrow, 52, plays the wife of a rival professional who falls into bed with him.

“I mean, we have a lot of sex in this movie,” Paltrow told Vanity Fair. “There’s a lot – .”

However, she said she had been unaware of the increasingly common use in Hollywood of specialists to oversee such scenes. “There’s now something called an intimacy co-ordinator, which I did not know existed.”

Intimacy co-ordinators became fixtures on productions in order to make actors feel safe in the wake of the Me Too movement, which exposed abuse in the industry.

Actress-turned-wellness guru Paltrow, whose last starring film role came 10 years ago, recalled how the Marty Supreme co-ordinator asked if she would be comfortable with a certain move during one intimate scene.

“I was like, ‘Girl, I’m from the era where you get naked, you get in bed, the camera’s on’,” she said.

“We said, ‘I think we’re good. You can step a little bit back’.”

Paltrow continued: “I don’t know how it is for kids who are starting out, but… if someone is like, ‘OK, and then he’s going to put his hand here,’ I would feel, as an artist, very stifled by that.”

In 2022, Dame Emma Thompson defended the use of intimacy co-ordinators on film and TV sets, calling them “fantastically important”, after fellow actor Sean Bean said they “spoil the spontaneity” of sex scenes.

Paltrow joked that the age difference between her and Chalamet only really dawned on her when they were filming the sex scenes.

“OK, great,” she recalled thinking. “I’m 109 years old. You’re 14.”

She described her co-star, who was recently nominated for an Oscar for Bob Dylan biopic A Complete Unknown, as “a thinking man’s sex symbol”.

“He’s just a very polite, properly raised, I was going to say kid… he’s a man who takes his work really seriously and is a fun partner.”

Paltrow won an Oscar in 1999 for the Harvey Weinstein-produced Shakespeare in Love, and was later among the first high-profile people to accuse Weinstein of sexual harassment.

She has played Pepper Potts in several Marvel movies in recent years and appeared in the Netflix series The Politician, but said she considers Marty Supreme to be her first serious film role since 2010’s Country Strong.

The Malaysian cabinet has approved a fresh search for the wreckage of Malaysia Airlines flight MH370, more than a decade after the aircraft vanished.

The search will cover a 15,000 sq km area in the southern Indian Ocean, under a “no find, no fee” agreement with the exploration firm Ocean Infinity.

The company will receive $70m (£56m) if the wreckage is found, transport minister Loke Siew Fook announced.

Flight MH370 disappeared in 2014 with 239 people on board while travelling from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing. Its disappearance is one of the world’s greatest aviation mysteries, which continues to haunt the families of the passengers.

Despite extensive searches in the years since it vanished, no wreckage has been found. Previous efforts, including a multinational search that cost $150m (£120m), ended in 2017.

The governments of the three nations involved – Malaysia, Australia and China – said the search would only be resumed “should credible new evidence emerge” of the aircraft’s location.

A 2018 search for the wreckage by Ocean Infinity under similar terms ended unsuccessfully after three months.

In December, Malaysia’s government agreed in principle to resume the search. However, the final negotiations were not completed until March.

Malaysia’s final approval on Wednesday will now allow the search to begin.

Loke said in a statement: “The government is committed to continuing the search operation and providing closure for the families of the MH370 passengers.”

Flight MH370 took off from Kuala Lumpur in the early hours of 8 March 2014. Less than an hour after takeoff, it lost communication with air traffic control, and radar showed that it had deviated from its planned flight path.

Investigators generally agree that the plane crashed somewhere in the southern Indian Ocean, though the reason for the crash remains unclear.

Pieces of debris, believed to be from the plane, have washed up on the shores of the Indian Ocean in the years following its disappearance.

The aircraft’s disappearance has given rise to a host of conspiracy theories, including speculation that the pilot had deliberately brought the plane down and claims that it had been shot down by a foreign military.

An investigation in 2018 into the aircraft’s disappearance found that the plane’s controls were likely deliberately manipulated to take it off course, but drew no conclusions behind it.

Investigators said at the time that “the answer can only be conclusive if the wreckage is found”.

The passengers included people from more than a dozen countries: just under two-thirds were Chinese nationals, followed by 38 Malaysians, with others from Australia, Indonesia, India, France, Ukraine, the US and several other nations.

Family members of missing Chinese MH370 passengers met with officials in Beijing earlier in March to discuss the renewed search for the wreckage and express their hopes for an independent search. Some relatives voiced their frustration over a lack of direct communication from the Malaysian authorities.

“It was promised that we would be informed immediately [but] we can only find out about this kind of news online,” said Li Eryou, a 68-year-old father who lost his 29-year-old son.

“Many families don’t even know how to access this information, so they are completely unaware,” he told AFP.

Grieving families gathered outside the Malaysian embassy in Beijing on the eleventh anniversary of the flight’s disappearance earlier this month, chanting: “Give us back our loved ones!”

Cheng Liping, whose husband had been in Malaysia for a film shoot and had been returning to China on MH370, said she hoped Beijing would communicate more with Malaysia to uncover the truth.

“Everyone has been left trapped in pain,” she told reporters. “What exactly happened is still unknown.”

The fresh search prompted mixed reactions from the families of passengers when it was announced in December – with some calling it a step towards closure, while others describing the news as bittersweet.