Donald Trump announced sweeping tariffs on some of its largest trading partners on Wednesday, upending decades of US trade policy and threatening to unleash a global trade war on what he has called “liberation day”.

Trump said he will impose a 10% universal tariff on all imported foreign goods in addition to “reciprocal tariffs” on a few dozen countries, charging additional duties onto countries that Trump claims have “cheated” America.

The 10% universal tariff will go into effect on 5 April while the reciprocal tariffs will begin on 9 April.

“This is one of the most important days, in my opinion, in American history,” Trump said in a long-winded speech on the White House lawn. For decades America had been “looted, pillaged and raped” by its trading partners, he said. “In many cases, the friend is worse than the foe.”

Over the past few months, Trump has rattled global stock markets, alarmed corporate executives and economists, and triggered heated rows with the US’s largest trading partners by announcing and delaying plans to impose tariffs on foreign imports several times since taking office.

But for the start of what appears to be a dramatic shift in American trade policy, one that could cause ricochets in the global economy, Trump tried to sell the tariffs with a celebratory tone.

Nine giant US flags flanked Trump on stage in the Rose Garden, as the president spoke in front of his cabinet and a crowd of union workers wearing hard hats and fluorescent construction worker vests. Before Trump came on stage, a marine band played celebratory music to excite the crowd.

At one point, Trump paused his speech to throw a Maga hat into the crowd. In the next breath, he announced the 10% universal baseline tariff.

In the middle of his hour-long speech, the president displayed a chart that showed the “unfair” fees that countries placed on the US, alongside the new “USA Discounted Reciprocal Tariffs”. China charged the US 67% in “unfair” fees, and said the US would now levy a 34% fee. The EU charges 39% on imports, according to the White House, and will now be levied at 20%. Trump said the UK would be charged 10% – the baseline tariff – equal to the Trump administration’s calculations of the UK’s fees on US imports.

Special exceptions were made for Canada and Mexico, though the countries were previously targets of proposed broad tariffs. The White House said that goods covered by an existing trade deal with Canada and Mexico will continue to see no tariffs.

Trump said the tariff calculations also include “currency manipulation and trade barriers”, though the White House has not elaborated on how it calculated the new tariffs.

It appears Trump has zeroed in on the industry-specific tariffs the countries have placed on American exports. In his speech, Trump criticized policies like the EU’s ban on imported chicken, Canadian tariffs on dairy and Japan’s levies on rice.

Trump said the US would charge half of the fees he feels trading partners unfairly impose on the US because the US people are “very kind”. The countries have “placed massive tariffs on [US] products and created non-monetary tariffs to decimate our industries”, Trump said, calling them “common sense reciprocal tariffs”.

“Reciprocal: that means they do it to us and we do it to them. Very simple, can’t get any more simple than that,” he said. “This indeed will be the golden age of America,” he said.

Trump was ultimately following through with a promise he made during the election: on the campaign trail, Trump floated the idea of a 10% universal tariff on all imported goods.

The new tariffs come on top of a lineup of levies that Trump has already implemented: an additional 20% tariff on all Chinese imports and a 25% tariff on all steel and aluminum imports. There is also a 10% tariff on energy imports from Canada.

Trump also announced in March a 25% tariff on all imported vehicles and, eventually, imported auto parts, which will start going into effect on Thursday.

“These tariffs are going to give us growth like you’ve never seen before, and it’ll be something very special to watch,” Trump said.

Trump has made clear the goals he wants to accomplish through his tariffs: bring manufacturing back to the US; respond to unfair trade policies from other countries; increase tax revenue; and incentivize crackdowns on migration and drug trafficking. But the implementation of his tariffs has so far been haphazard, with multiple rollbacks and delays, and vague promises that have yet to come to fruition.

But the threats have soured US relations with its largest trading partners. Canada’s prime minister, Mark Carney, has called them “unjustified” and pledged to retaliate. The European Union has said it has a “strong plan” to retaliate. Other retaliatory tariffs could eventually lead to higher prices that would hurt American exporters.

The US stock market closed slightly up on Wednesday, ahead of Trump’s announcement, with a slight boost from news that Elon Musk may step away from his role in the White House soon to focus on his businesses.

Even with the slight upswing, two of the three major stock exchanges saw their worst quarter in more than two years after Monday marked the end of the first quarter.

In March, consumer confidence plunged to its lowest level in over four years. Polls have shown that tariffs are unpopular with Americans, including Republicans. Only 28% of people in a poll from Marquette Law School released Wednesday said that tariffs help the economy.

The uncertainty around Trump’s tariff policies have increased the likelihood of a recession, according to recent forecasts from economists at Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan and other banks.

Donald Trump is finally making good on his campaign promises to “build that wall” – but instead of steel fencing along the Mexican border, it will be constructed from tariffs, and will enclose the entire United States.

In his pugnacious and typically rambling speech on the White House lawn on Wednesday, Trump set out plans for across-the-board import taxes, ranging from 10% to more than 40%.

The president promised “liberation”, yet the immediate impact is more likely to be rising prices for US shoppers and corrosive uncertainty for firms, exacerbating an economic slowdown that may already be under way.

Outside the wall, countries will be affected according to how dependent their economies are on exports to the US – and how exposed they are to the global trading system. For some, it is likely to be devastating.

The UK will be relieved to be slapped with only the 10% minimum after Keir Starmer’s charm offensive, and the EU may have feared worse than 20%. For some countries Trump outlined much higher rates: 46% for Vietnam, 49% for Cambodia and 29% for Pakistan, for example.

The precise effects of sweeping tariffs on this historic scale are hard to predict. One factor is how rival economies will respond: retaliatory tariffs tend to make a bad situation worse, though they may make short-term political sense (see Mark Carney’s poll ratings in Canada).

Another question is whether the dollar may appreciate, somewhat softening the blow for US importers. That may limit the effect on prices, which would otherwise be expected to rise as the cost of importing products and materials increases.

The main challenge in assessing the exact impact of the plans, though, is that Trump’s statement did not mark the end of the period of profound economic uncertainty that began when he arrived in the White House – quite the opposite.

Instead, he has fired the starting gun on a new and inherently unpredictable scramble, in which governments will fire back with their own punitive tariffs – at the same time as negotiating hard to try to secure exemptions.

As in the UK, where ministers hope to secure an “economic agreement”, which appears to involve sweeteners for US big tech and lower tariffs on food imports, these talks are likely to have economic consequences of their own.

And it remains unclear how amenable Trump is likely to be to persuasion.

On the one hand, he appears to enjoy the theatre of using tariffs to exact policy concessions, which he can then portray as a winning deal. Trump-watchers have sometimes argued that a dramatic slide in stock prices might lead the president to pull back from the harshest version of the policy. His press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, insisted on Tuesday that Wall Street “will be just fine” as a result of the tariff package.

But in other moments, Trump has appeared to suggest a bit of market turbulence might be part of the plan. “There is a period of transition, because what we’re doing is very big,” he said in a recent Fox News interview – in which he also declined to rule out a recession.

There is also the small matter of the revenues the administration hopes to raise from tariffs, which it wants to use to fund tax cuts. The White House trade adviser, Peter Navarro, has suggested the levies could raise an extraordinary $600bn (£460bn) a year: hardly consistent with offering carve-outs to every major economy that comes knocking.

Caving in would also undermine another of Trump’s sometimes-contradictory aims: persuading firms to create new manufacturing jobs, inside the shelter of the tariff wall.

As bewildered trade experts repeatedly said in the run-up to what Trump has called “liberation day”, and are likely to continue to say after Trump’s outing in the Rose Garden, guessing what happens next is all but impossible.

All this makes for an alarming level of uncertainty – which consumers and businesses hate. Consumer confidence measures in the US have already been sliding sharply. Alongside weeks of headlines about the ambiguous tariff plans, the tens of thousands of abrupt government job losses made by Elon Musk’s “department of government efficiency” seem unlikely to have helped the mood.

And in boardrooms, baffled executives may be reluctant to press ahead with significant investments – bringing manufacturing back into the US as Trump hopes, for example – when it is unclear how long the tariffs will endure.

Whatever the medium-term prospects of jobs and factories coming “roaring back” to the US, as Trump predicted, for now what some had already dubbed a “Trumpcession” appears significantly more likely to happen, than the “golden age” he has promised.

It was Jeopardy!, or The Price Is Right, come to Washington.

On an unseasonably chilly day in the White House Rose Garden, Donald Trump stood with a giant chart listing which reciprocal tariffs he would impose on China, the European Union, the United Kingdom and other hapless contestants.

The winner?

Trump, of course, the maestro of fake populism, watched by a crowd that included men in hard hats and fluorescent construction worker vests.

The losers?

Everybody else.

Sensing a bad headline, Trump hadn’t wanted his “liberation day” to coincide with April Fools’ Day, so he waited until 2 April to enter his fool’s paradise. It turned out to be liberation for his decades-old grievances about the US getting ripped off as Trump stuck two fingers up at the world.

“For decades, our country has been looted, pillaged, raped and plundered by nations near and far – both friend and foe alike,” the president said against a backdrop of nine giant US flags on the White House colonnade. “Foreign cheaters have ransacked our factories, and foreign scavengers have torn apart our once beautiful American dream.”

He nodded to American steelworkers, car-workers, farmers and craftspeople in the audience. These blue-collar workers have been central to Trump’s political rise. Their industrial towns in the midwest and elsewhere were hollowed out by the trade policies of Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton, which sent thousands of jobs abroad where labour was cheaper.

Trump couldn’t quite bring himself to say that “liberation day” represents a final repudiation of Reagan, still a god in Republican circles. But he did drive a stake through the heart of the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement, or Nafta, describing it as “the worst trade deal ever made”.

In 2016’s great revolt against globalization, the forgotten workers could have voted for the leftwing populism of Bernie Sanders, but he lost the Democratic party nomination to Hillary Clinton.

Instead, enough went for Trump to make him president, believing his promises that he alone could fix it, end American carnage and get the factories throbbing again. As it turned out, he delivered a $1.5tn bill that slashed taxes for corporations and the wealthy.

Many workers duly switched back to the Democrats, with Joe Biden in 2020. He did pour money into manufacturing – for example, with the Chips and Science Act, a bipartisan bill investing $52bn to revitalize the semiconductor industry.

Yet in 2024 the pendulum swung again.

Somehow a Manhattan billionaire with a criminal record again persuaded blue-collar workers that he was on their side. He claimed he could wave tariffs (taxes on foreign imports), which he has described as the most beautiful word in the English language, like a magic wand.

In reality, experts say, it will result in higher prices and slower growth. The Ontario premier Doug Ford called this not liberation day but termination day because of all the jobs that will be lost. Trump playing with tariffs is like a child playing with matches.

As he prepared to sign an executive order imposing reciprocal tariffs on about 60 countries, he mused that it was payback time: “Reciprocal: that means they do it to us and we do it to them. Very simple. Can’t get any simpler than that. This is one of the most important days, in my opinion, in American history. It’s our declaration of economic independence.”

It was a strange message to hear from the leader of the wealthiest, most powerful country in the world as he slapped tariffs on the likes of Ethiopia, Haiti and Lesotho.

“For years, hardworking American citizens were forced to sit on the sidelines as other nations got rich and powerful, much of it at our expense. But now it’s our turn to prosper … Today we’re standing up for the American worker and we are finally putting America first,” he said.

Even then, Trump claimed he was being kind by not going “full reciprocal”. He summoned his commerce secretary, Howard Lutnick, to bring the chart to the podium and, as if it were a gameshow, began running through the scores on the doors:

“China, first row. China, 67%. That’s tariffs charged to the USA, including currency manipulation and trade barriers. So 67%, so we’re going to be charging a discounted reciprocal tariff of 34%. I think in other words, they charge us, we charge them, we charge them less. So how can anybody be upset?

“European Union, they’re very tough – very, very tough traders. You know, you think of the European Union, very friendly. They rip us off. It’s so sad to say, it’s so pathetic. Thirty-nine percent. We’re going to charge them 20%, so we’re charging them essentially half.

“Vietnam: great negotiators, great people, they like me. I like them. The problem is they charge us 90%. We’re going to charge them 46% tariff.”

And so on to Taiwan, Japan (“very, very tough, great people”), Switzerland, Indonesia, Malaysia and Cambodia: “United Kingdom, 10%, and we’ll go 10%, so we’ll do the same thing.”

Once he’d gone through the figures, Trump rambled, as he tends to do, as if at a campaign rally: “The price of eggs dropped now 59%, and they’re going down more, and the availability is fantastic. They were saying that for Easter, please don’t use eggs. Could you use plastic eggs? I said, we don’t want to do that.”

And: “It’s such an old-fashioned term but a beautiful term: groceries. It sort of says a bag with different things in it. Groceries went through the roof and I campaigned on that. I talked about the word ‘groceries’ for a lot, and energy costs now are down. Groceries are down.”

In other words, everything is going great despite Signalgate, despite disappointing election results on Tuesday, despite a falling stock market and sapping consumer confidence. Now, a global trade war, too. The US is about to discover the one thing more dangerous than a politician who believes in nothing is a politician who believes in something stupid.

A forensic doctor who examined the bodies of some of the 15 paramedics and Palestinian rescue workers shot dead by Israeli forces and buried in a mass grave in southern Gaza has said there is evidence of execution-style killing, based on the “specific and intentional” location of shots at close range.

The Palestinian Red Crescent Society, the Palestinian Civil Defense and UN employees were on a humanitarian mission to collect dead and wounded civilians outside the southern city of Rafah on the morning of 23 March when they were killed and then buried in the sand by a bulldozer alongside their flattened vehicles, according to the UN.

Israel has expanded its aerial and ground attacks in Gaza since ending the ceasefire last month. The prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, said on Wednesday it intends to “divide up” the territory.

The killing of the paramedics and rescue workers has triggered outrage around the world and demands for accountability. On Wednesday, the UK foreign secretary, David Lammy, said Gaza was the deadliest place on Earth for humanitarian workers.

“Recent aid worker deaths are a stark reminder. Those responsible must be held accountable,” Lammy said.

Ahmad Dhaher, a forensic consultant who examined five of the dead at Nasser hospital in Khan Younis after they had been exhumed, said all of them had died from bullet wounds. “All cases had been shot with multiple bullets, except for one, which could not be determined due to the body being mutilated by animals like dogs, leaving it almost as just a skeleton,” Dhaher told the Guardian.

“Preliminary analysis suggests they were executed, not from a distant range, since the locations of the bullet wounds were specific and intentional,” he said. “One observation is that the bullets were aimed at one person’s head, another at their heart, and a third person had been shot with six or seven bullets in the torso.”

He emphasised that there was room for uncertainty due to the decomposition of the remains, and that in other cases he reviewed “most of the bullets targeted the joints, such as the shoulder, elbow, ankle, or wrist”.

Two witnesses to the recovery of the bodies told the Guardian on Tuesday that they had seen bodies the hands and legs of which had been tied, suggesting they had been detained before their deaths. A Red Crescent spokesperson, Nebal Farsakh, said on Wednesday that one of the paramedics “had his hands tied together with his legs to his body”.

Dhaher said there was no clear evidence of restraints on the five bodies he examined. “I could not recognise any tying marks on their hands due to the state of decomposition of the five cases I checked, so I can’t be sure of it,” he said.

The Israel Defense Forces and Benjamin Netanyahu’s government have said IDF soldiers opened fire on the ambulances and rescue vehicles because they were “advancing suspiciously toward IDF troops without headlights or emergency signals”. Government officials claimed to have killed a Hamas military operative they named as Mohammad Amin Ibrahim Shubaki, and “eight other terrorists” from Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, in the attack on 23 March.

However, Shubaki was not among the bodies recovered from the mass grave outside Rafah on Saturday and Sunday, eight of which were identified as Red Crescent ambulance workers, six as civil defence rescue workers, and one as an employee of the UN relief agency Unrwa. The IDF has not responded to questions about why the dead were buried with their vehicles or to reports that some showed signs of having been tied up.

The sole survivor from the shootings on 23 March, Munther Abed, a Red Crescent volunteer, contradicted the official Israeli account, saying the ambulances had been observing safety protocols when they were attacked.

“During day and at night, it’s the same: external and internal lights are on. Everything tells you it’s an ambulance that belongs to the Palestinian Red Crescent. All the lights were on until we came under direct fire,” Abed told The World at One on BBC Radio 4. He denied that anyone from a militant group was in the ambulance.

Abed, who was in the first ambulance to come under fire in the early morning of 23 March, said he survived because he threw himself to the floor at the back of the vehicle when the shooting started. The two paramedics in the front seats of the ambulance were killed in the hail of Israeli gunfire. Abed was detained and interrogated by Israeli soldiers before being released.

The other 13 victims were all in a five-vehicle convoy dispatched some hours later to recover the bodies of the two dead ambulance workers. All of them were shot dead and buried in the same grave.

A Guardian investigation published in February found that more than 1,000 medical staff had been killed across Gaza from the beginning of the conflict on 7 October 2023 – triggered by a Hamas attack on southern Israel that killed 1,200 Israelis – until the beginning of a temporary ceasefire in January. Many hospitals have been reduced to ruins in attacks that a UN Human Rights Council commission concluded amounted to war crimes.

Since ending the two-month ceasefire last month, Israel has vowed to step up its military campaign against Hamas. On Wednesday the defence minister, Israel Katz, said that campaign was expanding to “seize extensive territory” in the Gaza Strip. Netanyahu said Israel intended to build a new security corridor as it was “dividing up the Strip”.

Hospital officials in the occupied Palestinian territory said Israeli strikes overnight and on Wednesday had killed at least 40 people, nearly a dozen of them children.

Benjamin Netanyahu has said Israel is “seizing territory” and intends to “divide up” the Gaza Strip by building a new security corridor, amid a major expansion of aerial and ground operations in the besieged Palestinian territory.

“Tonight, we have shifted gears in the Gaza Strip. The [Israeli army] is seizing territory, hitting the terrorists and destroying the infrastructure,” the prime minister said in a video statement on Wednesday evening.

“We are also doing another thing – seizing the ‘Morag route’. This will be the second Philadelphi route, another Philadelphi route,” he said, referring to an Israeli-held corridor along the Egypt-Gaza border.

“Because we are currently dividing up the strip, we are adding pressure step by step, so that our hostages will be given to us,” Netanyahu added.

The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) have seized buffer zones around Gaza’s edges totalling 62 sq km, or 17% of the strip, since the war began in October 2023, according to the Israeli human rights group Gisha.

The Netzarim corridor, named for a defunct Israeli settlement, now cuts off Gaza City from the south of the strip.

Morag was a Jewish settlement that once stood between Rafah and Khan Younis, so the use of the name suggests the new corridor is designed to separate the two southern cities.

The Israeli prime minister’s announcement follows remarks on Wednesday from his defence minister, Israel Katz, who said the Israeli army would “seize large areas” of Gaza, necessitating large-scale civilian evacuations.

Neither Netanyahu nor Katz elaborated on how much Palestinian land Israel intended to capture in the renewed offensive, but the move is likely to complicate ceasefire talks and inflame fears that Israel intends to take permanent control of the strip when the war ends.

Israel’s newly stated intentions to establish another military corridor followed a night of intense airstrikes on Khan Younis and Rafah in southern Gaza, which hospital officials said had killed at least 21 people.

An airstrike on Wednesday afternoon on a Jabaliya health clinic housing displaced people killed at least 19 people, including nine children, according to the civil defence agency.

The IDF said in a statement it had taken precautions to avoid civilian casualties in the bombing of what it said was a Hamas control centre in the Jabaliya refugee camp in the north of the strip. It later said it was aware the target was located in the same building as the clinic.

Unrwa, the UN agency for Palestinian refugees, said in a statement that the strike hit “two rooms on the first floor of an Unrwa destroyed health centre” that had been used as a shelter for 160 displaced families.

“Many displaced families have not left the site, simply because they have absolutely nowhere else to go,” the statement said. The agency had shared the building’s coordinates with the IDF, it added.

In Khan Younis, the bodies of five women, one of them pregnant, two children and three men from the same family were brought to Nasser hospital on Wednesday morning, medics said. The IDF said it was examining the reports of civilian deaths.

Palestinian media reported bombing and shelling along the Egyptian border, at least two airstrikes on Gaza City, and Israeli troop movement in the Rafah area. The IDF said it had deployed an extra division to southern Gaza early on Wednesday.

The Israeli military issued sweeping evacuation orders last week telling people in Rafah and a swath of land stretching northwards towards Khan Younis to move to al-Mawasi, an area on the shore that Israel has designated as a humanitarian zone but has repeatedly bombed.

Israel renewed intensive bombing across Gaza on 18 March, followed by the redeployment of ground troops, abruptly ending the two-month ceasefire and exchanges of Israeli hostages held by Palestinian militant groups and Palestinians in Israeli jails.

According to the terms of the truce, the sides were supposed to negotiate implementing further phases of the deal during the first 42-day stage, but the Israeli government repeatedly postponed the talks.

The latest UN estimate, from 23 March, suggested approximately 140,000 people had been displaced since the end of the ceasefire. More than 90% of the strip’s population of 2.3 million have been forced to flee their homes during the conflict, many of them multiple times.

Hundreds of people have been killed in Israeli airstrikes since it ended the ceasefire. Israel has also cut off humanitarian aid, food and fuel to the strip in an effort to pressure Hamas. The month-long blockade is now the longest in the war to date.

Efforts led by Qatari and Egyptian mediators to resume talks aimed at ending the war have not yet led to a breakthrough. The resumption of fighting in Gaza has also fuelled protests in Israel against the government from supporters of the remaining hostages and their loved ones.

The Hostages and Missing Families Forum, which represents most captives’ relatives, said it was “horrified to wake up this morning to the defence minister’s announcement about expanding military operations in Gaza”.

The group said: “Our highest priority must be an immediate deal to bring ALL hostages back home – the living for rehabilitation and those killed for proper burial – and end this war.”

The 7 October 2023 Hamas attack on southern Israel, in which Israel says 1,200 people, the majority of them civilians, were killed and a further 250 taken captive, was the trigger for the conflict in Gaza, the worst war between Israel and the Palestinians in more than 70 years of fighting.

Israel’s retaliatory military campaign has killed at least 50,357 people, the majority of them civilians, according to the territory’s health ministry.

Elon Musk’s polarizing stint slashing and bashing federal bureaucracy will probably soon end, with the world’s richest person’s government service hitting its legal limit in the coming weeks.

“He’s got a big company to run … at some point he’s going to be going back,” Donald Trump told reporters on Monday.

“I’d keep him as long as I could keep him,” the president added.

As a special government employee, Musk faces a strict 130-day cap on his service – probably expiring in late May if counted from the day of inauguration, despite earlier White House claims Musk was “here to stay”.

Administration insiders told Politico on Wednesday that Musk would indeed be stepping down from his lead role in the weeks to come.

But Musk called the reporting “fake news” and the White House press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, on Wednesday said the Politico story was “garbage”.

“Elon Musk and President Trump have both publicly stated that Elon will depart from public service as a special government employee when his incredible work at Doge is complete,” she said.

The White House did not immediately respond to the Guardian’s request for comment.

While Musk looks for the exit door, his “department of government efficiency” (Doge) is set to continue until 2026 under Trump’s executive order, and high-level leaders installed by Musk to run agencies throughout the government are likely to outlast the billionaire’s tenure in public service.

Doge has operated figuratively – and one time literally – with a “chainsaw” through government agencies since Musk joined Trump’s team as an unvetted, high-level employee in January.

Doge has since triggered large-scale civil service layoffs including about 10,000 people at the Department of Health and Human Services this week alone, while moving to eliminate entire agencies such as humanitarian-focused USAID and the state-backed global media outlet Voice of America.

There have been an estimated 56,000 federal jobs cut since 20 January and another 75,000 accepting voluntary buyouts, with at least another 171,000 planned reductions, according to the New York Times.

The huge cuts have not gone over well, according to a new poll from Marquette Law School, which found that just 41% of the US public approve of Doge’s work, while Musk’s personal likeability was even lower, at 38%.

A mid-March Quinnipiac poll found that over half the country believed Musk and Doge were harming the US.

Doge claims $140bn in savings already – though eagle-eyed reporters have identified significant errors in these calculations. Musk told Fox News he expected to accomplish “most of the work required to reduce the deficit by $1tn” before his time expires.

The billionaire’s involvement has raised significant conflict-of-interest concerns given his companies’ extensive government contracts, though as a special government employee, his financial disclosure forms remain confidential.

The nearly shuttered USAID had initiated an investigation on agency oversight into Starlink terminals sent to Ukraine, the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau was targeted nearly a week after publishing a rule that would put technology companies such as X – which was planning a partnership with Visa – in its crosshairs over regulation, and many other agency attacks.

Democrats have increasingly targeted Musk politically, most recently criticizing his over $20m investment in a Wisconsin supreme court race. The New Jersey senator Cory Booker broke the record for longest speech in Senate floor history after more than 24 hours assailing Trump and Musk.

Democrats were tasting unfamiliar triumphalism on Wednesday after the election for a vacant Wisconsin supreme court seat turned into an emphatic repudiation of Elon Musk, Donald Trump’s richest supporter and key ally.

Musk endured a wave of gloating on Twitter/X, his own social media platform, after Brad Schimel, a Trump-endorsed judge that he spent $25m supporting lost by 10 percentage points to Susan Crawford, whose victory sustained a 4-3 liberal majority on the court.

On a day that Trump has earmarked as “liberation day” to mark his long-awaited roll out of trade tariffs, Democrats seized on the result as a referendum on Musk – who has spearheaded the president’s slashing of federal government workers and spending programmes – while casting it as a platform for a recovery in next year’s congressional midterm elections.

In a display of schadenfreude, the Democrats’ official account posted a picture of Musk donning a cheese head and accompanied with the single word “Loser”.

Crawford, a former attorney for Planned Parenthood, presented her success as a triumph over Musk. “As a little girl, I never could have imagined that I’d be taking on the richest man in the world for justice in Wisconsin. And we won,” she told cheering supporters on Tuesday night.

The result is politically significant because the court is due to issue abortion rulings while also deciding on electoral redistricting questions which now have the potential to help Democrats in future elections in a state where contests are traditionally close.

Democrats have sought to exploit Musk’s growing unpopularity to tar Trump and the Republican generally. Recent polls show a majority of voters have a negative view of Musk, who was once popular with the US public.

Hakeem Jeffries, the Democrat leader in the House of Representatives, said it was now on Republicans to separate themselves from Musk.

“Time for them to walk away from this unelected, unpopular, unhinged and un-American billionaire puppet master,” he told MSNBC. “He tried to spend his unlimited resources to buy a state supreme court seat in Wisconsin, and it failed spectacularly.”

Chuck Schumer, the party’s leader in the Senate, said the result “sent a decisive message to Elon Musk, Donald Trump and Doge… our democracy is not for sale.”

Other party figures were blunter. Tim Walz, the governor of Minnesota and Kamala Harris’s running mate for the Democrats in the 2024 presidential election, was succinct on Musk’s social media platform X, formerly Twitter.

“Wisconsin beat the billionaire,” he posted.

Jasmine Crockett, a Democrat House member from Texas, posted: “Well well well, I guess Wisconsin agreed on the message for old Elon: “F’ off!,” she wrote.

Eric Swalwell, a California representative, called the result an “ass-kicking” for Republicans, adding: “Where else does Elon want to try and buy an election.”

JB Pritzker, the Democratic governor of Illinois and himself a billionaire, wrote: “Elon Musk is not good at this.”

Suspicions that Musk’s profile and conspicuous wealth have become an electoral turnoff also appeared to infect Republicans.

Pam Van Handel, a Republican party chair in Wisconsin’s Outagamie county, told Politico: “I thought [Musk] was gonna be an asset for this race. People love Trump, but maybe they don’t love everybody he supports.”

The site quoted Rohn Bishop, the Republican mayor of the Wisconsin city of Waupun, as saying: “I thought maybe Elon coming could turn these people to go out and vote, [but] I think… he may have turned out more voters against [Schimel].”

Charlie Kirk, a pro-Trump social media influencer and activist, implied – without mentioning Musk by name – that his wealth and profile might have played a role.

“We did a lot in Wisconsin but we fell short,” he wrote. “We must realize and appreciate that we are the LOW PROP party now. We are the party of welders, waiters and plumbers. We are the party of people who work with their hands, who shower before and after work.”

Neither Musk nor Trump mentioned the supreme court result in its immediate aftermath, trumpeting instead another Wisconsin ballot result that amended the state constitution to require photo ID as a condition for voting.

Then on Wednesday afternoon, Politico and ABC News reported that Trump told his inner circle, including some Cabinet secretaries, that Musk will soon leave his role as a top adviser to the president, overseeing federal government job cuts. The reports cited anonymous sources familiar with the matter.

Meanwhile, Republicans won victories on Tuesday in two special House elections in Florida caused by the resignations from the US Congress of Matt Gaetz, Trump’s original attorney general designee but who later withdrew amid sexual misconduct allegations, and Mike Waltz, now the national security adviser.

But the elections were won by margins of around half of what Trump achieved last November. Jimmy Patronis beat Democratic challenger Gay Valimont to win Gaetz’s former seat, while Randy Fine defeated Josh Weil in Florida’s sixth district, once held by Waltz.

The results bolstered the GOP’s wafer thin House majority to 220-213.

Trump hailed the outcomes, which he attributed to his personal endorsement. “THE TRUMP ENDORSEMENT, AS ALWAYS, PROVED FAR GREATER THAN THE DEMOCRATS FORCES OF EVIL. CONGRATULATIONS TO AMERICA!,” he posted on his Truth Social platform.

But Jeffries claimed the reduced victory margins augured well for the Democrats in next year’s midterms.

“One point that should have my Republican colleagues quaking in their boots,” he said. “In the Florida sixth race, which was a Trump +30 district, the margin was cut in half. There are 60 Republicans in the House who currently represent districts where Trump did worse than 15 or 16 points.”

Donald Trump’s tariff “day of liberation” arrived with the US president imposing markups on imports while accusing other nations, including allies, of “looting, pillaging, raping and plundering” the US.

The UK got off relatively lightly with the basic 10%. Here is how major British newspapers see it.

“Trump hits UK with 10% tariffs as US ignites global trade war” says the Guardian, featuring the president holding up a schedule of what are labelled “discounted” rates compared with what other countries supposedly charge the US.

“Trump piles on the tariffs” is the headline in the Times which adds that the EU will face 20% and the start date is Saturday.

“Trump triggers $1 trillion global trade war – in threat to UK jobs and wages” That’s the i which says UK growth and global trade will suffer.

The Daily Mail announces “Trump’s tariff war on ‘foreign scavengers’” and calls it a “blizzard of damaging new tariffs” contained in a “bombshell yet often rambling announcement”.

We’re “Trading blows” in the Daily Mirror as the “World faces economic war”. Targeted nations are “poised to retaliate”, says the paper.

“Trump unleashes tariffs” is the splash headline in the Telegraph. He called it a “declaration of economic independence”, the story intro says.

The Express sees it as a win for vote leave: “Brexit Britain escapes worst of Trump tariffs pain”. So just another 10%, then, on top of the economic implications of leaving the EU.

In other news the Metro runs with “Heathrow ‘had two fire warnings’”. The actor Val Kilmer is memorialised after his death on Tuesday, aged 65.

The top story on page one of the Financial Times is “UK plan for joint European fund to help finance continent’s rearmament”. The front page also has Trump possibly selling his share in Truth Social and a possible US takeover of TikTok.

Donald Trump’s national security adviser, Mike Waltz, and his team have created at least 20 different group chats on the encrypted messaging app Signal to coordinate sensitive national security work, sources tell Politico.

The revelation, which cites four people with direct knowledge of the practice, follows heightened scrutiny of the administration’s handling of sensitive information after the Atlantic recently published messages from a chat that included the defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, sharing operational details of deadly strikes against Houthi rebels in Yemen.

Those anonymous sources told Politico the Signal chats covered a wide range of policy areas, including Ukraine, China, Gaza, broader Middle East policy, Africa and Europe. All four individuals reported seeing “sensitive information” discussed in these forums, though none said they were aware of classified material being shared.

Over the last few days, Waltz’s flippant nature over the protection of national security secrets has been exposed. The Washington Post reported on documents revealing that Waltz’s team had been conducting government business through personal Gmail accounts.

The White House has again defended the practice, with a national security council spokesperson, Brian Hughes, telling Politico that Signal was “not banned from government devices” and was automatically installed on some agencies’ phones.

“It is one of the approved methods of communicating but is not the primary or even secondary,” Hughes said, adding that any claim of classified information being shared was “100% untrue.”

The insistence by administration officials that none of the messages were classified, including past remarks by the White House press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, and Hegseth, fly in the face of the defense department’s own rulebook on what would count as classified.

In the earlier chat, Hegseth shared specific operational details about military strikes in Yemen, including launch times for F-18 fighter jets and Tomahawk missiles. These details, according to the former state department attorney Brian Finucane, who advised on past strikes on Yemen, would typically be classified based on his experience.

Others in the national security establishment have similarly warned that using a messaging app like Signal could potentially violate federal record-keeping laws if chats are automatically deleted, and could compromise operational security if a phone is seized.

Despite the earlier controversies, Leavitt indicated on Monday that Trump stood firmly behind his national security adviser, and that an investigation into how Waltz accidentally added a journalist to a sensitive chat had been closed.

Donald Trump’s national security adviser, Mike Waltz, and his team have created at least 20 different group chats on the encrypted messaging app Signal to coordinate sensitive national security work, sources tell Politico.

The revelation, which cites four people with direct knowledge of the practice, follows heightened scrutiny of the administration’s handling of sensitive information after the Atlantic recently published messages from a chat that included the defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, sharing operational details of deadly strikes against Houthi rebels in Yemen.

Those anonymous sources told Politico the Signal chats covered a wide range of policy areas, including Ukraine, China, Gaza, broader Middle East policy, Africa and Europe. All four individuals reported seeing “sensitive information” discussed in these forums, though none said they were aware of classified material being shared.

Over the last few days, Waltz’s flippant nature over the protection of national security secrets has been exposed. The Washington Post reported on documents revealing that Waltz’s team had been conducting government business through personal Gmail accounts.

The White House has again defended the practice, with a national security council spokesperson, Brian Hughes, telling Politico that Signal was “not banned from government devices” and was automatically installed on some agencies’ phones.

“It is one of the approved methods of communicating but is not the primary or even secondary,” Hughes said, adding that any claim of classified information being shared was “100% untrue.”

The insistence by administration officials that none of the messages were classified, including past remarks by the White House press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, and Hegseth, fly in the face of the defense department’s own rulebook on what would count as classified.

In the earlier chat, Hegseth shared specific operational details about military strikes in Yemen, including launch times for F-18 fighter jets and Tomahawk missiles. These details, according to the former state department attorney Brian Finucane, who advised on past strikes on Yemen, would typically be classified based on his experience.

Others in the national security establishment have similarly warned that using a messaging app like Signal could potentially violate federal record-keeping laws if chats are automatically deleted, and could compromise operational security if a phone is seized.

Despite the earlier controversies, Leavitt indicated on Monday that Trump stood firmly behind his national security adviser, and that an investigation into how Waltz accidentally added a journalist to a sensitive chat had been closed.

Samoa is in the grip of an “energy crisis” prime minister Fiame Naomi Mata’afa said this week, as she declared a state of emergency over power outages that have swept the country for weeks, causing huge disruption to businesses and daily life.

The government is scrambling to provide relief to affected businesses and households, with temporary power generation units due to arrive next week.

For weeks, frustration over regular electricity blackouts has been building across Upolu, Samoa’s main island where the capital Apia is located. The tourism sector has been heavily affected and only major resorts have back up generators. Hospitals, schools and households have also struggled with regular interruptions to power supplies..

On Monday, Fiame warned the crisis could wipe off about 16% off the national economy this year due to “severe disruptions” to public services and economic activity.

Business owner Filisitia Fa’alogo, who runs a small shop on the southern side of Upolu, is among those to suffer heavy losses. Fa’alogo told the Guardian she had just bought over US$500 worth of frozen goods when the power outages began more than two weeks ago.

“Initially the ice was able to hold up the goods, but after the second day, I literally had to give the meat away to save it from spoiling,” Fa’alogo said.

The loss meant she could not make a profit for the month, as she only sells basics to the local villages, such as milk, bread, butter and canned goods.

“This is just outrageous, this is a bare necessity I need to run my village store,” she said.

Fa’alogo is just one of many business owners who have suffered as a result of the failure of the power sector. More than 90% of businesses have experienced frequent outages, with 70% facing disruptions multiple times per week, according to a survey by the Samoa Chamber of Commerce and Industry conducted in mid-March. Firms reported equipment damage and significant revenue losses. More than half of the businesses reported losses exceeding $1,000 tala ($350) per incident.

Power outages are not unusual in Samoa, but they are usually associated with cyclones. It is rare for them to occur island-wide and drag on for such a long period of time.

The crisis has been caused by multiple technical issues, including the breakdown of key generators at the Fiaga power station on Upolu island, and a fault in a crucial underground transmission cableThese problems, compounded by ageing infrastructure and delays in acquiring replacement parts, led to widespread electricity outages across Upolu. At one point, the entire island was without power.

The state of emergency declared on Monday will run for 30 days. Authorities have begun efforts to urgently restore power supplies and support affected homes and businesses. Full power restoration across Upolu is expected before the end of April. Permanent generators aren’t due to be ready for use until August.

Pacific business sustainability expert Tupa’imatuna FotuoSamoa said the persistent power failures have harmed Samoa’s economy.

“There is significant impact on business … continued disruptions can have long-term impacts for many in our community.”

“While it’s welcome news that there is consideration for relief, such as importing generators, you need to think broader, not just relying on hydropower but incentivising other means of power generation nationally.”

• Vladimir Putin’s investment envoy Kirill Dmitriev met with US officials in Washington on Wednesday, officials said, as the Trump administration considers business dealings with Moscow even as Russia continues to wage war on Ukraine and refuse a ceasefire. Because of the war, Dmitriev is under sanctions that the US had to suspend so he could visit.

• Dmitriev is the highest-ranking Russian official to travel to the US on state business since Russia started the full-scale war in 2022. It was not clear what he discussed with the US officials on Wednesday. Dmitriev has close relations to the Trump team dating back to the 2016 election in which the Mueller investigation found “sweeping and systematic” Russian interference in Trump’s favour.

• Also on Wednesday, the Trump administration notably did not include Russia on an expansive list of countries that will face heavy new tariffs. Ukraine was slapped with a 10% levy, according to a fact sheet released by the White House.

• A team from Ukraine may be coming to the United States as soon as this week or next week, the US treasury secretary, Scott Bessent, told Bloomberg Television on Wednesday.

• A Russian ballistic missile strike has killed at least four people and wounded 14 others in Kryvyi Rig, the home town of Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy. The head of Kryvyi Rig’s military administration, Oleksandr Vikul, said Russia attacked civilian infrastructure, sparking a large fire, and a rescue operation was launched. Earlier on Wednesday, a 45-year-old man was killed when a Russian strike hit cars parked outside a house in Zaporizhzhia, said Ivan Federov, the head of the Ukrainian region’s military administration.

• Russian forces unleashed an hour-long barrage of 17 Shahed drones on Kharkiv, Ukraine’s second-largest city, late on Wednesday, triggering fires, said the regional governor, Oleh Syniehubov, who reported that five people were wounded in an attack on the same district earlier in the day. Syniehubov also reported a drone strike on the town of Derhachi, north-west of Kharkiv, with one person injured. A strike sparked a fire in Cherkaska Lozova, also outside Kharkiv.

• Nato allies have pledged more than €20bn in military support for Ukraine in the first three months of the year, the Nato secretary general, Mark Rutte, said on Wednesday. Foreign ministers from the alliance meet in Brussels on Thursday and Friday to discuss further support for Ukraine. Marco Rubio, the US secretary of state, is due to arrive in Brussels on Thursday for the two days of talks, bringing with him Matt Whitaker, the newly confirmed US ambassador to Nato.

• More details emerged of secondary sanctions that US senators want to place on countries friendly to Russia if Moscow continues to disrupt peace negotiations. The group of 50 Republican and Democratic senators are proposing 500% tariffs on imports from countries that buy fuel and uranium from Russia. The Trump administration has so far failed to deliver on the president’s promise to broker a ceasefire between Ukraine and Russia in as little as 24 hours. Ukraine has offered an unconditional 30-day general ceasefire which Moscow has rejected.

• Ukrainian authorities accused five suspects on Wednesday of involvement in a military procurement scandal that led to swift wartime anti-corruption reforms. The five including a former defence ministry department head are accused of inflating prices while ordering food for troops and embezzling millions between August and December 2022. They have been issued with “notices of suspicion” that could lead to formal indictment for embezzlement, suspected embezzlement and money laundering. It is alleged that embezzled funds were likely used in part to buy properties abroad, including hotels in Croatia.

• Russia and Ukraine accused each other on Wednesday of new attacks against each other’s energy facilities, citing a US-brokered moratorium, although there is no formal agreement in place.

• The IT systems of Polish prime minister Donald Tusk’s Civic Platform party have been hit by a cyber-attack, he said on Wednesday. Poland has been on high alert for foreign interference and sabotage ahead of a presidential election scheduled for May, as it says its role in helping Ukraine has made it a key target for Russian security services.

Twenty-three states and the District of Columbia are suing the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the health secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr, alleging the abrupt terminations of $11bn in public health funding were “harmful” and “unlawful”.

The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Rhode Island, says that in March 2025, HHS unexpectedly ended a wide array of grants supporting immunizations, infectious disease tracking, and mental health and substance abuse services. The federal government justified the cuts by claiming that the funds were “no longer necessary” because their “limited purpose” had ended along with the Covid-19 pandemic.

“These termination notices and substantially similar subsequent notices immediately triggered chaos for State and local health jurisdictions,” the lawsuit says. “If the funding is not restored, key public health programs and initiatives that address ongoing and emerging public health needs of Plaintiffs will have to be dissolved or disbanded.

“The result of these massive, unexpected funding terminations is serious harm to public health.”

The Biden administration originally awarded the funds to bolster pandemic response and public health infrastructure.

The lawsuit argues that the justifications given for the funding cuts were legally flawed, and that the cuts violate federal law and jeopardize public health. It states that the terminated grants were intended to address broader public health needs beyond the pandemic and that Congress never required that the funds be spent only during the period of the pandemic.

“The Trump administration’s illegal and irresponsible decision to claw back life-saving health funding is an attack on the well-being of millions of Americans,” the New York attorney general Letitia James said in a statement. “Slashing this funding now will reverse our progress on the opioid crisis, throw our mental health systems into chaos and leave hospitals struggling to care for patients.”

The suit also says that Congress previously reviewed and chose not to rescind these funds during a budget negotiation that took place after the pandemic was declared over.

The HHS is accused of violating the Administrative Procedure Act, a federal statute that governs the procedures of administrative law. The plaintiffs claim HHS failed to provide notice or individualized assessments and disregarded state reliance on the funding.

Several states reported immediate impacts, including canceled public health programs and the layoffs of hundreds of staff.

There was “no agenda” in the Guardian’s investigation of sexual misconduct allegations against Noel Clarke, the high court has heard.

In her second day in the witness box, Lucy Osborne, an investigative correspondent at the Guardian, defended the publication’s reporting in the face of questioning from the former Doctor Who star’s barrister, Philip Williams.

Osborne, co-author of the investigation that led to the actor’s libel claim, denied Williams’s assertions that there were “major inconsistencies” in the accounts of alleged victims or that there was a conspiracy to bring down Clarke.

She said that if there had been any concerns, she would have flagged them to the Guardian’s head of investigations, Paul Lewis.

“There was no agenda,” Osborne told the court on Wednesday. “We conducted a very careful investigation and if at any time I’d been concerned that these allegations lacked in credibility in any way or had any concerns about any of the sources I would have raised it with Paul and I wouldn’t have wanted to publish.”

She said she kept an open mind throughout and gathered information from as many sources as possible – too many to list in her witness statement.

“It’s absolutely not in my interests to publish something before we were ready to do so,” Osborne told the court.

Williams questioned her on aspects of behaviour by alleged victims that he said should have raised “red flags”, including Gina Powell, who worked with Clarke at his company Unstoppable Productions, and who alleges sexual assault and abusive behaviour.

Williams claimed that if Osborne had looked into it, she would have discovered that Powell made “sexually bold comments” and sent pornography to Clarke.

The journalist responded: “Gina had told me early on, without me asking, that it was a sexual environment she was working in with Noel and she felt pressure … that there was a culture that Mr Clarke led that was sexualised and there was an expectation on her to speak in the same way.”

She described Powell as an “incredibly strong and inspiring woman” for speaking out.

Williams also asked Osborne about another witness, Evelyn (not her real name), who alleges Clarke took a picture of her underwear while she was dancing and attempted to show it to their colleagues. Williams suggested she was wearing a minidress at the time.

“I don’t think it made any difference whether she’s wearing a minidress or not,” said Osborne. “The allegation is that Mr Clarke took a picture of her that had her underwear on, [and] it was fairly close up.”

When Williams raised it, Osborne also said that whether Evelyn was drunk or not was irrelevant to her allegations against Clarke.

Researchers who tracked cases of dementia in Welsh adults have uncovered the strongest evidence yet that the shingles vaccination reduces the risk of developing the devastating brain disease.

Health records of more than 280,000 older adults revealed that those who received a largely discontinued shingles vaccine called Zostavax were 20% less likely to be diagnosed with dementia over the next seven years than those who went without.

Pascal Geldsetzer, at Stanford University, said: “For the first time we are able to say much more confidently that the shingles vaccine causes a reduction in dementia risk. If this truly is a causal effect, we have a finding that’s of tremendous importance.”

The researchers took advantage of a vaccination rollout that took place in Wales more than a decade ago. Public health policy dictated that from 1 September 2013, people born on or after 2 September 1933 became eligible for the Zostavax shot, while those who were older missed out.

The policy created a natural experiment where the older population was sharply divided into two groups depending on their access to the vaccine. This allowed the researchers to compare dementia rates in older people born weeks apart but on either side of the vaccine eligibility divide.

After accounting for the fact that not all those eligible for the vaccine received it, the researchers found vaccination led to a 20% reduction in dementia risk, with the strongest effect in women. Anupam Jena, a professor of healthcare policy at Harvard Medical School, said the implications were profound.

Dementia affects more than 55 million people globally and is the leading cause of death in the UK. One in three will develop the condition in their lifetime, and while drugs that slow the disease have recently been approved, there is no cure.

When people contract chickenpox the virus remains dormant in their nerve cells for life. But the virus can reactivate and cause shingles in older people whose immune systems are waning, or in individuals with weakened immunity.

The latest work, published in Nature, is not the first hint that shingles vaccines might shield against dementia. When Zostavax was rolled out in the US in 2006, several studies found lower rates of dementia in people who received the shots. Last year, Oxford researchers reported an even stronger protective effect in people who received Shingrix, a newer vaccine. Geldsetzer is now looking for philanthropic and private foundations to fund a randomised clinical trial to confirm any benefits.

It is unclear how shingles vaccines might protect against dementia, but one theory is that they reduce inflammation in the nervous system by preventing reactivation of the virus. Another theory is that the vaccines induce broader changes in the immune system that are protective. These wider effects are seen more often in women, potentially explaining the sex differences in the study.

In an accompanying article, Jena wrote: “Although it is still unclear precisely how herpes zoster vaccination lowers the risk of dementia, the implications of the study are profound. The vaccine could represent a cost-effective intervention that has public-health benefits strongly exceeding its intended purpose.”

Julia Dudley, the head of research at Alzheimer’s Research UK, said the study strengthened the emerging link between shingles vaccination and reduced dementia risk. “While previous studies suggested an association, this research offers stronger evidence of a direct link, with greater benefit observed in women.

“It’s unclear exactly how the shingles vaccine might influence dementia risk. It may reduce inflammation, support the immune system in ways that protect the brain or involve other mechanisms. It’s important to note that this study looked at the Zostavax vaccine rather than Shingrix, which is now more commonly used.

“Understanding this link better, including the reason for any differences between men and women, could open new avenues for dementia prevention and treatment,” she said.

Maxime Taquet, whose Oxford study found a reduced dementia risk after Shingrix vaccination, said adjuvants in that vaccine, which make the immune response more potent, may play a role. Both studies “provide strong support for the hypothesis that shingles vaccination reduces dementia risk, with the newer recombinant vaccine offering superior protection,” he said. “A key question is whether this enhanced protection is due to improved shingles prevention or the adjuvant’s immunological effects.”