The lower house of India’s parliament has passed a controversial bill that seeks to change how properties worth billions of dollars donated by Indian Muslims over centuries are governed.

The Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2024 – which brings in dozens of amendments to an existing law – was passed late on Wednesday night after a heated debate that went on for over 12 hours.

The government says the bill will introduce transparency into the management of waqf, as the properties are called.

But opposition parties and Muslim groups have called it an attempt to weaken the constitutional rights of India’s largest religious minority.

In the Lok Sabha, as the lower house is called, the bill was passed with 288 MPs voting in favour of it, and 232 against (the halfway mark is 272).

It has now been sent to the Rajya Sabha, or upper house, for discussion and passage.

If it is passed by the Rajya Sabha, it will be sent to President Droupadi Murmu for her assent before it becomes law.

The bill was first tabled in parliament in August last year but was sent to a joint parliamentary committee (JPC) after an outcry from opposition members. The version that has been passed incorporates several changes suggested by the sharply divided committee. Opposition members who were on the panel have alleged that the JPC accepted the changes suggested by the BJP and its allies while rejecting all amendments they proposed.

• Why Muslims in India are opposing changes to a property law

Mallikarjun Kharge, Congress MP and leader of the opposition in the Rajya Sabha, said the opposition was united and would work to defeat “the unconstitutional and divisive agenda of the Modi government on the Waqf Amendment Bill”. But the numbers may not be in the opposition’s favour.

Muslim groups have argued that the bill “aims to weaken the waqf laws and pave the way for the seizure and destruction of waqf properties”.

Speaking in the Lok Sabha, Congress leader Gaurav Gogoi said the bill would “dilute the Constitution, defame minority communities, divide Indian society and disenfranchise minorities”.

Federal Home Minister Amit Shah defended the bill, saying that the opposition was scaring minorities by creating “an illusion that this bill would interfere in the religious activities of Muslim brothers and in their donated property”.

The waqf properties, which include mosques, madrassas, shelter homes and thousands of acres of land donated by Muslims, are managed by boards. Some of these properties are vacant while others have been encroached upon.

In Islamic tradition, a waqf is a charitable or religious donation made by Muslims for the benefit of the community. Such properties cannot be sold or used for any other purpose – which implies that waqf properties belong to God.

The government says that the waqf boards are among India’s largest landholders. There are at least 872,351 waqf properties across India, spanning more than 940,000 acres, with an estimated value of 1.2 trillion rupees ($14.22bn; £11.26bn).

A major criticism from opponents of the bill is that it grants the government undue power to regulate the management of these endowments and determine whether a property qualifies as “waqf”.

The bill also proposes the induction of two non-Muslim members on the waqf boards which oversee these properties. Critics have opposed this provision, arguing that most religious institutions run by non-Muslims do not permit followers of other faiths in their administration.

Myanmar’s junta chief Min Aung Hlaing is in Thailand for a regional summit as his country reels from an earthquake that killed thousands and left cities in ruins.

The earthquake in central Myanmar last Friday killed 3,085 people and injured 4,715, the junta has said. Hundreds more are missing and the toll is expected to rise.

Min Aung Hlaing arrived in Bangkok on Thursday, according to AFP, on the eve of a summit that will gather leaders of the seven countries that border the Bay of Bengal.

His attendance, which was earlier confirmed by a spokesman for the Myanmar army, will be unusual as sanctioned leaders are typically barred from these events.

Host Thailand, where the earthquake was felt and killed 21 people, has proposed that the leaders issue a joint statement on the disaster. Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Nepal, Sri Lanka are also part of the summit.

In Myanmar, many earthquake-hit areas have yet to be reached by authorities, meaning the death toll figures are unlikely to be accurate.

Countries around the world have sent aid and rescue teams to Myanmar since the quake, but poor infrastructure and an ongoing civil war has complicated relief efforts.

• Inside Mandalay: BBC finds devastation and little help for quake survivors
• What we know about the earthquake

The junta announced a temporary ceasefire late on Wednesday to expedite these efforts, after earlier rejecting proposals from armed ethnic rebel groups.

Before this, the military had continued its airstrikes in rebel-held areas, including those badly hit by the earthquake.

On Tuesday night, troops opened fire at a Chinese Red Cross convoy carrying relief supplies. The junta said the troops fired after the convoy refused to stop despite being signalled to do so.

Min Aung Hlaing is also expected speak to Thai Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra on the sidelines of the meeting in Bangkok, according to a Thai foreign ministry spokesperson.

Myanmar has been gripped by a bloody civil war since the military seized power in 2021, which led to the rise of an armed resistance that has been fighting alongside armed ethnic groups, some of which have been fighting the military for decades.

Years of violence have crippled the economy, supercharged inflation, and plunged the country into a humanitarian crisis.

Now, the earthquake has worsened the crisis. Humanitarian groups have urged the junta to lift any remaining obstructions to aid.

The UN has also urged the global community to ramp up aid before the monsoon season hits in about a month.

Australia has been hit with a tariff of at least 10% on all exports to the US, as Donald Trump announced his new sweeping global trade regime.

Trump cited “trade barriers” such as Australia’s biosecurity laws – singling out a ban on the import of US beef – as the reason for what he called a “reciprocal tariff”.

Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese called the measure “totally unwarranted”, but said the nation would not introduce its own tariffs – also known as import taxes – in return.

The 10% dealt to Australia was the “baseline” measure, with the most severe tariffs – of up 49% – hitting countries like China, Malaysia, Vietnam and Cambodia.

“President Trump referred to reciprocal tariffs. A reciprocal tariff would be zero, not 10%,” Albanese said at a press conference on Thursday.

“The administration’s tariffs have no basis in logic and they go against the basis of our two nation’s partnership. This is not the act of a friend,” he added.

Trump’s new trade policy has hit the start of Australia’s closely battled election campaign, where the cost of living will be a key voting issue.

Opposition leader Peter Dutton said the tariffs were a “bad day” for Australia and would be a “significant impost” on jobs across the nation.

He also said the new tariffs were a reflection on Albanese’s relationship with Trump – who the prime minister had unsuccessfully been trying to organise a phone call with ahead of the decision.

“I just don’t think the prime minister has the strength or the ability to stand up to a situation that is unacceptable to us,” Dutton said.

The new measures come only weeks after President Trump imposed 25% tariffs on Australian steel and aluminium imports.

However, the prime minister said Australia would not be retaliating on US goods.

“We will not join a race to the bottom that leads to higher prices and slower growth,” he said.

But he warned the tariffs would have consequences for how Australians see ties with the US, and that the country would resort to formal “dispute resolution mechanisms” contained in its free trade agreement with the US if necessary.

During his “Liberation Day” speech, Trump pointed to Australia’s ban on fresh beef from the US – which was introduced in 2003, after cases of mad cow disease, an infectious neurological illness, were discovered in North America.

“They’re wonderful people and wonderful everything, but they ban American beef,” he said.

“They don’t want it because they don’t want it to affect their farmers.”

“I don’t blame them, but we’re doing the same thing right now,” Trump added.

The tariffs have also drawn an angry response from Australia’s National Farmers’ Federation (NFF), who expressed “profound disappointment”.

“This decision is a disappointing step backward for our nations and for the global economy,” NFF President David Jochinke said.

The NFF said the US’s decision created “unnecessary uncertainty”, but vowed to work closely with the federal government to seek a resolution.

Along with its biosecurity rules, Australia’s subsidised medicines scheme and laws requiring foreign tech companies to pay local media for news had drawn the US’s ire in recent tariff discussions.

Albanese earlier this week said those issues were non-negotiable: “I continue to stand up for Australia and have said very clearly we won’t compromise and negotiate on our PBS [Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme], on our biosecurity, on our media bargaining code.”

The US is one of Australia’s most important trading relationships, raking fifth for exports. China, however, dwarfs all of Australia’s other trade partners – in 2023-24, A$212.7bn (£102.2bn, $133.4) was exported to the Asian superpower.

In comparison, last year, Australia exported $37.5bn in goods and services to the US. Business services were the biggest sector at $6.2bn, followed by intellectual property charges and beef. In the same year, Australia imported $88.2bn in goods and services from the US.

At least 27 Palestinians have been killed in an Israeli air strike on a school in northern Gaza that was serving as a shelter for displaced families, the Hamas-run health ministry says.

Dozens more were wounded when the Dar al-Arqam school in the north-eastern Tuffah district of Gaza City was hit, it cited a local hospital as saying.

The Israeli military said it struck “prominent terrorists who were in a Hamas command and control centre” in the city, without mentioning a school.

The health ministry earlier reported the killing of another 97 people in Israeli attacks over the previous 24 hours, as Israel said its ground offensive was expanding to seize large parts of the Palestinian territory.

The spokesman for Gaza’s Hamas-run Civil Defence agency, Mahmoud Bassal, said children and women were among the dead following the strike on Dar al-Arqam school.

He also said a woman who was heavily pregnant with twins was missing along with her husband, her sister, and her three children.

Video from the nearby al-Ahli hospital showed children being rushed there in cars and trucks with serious injuries.

A statement from the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) said the site in Gaza City that it struck had been used by Hamas fighters to plan attacks against Israeli civilians and troops.

It added that numerous steps had been taken to mitigate harm to civilians.

Overnight, at least 12 people were killed when several homes in Gaza City’s eastern Shejaiya district were struck, the Civil Defence said.

It posted a video that appeared to show the bodies of two young children being pulled by rescuers from the remains of a collapsed building.

A witness, who asked not to be named, told BBC Arabic’s Gaza Lifeline programme that he had been sleeping when he was “suddenly shaken by a violent explosion and discovered that it occurred at the house of our neighbours, the Ayyad family”.

There was no immediate comment from the IDF, but on Thursday morning it ordered residents of Shejaiya and four neighbouring areas to immediately evacuate to western Gaza City, warning that it was “operating with great force… to destroy the terrorist infrastructure”.

This week, the IDF issued similar evacuation orders for several areas of northern Gaza, as well as the entire southern city of Rafah and parts of neighbouring Khan Younis, prompting around 100,000 Palestinians to flee, according to the UN.

Israel renewed its aerial bombardment and ground offensive in Gaza on 18 March after the first phase of a ceasefire and hostage release deal agreed with Hamas in January came to an end and negotiations on a second phase of the deal stalled.

The IDF’s chief spokesperson, Brig-Gen Effie Defrin, told a briefing on Thursday that its operation had “progressed to another stage” in recent days.

“We have expanded operations in the southern Gaza Strip with the goal of encircling and dividing the Rafah area,” he said. “In northern Gaza, our troops are operating against terrorist targets, clearing the area, and dismantling terrorist infrastructure.”

He added that over the past two weeks Israeli forces had struck more than 600 “terrorist targets” across Gaza and “eliminated more than 250 terrorists”.

Before the strike in Tuffah, Gaza’s health ministry had said that at least 1,163 people had been killed over the same period. A UN agency has said they include more than 300 children.

On Wednesday evening, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Israeli forces were establishing another military corridor that would cut off Rafah from Khan Younis.

He argued that military pressure would force Hamas to release the remaining 59 hostages it is holding, up to 24 of whom are believed to be alive.

However, Hamas said it would not engage with Israel’s latest proposal for a new ceasefire, which is said to have been co-ordinated with the US, one of the mediators in the negotiations.

The Palestinian group said it accepted only the plan put forward by the two other mediators, Qatar and Egypt, for a 50-day truce.

The full details of that plan have not been disclosed, but it is understood the regional proposal would see five hostages being released in exchange for Palestinian prisoners, the withdrawal of Israeli forces from parts of Gaza where they have recently redeployed, and the influx of humanitarian aid. There would also be negotiations on ending the war.

Israel wants a larger number of hostages be released at the start of a new truce.

In another development on Thursday, the IDF said the general staff’s fact-finding mechanism was investigating the killing by Israeli forces of 15 Palestinian emergency workers near Rafah on 23 March, as well as their burial in what a UN official described as a “mass grave”.

“We want to have all the facts in a way that’s accurate and we can also hold accountable people if we need to,” an IDF spokesman said.

A Palestinian paramedic who survived the attack, speaking to the BBC, challenged the Israeli account of how five ambulances, a fire engine and a UN vehicle were fired on while responding to emergency calls.

The military said the vehicles were “advancing suspiciously” towards its troops without headlights or emergency signals. It also said a Hamas operative and “eight other terrorists” were among those killed, but named only one.

The survivor, Munther Abed, insisted that “all lights were on” until the vehicles came under direct fire. He also rejected the military’s claim that Hamas might have used the ambulances as cover, saying all the emergency workers were civilians.

The Israeli military launched a campaign to destroy Hamas in response to an unprecedented cross-border attack on 7 October 2023, in which about 1,200 people were killed and 251 were taken hostage.

More than 50,520 people have been killed in Gaza since then, according to the territory’s health ministry.

Hungary is withdrawing from the International Criminal Court (ICC), its government has announced.

A senior official in Prime Minister Viktor Orban’s government confirmed this hours after Israel’s leader Benjamin Netanyahu, who is sought under an ICC arrest warrant, arrived in Hungary for a state visit.

Orban had invited Netanyahu as soon as the warrant was issued last November, saying the ruling would have “no effect” in his country.

In November, ICC judges said there were “reasonable grounds” that Netanyahu bore “criminal responsibility” for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity during the war between Israel and Hamas. Netanyahu has condemned the ICC’s decision as “antisemitic”.

The ICC, a global court, has the authority to prosecute those accused of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.

Hungary is a founding member of the ICC, which counts 125 member states, and will be the first European Union nation to pull out of it. A withdrawal has no impact on ongoing proceedings.

During a joint press conference, Orban asserted that the ICC had become a “political court”. He added the court’s decision to issue a warrant against the Israeli leader “clearly showed” this.

Netanyahu meanwhile hailed Hungary’s “bold and principled” decision to withdraw from the court.

“It’s important for all democracies. It’s important to stand up to this corrupt organisation,” Netanyahu said.

A statement from the Israeli prime minister’s office on Thursday said Netanyahu and Orban had spoken with US President Donald Trump about the decision and the “next steps that can be taken on this issue”.

Earlier Israel’s Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar thanked Orban on X for his “clear and strong moral stance alongside Israel”.

“The so-called International Criminal Court lost its moral authority after trampling the fundamental principles of international law in its zest for harming Israel’s right to self-defence,” Sa’ar added.

Hungary’s decision aligns with its broader foreign policy stance under Orban, who has cultivated close ties with Israel and adopted a critical view of international institutions perceived as infringing on national sovereignty.

While Hungary’s withdrawal may carry symbolic weight and political implications, it does not significantly alter the ICC’s operational capacity or legal framework.

The court has faced similar challenges in the past and continues to function with broad international support.

But Hungary’s criticism of the ICC as “politically biased” and its decision to withdraw as Netanyahu visits may set a precedent for other nations to question or abandon their commitments to international justice based on political alliances or disagreements with specific rulings.

The US, Russia, China and North Korea are among the nations that are not part of the ICC, and therefore do not recognise its jurisdiction.

Israel is also not part of the treaty, but the ICC ruled in 2021 that it did have jurisdiction over the occupied West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza, because the UN’s Secretary General had accepted that Palestinians were a member.

Hungary now needs to send written notification to the UN Secretary General to leave the treaty, with the withdrawal taking effect one year later, according to article 127 of the Rome Statute, which established the ICC.

ICC spokesman Fadi El-Abdullah told the BBC: “On the visit of Mr Netanyahu, the court has followed its standard procedures, after the issuance of an arrest warrant. The court recalls that Hungary remains under a duty to cooperate with the ICC.”

Since the warrant was issued, Hungarian authorities should technically arrest Netanyahu and hand him over to the court in the Hague, although member states do not always choose to enforce ICC warrants.

In Europe, some ICC member states said they would arrest the Israeli leader if he set foot in their country, while others, including Germany, announced that Netanyahu would not be detained if he visited.

But Germany’s Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock said on Thursday Hungary’s announcement was “a bad day for international criminal law”.

“Europe has clear rules that apply to all EU member states, and that is the Rome Statute. I have made it clear time and again that no one in Europe is above the law and that applies to all areas of law,” she added.

On the other side of the Atlantic, the US has condemned the ICC’s decision to issue warrants for Netanyahu’s arrest and he has visited the country since it was issued in November. His visit to Hungary marks Netanyahu’s first trip to Europe since then.

Hungarian Defence Minister Kristof Szalay-Bobrovniczky, greeted Netanyahu on the tarmac of Budapest airport on Wednesday night, welcoming him to the country.

Israel is appealing against the arrest warrants for Netanyahu and former defence minister Yoav Gallant, and strongly rejects the accusations. It both denies the authority of the ICC and the legitimacy of the warrants.

Netanyahu said at the time that it was a “dark day in the history of humanity”, and that the ICC had become “the enemy of humanity”.

“It’s an antisemitic step that has one goal – to deter me, to deter us from having our natural right to defend ourselves against enemies who try to destroy us,” he said.

In the same ruling, ICC judges also issued a warrant against Hamas military commander Mohammed Deif, who Israel says is dead. Hamas also rejected the allegations.

The visit comes as Israel announced it was expanding its Gaza offensive and establishing a new military corridor to put pressure on Hamas, as deadly Israeli strikes continued across the Palestinian territory.

The war in Gaza was triggered by the Hamas-led attacks on southern Israel on 7 October 2023, which killed some 1,200 people and led to 251 hostages being taken to Gaza. Since then, Israeli military attacks have killed more than 50,000 Palestinians have been killed, health authorities in Hamas-run Gaza say.

An Indian court is due to hear a lawsuit filed by Elon Musk’s social media company X, accusing Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government of misusing the law to censor content on its platform.

Last month, X sued the government saying a new website – Sahyog – launched by the federal home ministry last year, was being used to expand its censorship powers and take down content.

X argued the portal gave government officials wide-ranging powers to issue blocking orders that were “in violation” of India’s digital laws. It said it could not be compelled to join Sahyog, which it called a “censorship portal”.

The Indian government has said that the portal is necessary to tackle harmful online content.

Other American technology giants such as Amazon, Google and Meta have agreed to be on Sahyog.

Sahyog describes itself as a portal developed to automate the process of sending government notices to content intermediaries like X and Facebook.

The lawsuit filed in the southern state of Karnataka came after the federal railway ministry ordered X to remove “hundreds of posts”.

These included videos of a crush in Delhi in which 18 people died as they were making their way to the world’s largest religious gathering, the Kumbh Mela.

In its petition, X argues that the portal and the orders issued through it fall outside the remit of the original law that allows the government to block content.

Under this law, senior officials have the power to issue takedown orders, but after following due procedure like giving notices, opportunities for hearings and allowing for a review of any decision.

But X says the government is bypassing these procedures to issue arbitrary content takedown orders through other legal provisions that have no safeguards.

As a result, “countless” government officials, including “tens of thousands of local police officers”, are “unilaterally and arbitrarily” issuing orders, X argues in its petition.

India’s federal IT and home ministries did not respond to the BBC’s request for comment.

In court, the government has argued that its actions are lawful. It said it was not sending blocking orders but only issuing “notices” to platforms against unlawful content.

The government also defended the Sahyog platform saying it was a “necessity” because of the “growing volume of unlawful and harmful content online”.

The case is of “vital importance” as the blocking mechanism of the Sahyog portal has resulted in “a wholesale increase in censorship”, said Apar Gupta of the digital rights organisation, Internet Freedom Foundation.

This is not the first time the Indian government and X are at loggerheads.

The Delhi police had raided the offices of X (then Twitter) in 2021, before Musk took over, after a tweet by a ruling party spokesperson was marked as “manipulated media”.

In 2022, the company had sued the Indian government against blocking orders, at least one of which pertained to a year-long protest by farmers against new laws brought in by the government. However, the court ruled against the company and imposed a fine of 5m rupees ($58,000; £45,000).

Under Musk’s leadership, X appealed against this decision, which is currently separately being heard in the Karnataka high court.

In 2023, India called X a “habitual non-compliant platform” during the appeal proceedings.

India is also reportedly investigating X’s chatbot Grok regarding its use of inappropriate language and “controversial responses” after it made politically sensitive comments to user prompts recently.

The timing of the lawsuit is interesting as it comes when Musk’s other companies Starlink and Tesla have just begun making inroads into India with their business plans.

Earlier in March, Starlink signed an agreement with two of India’s biggest telecoms firms to bring satellite internet to India and is awaiting government approval to start providing its services.

Tesla could finally be making its debut and has begun hiring for a dozen jobs in Delhi and Mumbai. It is also reportedly hunting for showrooms in both cities.

Musk also met Prime Minister Modi when he visited the White House last month.

His growing business interests in India and closeness with US President Donald Trump give him “ample leverage” with India, Michael Kugelman, director of the Wilson Centre’s South Asia Institute in Washington, told the BBC.

“This means he has a lot of leeway in terms of how he operates, including making a decision to sue the Indian government,” he added, saying the case might not hurt Musk’s business prospects in the country.

Social media influencers pose a “new and increasing threat” for uncontacted indigenous people, a charity has warned after the arrest of a US tourist who travelled to a restricted Indian Ocean island.

Mykhailo Viktorovych Polyakov, 24, allegedly landed on North Sentinel Island in an apparent attempt to make contact with the isolated Sentinelese tribe, filming his visit and leaving a can of coke and a coconut on the shore.

Survival International, a group that advocates for the rights of tribal people, said the alleged act endangered the man’s own life and the lives of the tribe, calling it “deeply disturbing”.

The US said it was aware and “monitoring the situation”.

Andaman and Nicobar Islands’ police chief HGS Dhaliwal told news agency AFP that “an American citizen” had been presented before the local court and was remanded for three days for “further interrogation”.

AFP, citing Mr Dhaliwal, said Mr Polyakov blew a whistle off the shore of the island in a bid to attract the attention of the tribe for about an hour.

He then landed for about five minutes, leaving his offerings, collecting samples and recording a video.

The police chief told AFP: “A review of his GoPro camera footage showed his entry and landing into the restricted North Sentinel Island.”

It is illegal for foreigners or Indians to travel within 5km (three miles) of the islands in order to protect the people living there.

According to police, Mr Polyakov has visited the region twice before – including using an inflatable kayak in October last year before he was stopped by hotel staff.

On his arrest earlier this week, the man told police he was a “thrill seeker”, Indian media reported.

Survival International said the Sentinelese have made their wish to avoid outsiders clear over many years and underlined that such visits pose a threat to a community which has no immunity to outside diseases.

Jonathan Mazower, spokesperson for Survival International, told the BBC they feared social media was adding to the list of threats for uncontacted tribal people. Several media reports have linked Mr Polyakov to a YouTube account, which features videos of a recent trip to Afghanistan.

“As well as all the somewhat more established threats to such peoples – from things like logging and mining in the Amazon where most uncontacted peoples live – there are now an increasing number of… influencers who are trying to do this kind of thing for followers,” Mr Mazower said.

“There’s a growing social media fascination with this whole idea.”

Survival International describes the Sentinelese as “the most isolated Indigenous people in the world” living on an island around the size of Manhattan.

Mr Mazower told the BBC an estimated 200 people belong to the tribe, before adding it was “impossible” to know its true number.

Few details are known about the group, other than they are a hunter-gatherer community who live in small settlements and are “extremely healthy”, he said.

He added that the incident highlighted why government protections for communities such as the Sentinelese are so important.

The UN’s Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention sets out obligations for governments to protect the rights. India’s government has an initiative focusing on tribal welfare, but the country has come under criticism in recent years for failing to protect against evictions.

It is not the first time an outsider has attempted to make contact with the Sentinelese.

In November 2018, John Allen Chau, also a US national, was killed by the tribe after visiting the same island.

Local officials said the 27-year-old was a Christian missionary.

Mr Chau was shot with bows and arrows upon landing. Reports at the time suggested he had bribed fisherman to take him to the island.

Syria has strongly condemned a fresh wave of Israeli strikes on airbases and other military sites overnight as an “unjustified escalation”.

The foreign ministry said the attacks almost destroyed Hama airbase and injured dozens of people. A monitoring group reported that four defence ministry personnel were killed.

Israel’s military said it hit “capabilities that remained” at the western Hama and central T4 airbases, along with military infrastructure in Damascus. It also said Israeli forces killed gunmen during a ground operation in Deraa province, where authorities put the death toll at nine.

It came amid reports that Turkey was moving to station jets and air defences at Syrian airbases.

Israel’s defence minister warned Syria’s interim President Ahmed al-Sharaa on Thursday that he would “pay a very heavy price” if he allowed “forces hostile to Israel” to enter the country.

The Israeli military has carried out hundreds of strikes across Syria to destroy military assets – including jets, tanks, missiles, air defence systems, weapons factories and research centres – since former president Bashar al-Assad’s regime was overthrown by rebel forces in December after 13 years of civil war.

The rebels were led by Sharaa’s Islamist group Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) – a former al-Qaeda affiliate that is still designated as a terrorist organisation by the UN, the US, the EU and the UK.

Israel has also sent troops into the UN-monitored demilitarised buffer zone in the Golan Heights, as well as several adjoining areas and the summit of Mount Hermon.

And it has demanded the complete demilitarisation of the three neighbouring southern provinces of Deraa, Quneitra and Suweida, saying it would not accept the presence of the forces of Sharaa’s government there.

The Syrian foreign ministry said Wednesday night’s air strikes targeted “five locations across the country within 30 minutes, resulting in the near-total destruction of Hama Military Airport and injuring dozens of civilians and military personnel”.

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR) said there were at least 18 strikes which targeted planes, rail tracks and towers at Hama airbase.

Israel also hit T4 airbase, which is near Palmyra, and a branch of the Scientific Studies and Research Centre (SSRC) in the Barzeh neighbourhood of Damascus, it added.

“This unjustified escalation is a deliberate attempt to destabilise Syria and exacerbate the suffering of its people,” the Syrian foreign ministry said.

It called the strikes “a blatant violation of international law and Syrian sovereignty”, and urged the international community to “exert pressure on Israel to cease its aggression”.

Syria may have been the location for these strikes, but the real target was Turkey.

Israel has been nervously eyeing a joint defence pact Turkey is negotiating with Syria’s transitional government, and these latest air strikes come amid Turkish reports of military equipment being moved to Syrian airbases, including T4.

In a statement on Thursday morning, Israeli defence minister Israel Katz warned President Sharaa: “If you allow forces hostile to Israel to enter Syria and endanger Israeli security interests – you will pay a very heavy price.”

“Yesterday’s air force activity… is a clear message and a warning to the future – we will not allow the security of the State of Israel to be harmed.”

Katz did not elaborate on what forces he considered “hostile”, but foreign minister Gideon Saar separately said that Israel was concerned at the “negative role” that Turkey was playing in Syria.

“They are doing their utmost to have Syria as a Turkish protectorate. It’s clear that is their intention,” he told a news conference in Paris.

The SOHR also reported that Israeli ground forces shelled a national park west of the southern city of Deraa on Wednesday night, killing nine gunmen who attempted to confront them.

Prior to the shelling, dozens of Israeli military vehicles had entered the al-Jabaliya Dam area near Nawa and taken up positions there, prompting “calls from the mosques in the area [to wage] jihad against the Israeli incursion”, it added.

Deraa province’s government warned that the “massacre” of nine people had sparked widespread public anger. It has not so far identified those killed.

The Israeli military confirmed that its forces had operated in Deraa overnight, “seizing weapons and destroying terrorist infrastructure”.

“Several armed men fired at our forces in the area. The forces responded with gunfire and eliminated several armed militants from the ground and air,” it added.

The military said it would “not allow a military threat to exist in Syria”.

However, Turkey’s growing investment in Syria is seen by Israel as another level of threat.

The risk of regional confrontation is growing, and with it the risk of Syria once again becoming host to the conflicts of outside powers.

The Trump administration has fired at least three officials at the National Security Council, with more firings expected, according to the BBC’s US partner CBS News.

It is not clear why the staffers were removed from their roles, but CBS reports the decision followed a meeting between far-right activist Laura Loomer and President Donald Trump at the White House on Wednesday.

Loomer urged Trump to fire specific NSC employees who she did not deem supportive enough of the president’s agenda, according to several US media reports.

The White House told the BBC that the National Security Council “won’t comment on personnel” matters.

The firings also follow a major controversy involving the NSC last month when senior officials inadvertently added a journalist to a Signal messaging thread about military strikes in Yemen.

It is not clear whether the controversy played a role in the firings. Trump has stood by the officials involved in the incident, including National Security Adviser Mike Waltz, who reportedly added the journalist to the Signal chat accidentally.

Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth, who posted information in the chat, is now the subject of an internal review into his use of Signal and whether he complied with his department’s policies, the Pentagon’s office of the acting inspector general said on Thursday.

Those fired from the NSC on Thursday include Brian Walsh, a director for intelligence; Thomas Boodry, a senior director for legislative affairs; and David Feith, a senior director overseeing technology and national security, according to CBS News.

In a statement to US media, Loomer said she would not divulge any more details on her meeting with Trump “out of respect for President Trump and the privacy of the Oval Office”.

“It was an honour to meet with President Trump and present him with my findings, I will continue working hard to support his agenda, and I will continue reiterating the importance of strong vetting, for the sake of protecting the President and our national security,” she said.

An oil tanker and cargo ship that crashed in the North Sea did not have “dedicated lookouts” in what were “patchy conditions”, an interim report has found.

The Stena Immaculate, a US-registered tanker carrying aviation fuel, was anchored 16 miles (26km) off the East Yorkshire coast when it was hit by the Portuguese-flagged Solong on 10 March.

The Marine Accident Investigation Branch (MAIB) also released new images of the incident, which resulted in fires and a rescue operation which saved 36 crew from both vessels.

One crew member on the Solong, Mark Pernia, is missing and presumed dead. He was reported to be in the forward area of the ship at the time of impact.

According to the report, the Solong was carrying “various products including some designated as dangerous” when it left Grangemouth in Scotland by 20:00 GMT the day before the crash.

It was heading to Rotterdam using a route it had previously used, the report noted.

The master of the Solong remained on watch for the first three hours of the voyage before handing over to the second officer and going to bed.

He returned the bridge at 07:00 GMT and “took over the watch as the lone watchkeeper”, the report said.

The Stena Immaculate had been told by Associate British Ports (ABP) Vessel Traffic Services at about 18:30 GMT on 9 March to anchor north of Humber Estuary, keeping clear of any pipeline. There were eight other vessels anchored in the same area, the report said.

The Solong collided with the tanker at a speed of about 16 knots (18mph/29km/h) at 09:47 GMT the following day.

“The visibility in the area north of the Humber light float was reported to be patchy and varying between 0.25 nautical miles (nm) and 2.0nm,” the report said.

“Neither Solong nor Stena Immaculate had a dedicated lookout on the bridge.”

According to the report, the collision caused a cargo tank on the Stena Immaculate to breach, spilling aviation fuel into the sea and onto the bow (front) of the Solong before igniting.

The crews of both vessels took immediate action but, according to the report, the severity of the fire hampered efforts to find Mr Pernia, a Filipino national.

The 13 crew members of Solong and 23-strong crew of the Stena Immaculate evacuated to lifeboats and were “subsequently recovered by local boats and emergency responders”. Efforts were coordinated by HM Coastguard, said the report.

The MAIB said its full investigation would examine navigation and watchkeeping practices, manning and fatigue management, the condition and maintenance of the vessels involved and the environmental conditions at the time of crash.

Investigators would also look at “the use of the offshore area as an anchorage for vessels waiting to enter the Humber Estuary”, said the report.

The Solong was towed to Aberdeen on 28 March as part of the salvage operation, with the Stena Immaculate expected to be taken to the Port of Tyne, near Newcastle, for further inspection.

Concerns have also been raised by wildlife experts about the environmental impact. The report said an evaluation of the nature and extent of the pollution is ongoing.

The Solong’s Russian captain, Vladimir Motin, 59, has been charged with gross negligence manslaughter, and is due to stand trial in January 2026.

Hull and East Yorkshire on BBC Soundslatest episode of Look North here.

As US President Donald Trump laid out tariffs on virtually every one of America’s trading partners on Wednesday, he had strong words for Beijing.

“I have great respect for President Xi [Jinping] of China, great respect for China, but they were taking tremendous advantage of us,” Trump said during his roughly hour-long address.

Holding up a chart listing countries and territories that he said had put up trade barriers to US goods, Trump said: “If you look at that… China, first row, 67%. That’s tariffs charged to the USA, including currency manipulation and trade barriers.”

“We are going to be charging [them] a discounted reciprocal tariff of 34%,” he added. “In other words, they charge us, we charge them, we charge them less. So how can anybody be upset?”

But China’s Commerce Ministry immediately called the move “a typical act of unilateral bullying” and pledged to take “resolute countermeasures to safeguard its rights and interests”.

And state news agency Xinhua accused Trump of “turning trade into an over simplistic tit-for-tat game”.

Experts believe Beijing has good reason to be upset.

For one, the latest announcement is an add on to existing tariffs of 20% on Chinese goods.

Secondly, by imposing heavy tariffs on other South East Asian countries including Cambodia, Vietnam and Laos, it has ‘slammed the door shut’ on how China rejigged its supply chains to get around the tariffs imposed on Beijing during Trump’s first term.

There were five Asian nations in the 10 countries and territories hit with the highest tariffs.

Trump has imposed new tariffs on Chinese imports since returning to the White House in January, ratcheting up levies to 20%.

In less than a week, these tariffs will jump to 54%, apart from on products like cars, steel and aluminium, which will be subjected to lower tariffs.

Beijing has also been on the receiving end of other Trump trade salvos.

Earlier on Wednesday, the President signed an executive order to end a provision for low-value parcels from China.

This had allowed Chinese e-commerce giants like Shein and Temu to ship packages with a retail value of under $800 (£617) to the US, without taxes and inspections.

Close to 1.4 billion shipments entered the US under the provision in the last financial year, according to customs data.

The removal of the exemption could force some Chinese firms to pass the extra cost on to customers, making their goods less competitive in the US.

When taken together, this is a worrying picture for Beijing, said Deborah Elms from the Hinrich Foundation consultancy.

“I don’t think the new tariffs are necessarily aimed at China. But when the United States stacks tariffs on top of each other, specifically towards China, the numbers become eye-watering quite quickly.”

“China and the Chinese will have to retaliate. They are not going to be able to sit back and watch this,” she said.

Trump also imposed heavy tariffs, ranging from 46% to 49%, on Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia.

This represents “a full-frontal assault on Beijing’s extended supply chain,” said Stephen Innes from investment firm SPI Asset Management.

“Vietnam… and others in the periphery are collateral damage in what is shaping up to be the most aggressive realignment of US trade policy in a generation,” he added. “This isn’t tit-for-tat – it’s strategic containment via tariff warfare.”

Laos and Cambodia, which are among the poorest countries in the region, are heavily dependant on Chinese investment in supply chain infrastructure. The high tariff rates are expected to hit both countries hard.

China is Vietnam’s largest trading partner. It was one of the key beneficiaries of US-China tensions during Trump’s first term.

In 2018, Trump hit China with tariffs, causing some businesses to rethink where they made their products. Some chose to shift manufacturing to Vietnam.

This has led to an increase of exports from Vietnam to the US, with Chinese companies that have moved production to there contributing to that figure.

“Vietnam was clearly targeted [by Trump] due to its role as a conduit for China’s circumvention of previous tariffs”, former US trade negotiator Stephen Olson told the BBC.

While the US remains Vietnam’s biggest export market, China is its largest supplier of goods, accounting for more than a third of imports, according to the latest official data.

Chinese firms were also behind nearly one in every three new investments in Vietnam last year.

Pushan Dutt, a professor at the INSEAD business school, said the new taxes on South East Asia will be “prohibitive” for China.

“China has a problem with demand and in the last Trump administration their firms had nimbly reacted to tariffs by rejigging supply chains and moving them to [South East Asian nations]. This door has been slammed shut,” he added.

But Trump’s taxes on the region will also impact US companies that manufacture goods in South East Asia.

For instance, American businesses including technology giants Apple and Intel, and sportswear giant Nike have large factories in Vietnam.

A recent survey by the American Chamber of Commerce in Vietnam found that most US manufacturers there expect to lay off staff if tariffs are imposed.

There is the question of what China can do to respond to the new tariffs, given it only has days before they are due to take effect.

Mr Olson said he expects Beijing to have a “forceful” response with tariffs and other measures making it more difficult for US companies to operate in China.

With the Chinese economy already facing challenges, Beijing faces “tough choices” in the days ahead, said Professor Dutt.

“Exporting to other regions threatens de-industrialisation in these destinations – and political leaders there are unlikely to accept this. That means China has to finally unleash domestic demand and the Chinese household,” he added.

The tariffs could also push China to try and build alliances with other Asian nations who have been on the receiving end of the tariffs.

Wang Huiyao, a former China Communist Party member who works with the Center for China and Globalisation think tank, called on Asian countries to “work together to go through this difficult time and fight protectionism”.

“In the end, the US could be losing all the influence and isolate itself,” he added.

Some discussions are already underway. China, South Korea and Japan recently held their first economic talks in five years.

They agreed to speed up talks for free trade agreement – which was first proposed over a decade ago.

The new tariffs could give them added incentive to do so.

However, Beijing could face some short-term pain while talks with Washington take its course.

“Ultimately, the US and China are headed for a negotiating table where they’ll try to reach some type of a grand bargain on a wide range of issues,” Mr Olson said.

“That won’t necessarily happen soon and I expect things to get worse before they get better,” he added.

Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs have shaken global trade, but disruption often creates opportunity.

Starting 9 April, Indian goods will face tariffs of up to 27% (Trump’s tariff chart lists India’s rate as 26%, but the official order says 27% – a discrepancy seen for other nations too). Before the tariff hike, US rates across trading partners averaged 3.3%, among the lowest globally, compared to India’s 17%, according to the White House.

However, with the US imposing even higher tariffs on China (54%), Vietnam (46%), Thailand (36%) and Bangladesh (37%), India “presents an opportunity” in textiles, electronics and machinery, according to the Delhi-based think tank Global Trade Research Initiative (GTRI).

High tariffs on Chinese and Bangladeshi exports open space for Indian textile manufacturers to expand in the US market. While Taiwan leads in semiconductors, India can tap into packaging, testing and lower-end chip manufacturing – if it strengthens infrastructure and policy support. Even a partial supply chain shift from Taiwan, driven by 32% tariffs, could work in India’s favour.

• Live updates: Reaction to Trump’s tariffs announcement
• At a glance: The countries hit hardest by these plans
• Explainer: What are tariffs, and why is Trump using them?
• Analysis: Trump’s tariffs are his biggest gamble yet

Machinery, automobiles and toys – sectors led by China and Thailand – are ripe for tariff-driven relocation. India can capitalise by attracting investment, scaling production and boosting exports to the US, according to a note by GTRI.

But will India be able to seize the moment?

High tariffs have increased costs for companies dependent on global value chains, hobbling India’s ability to compete in international markets. Despite growing exports – primarily driven by services – India runs a significant trade deficit. India’s share of global exports is a mere 1.5%. Trump has repeatedly branded India a “tariff king” and a “big abuser” of trade ties. With his new tariffs, the fear is that Indian exports will be less competitive.

“Overall, the US’s protectionist tariff regime could act as a catalyst for India to gain from global supply chain realignments,” says Ajay Srivastava of GTRI.

“However, to fully leverage these opportunities, India must enhance its ease of doing business, invest in logistics and infrastructure and maintain policy stability. If these conditions are met, India is well-positioned to become a key global manufacturing and export hub in the coming years.”

That’s easier said than done. Biswajit Dhar, a trade expert from the Delhi-based Council for Social Development think tank, points out that countries like Malaysia and Indonesia are possibly better positioned than India.

“We may regain some lost ground in garments now that Bangladesh faces higher tariffs, but the reality is we’ve treated garments as a sunset sector and failed to invest. Without building capacity, how can we truly benefit from these tariff shifts?” says Mr Dhar.

Since February, India has ramped up efforts to win Trump’s favour – pledging $25bn in US energy imports, courting Washington as a top defence supplier and exploring F-35 fighter deals. To ease trade tensions, it scrapped the 6% digital ad tax, cut bourbon whiskey tariffs to 100% from 150% and slashed duties on luxury cars and solar cells. Meanwhile, Elon Musk’s Starlink nears final approval. The two countries have launched extensive trade talks to narrow the US’s $45bn trade deficit with India.

Yet, India did not escape the tariff war.

“India should be concerned – there was hope that ongoing trade negotiations would shield it from reciprocal tariffs. Facing these tariffs now is a serious setback,” says Abhijit Das, former head of the Centre for WTO Studies at the Indian Institute of Foreign Trade.

One upside: pharmaceuticals are exempt from reciprocal tariffs, a relief for India’s generic drug makers. India supplies nearly half of all generic medicines in the US, where these lower-cost alternatives account for 90% of prescriptions.

However, exports in key sectors like electronics, engineering goods – automobile parts, industrial machines – and marine products could take a hit. It would be especially troubling for electronics, given the heavy investments through India’s flagship “production-linked incentives” (PLI) schemes to boost local manufacturing.

“I’m apprehensive about our exporters’ capacity – many are small manufacturers who will struggle to absorb a 27% tariff hike, making them uncompetitive. High logistical costs, rising business expenses and deteriorating trade infrastructure only add to the challenge. We’re starting at a major disadvantage,” says Mr Dhar.

Many see these tariffs as Trump’s bargaining chip in trade negotiations with India. The latest US Trade Representative report underscores Washington’s frustration with India’s trade policies.

Released on Monday, the report flags India’s strict import rules on dairy, pork and fish, requiring non-GMO certification without scientific backing. It also criticises India’s sluggish approval process for genetically modified products and price caps on stents and implants.

Intellectual property concerns have landed India on the ‘Priority Watch List’, for which the report cites weak patent protections and a lack of trade secret laws. The report also frets about data localisation mandates and restrictive satellite policies, straining trade ties further. Washington fears India’s regulatory approach is increasingly mirroring China’s. If these barriers were removed, US exports could rise by at least $5.3bn annually, according to the White House.

“The timing couldn’t be worse – being in the middle of trade negotiations only deepens our disadvantage. This isn’t just about market access; it’s the whole package,” says Mr Dhar. Also, gaining an edge over Vietnam or China won’t happen overnight – building opportunities and competitive strength takes time.

US President Donald Trump has imposed a 10% tariff on goods from most countries being imported into the US, with even higher rates for what he calls the “worst offenders”.

But how exactly were these tariffs – essentially taxes on imports – worked out? BBC Verify has been looking at the calculations behind the numbers.

When Trump presented a giant cardboard chart detailing the tariffs in the White House Rose Garden it was initially assumed that the charges were based on a combination of existing tariffs and other trade barriers (like regulations).

But later, the White House published what might look like a complicated mathematical formula.

But if you unpick the formula above it boils down to simple maths: take the trade deficit for the US in goods with a particular country, divide that by the total goods imports from that country and then divide that number by two.

A trade deficit occurs when a country buys (imports) more physical products from other countries than it sells (exports) to them.

• Live updates: Reaction to Trump’s tariffs announcement
• At a glance: The countries hit hardest by these plans
• Watch: Three things to know about Trump’s plans
• Global reaction: How five big economies see new Trump tariffs
• UK: What this means for you and your money
• Explainer: What are tariffs, and why is Trump using them?
• US analysis: Trump’s tariffs are his biggest gamble yet

For example, the US buys more goods from China than it sells to them – there is a goods deficit of $295bn. The total amount of goods it buys from China is $440bn.

Dividing 295 by 440 gets you to 67% and you divide that by two and round up. Therefore the tariff imposed on China is 34%.

Similarly, when it applied to the EU, the White House’s formula resulted in a 20% tariff.

Many commentators have pointed out that these tariffs are not reciprocal.

Reciprocal would mean they were based on what countries already charge the US in the form of existing tariffs, plus non-tariff barriers (things like regulations that drive up costs).

But the White House’s official methodology document makes clear that they have not calculated this for all the countries on which they have imposed tariffs.

Instead the tariff rate was calculated on the basis that it would eliminate the US’s goods trade deficit with each country.

Trump has broken away from the formula in imposing tariffs on countries that buy more goods from the US than they sell to it.

For example the US does not currently run goods trade deficit with the UK. Yet the UK has been hit with a 10% tariff.

In total, more than 100 countries are covered by the new tariff regime.

Trump believes the US is getting a bad deal in global trade. In his view, other countries flood US markets with cheap goods – which hurts US companies and costs jobs. At the same time, these countries are putting up barriers that make US products less competitive abroad.

So by using tariffs to eliminate trade deficits, Trump hopes to revive US manufacturing and protect jobs.

But will this new tariff regime achieve the desired outcome?

BBC Verify has spoken to a number of economists. The overwhelming view is that while the tariffs might reduce the goods deficit between the US and individual countries, they will not reduce the overall deficit between the US and rest of the world.

“Yes, it will reduce bilateral trade deficits between the US and these countries. But there will obviously be lots of broader impacts that are not captured in the calculation”, says Professor Jonathan Portes of King’s College, London.

That’s because the US’ existing overall deficit is not driven solely by trade barriers, but by how the US economy works.

For one, Americans spend and invest more than they earn and that gap means the US buys more from the world than it sells. So as long as that continues, the US may continue to keep running a deficit despite increasing tariffs with it global trading partners.

Some trade deficits can also exist for a number of legitimate reasons – not just down to tariffs. For example, buying food that is easier or cheaper to produce in other countries’ climates.

Thomas Sampson of the London School of Economics said: “The formula is reverse engineered to rationalise charging tariffs on countries with which the US has a trade deficit. There is no economic rationale for doing this and it will cost the global economy dearly.”

What do you want BBC Verify to investigate?

The impact of these tariffs on the world economy will be huge.

They can be measured by the lines on a chart of US tariff revenue jumping to levels not seen in a century – beyond those seen during the high protectionism of the 1930s.

Or in the overnight stock market falls, especially in Asia.

But the true measure of these changes will be significant changes to long-standing global avenues of trade.

At its heart this is a universal tariff of 10% on nearly all imports into the US for every country, coming in on Friday night. On top of that dozens of “worst offenders” will be charged reciprocally for having trade surpluses.

The tariffs on Asian nations are truly remarkable. They will break the business models of thousands of companies, factories, and possibly entire nations.

Some of the supply chains created by the world’s biggest companies will be broken instantly. The inevitable impact will surely be to push them towards China.

Is this just a grand negotiation? Well the US administration appears to be claiming the tariff revenue for planned tax cuts. The scope for quick adjustment seems limited. As one White House official said bluntly: “This is not a negotiation, it’s a national emergency”.

The US’s formula for the so-called “reciprocal tariffs” basically just charges a country for having a goods trade surplus with the US, exporting more to America than it imports. Then even if there is no surplus it whacks up the charge at the universal baseline of 10%.

All this reveals two things. The aim of policy is to reduce the US trade deficit to zero. That is a remarkable rerouting of world trade flows and explains the specific punitive focus on Asia.

Secondly it is clearly the case that bilateral negotiations have not made much of a difference, or in fact any difference.

• Live updates: Reaction to Trump’s tariffs announcement
• At a glance: The countries hit hardest by these plans
• The full story: Trump charges high tariffs on ‘worst offenders’ globally
• Explainer: What are tariffs, and why is Trump using them?

Deficits and surpluses are a normal part of a functioning trade system where countries specialise in what they are the best at making. The US has now spectacularly ended that logic.

But shifting factories will take years. Tariffs at this scale on East Asia especially at 30 or 40% will hike prices of clothes, toys and electronics much more quickly.

The question now is how the rest of the world responds.

There are opportunities for some consumers in Europe to benefit from cheaper diverted trade in clothes and electronics. Outside of an inward-looking number one world economy, the rest of the big economies may choose to integrate trade more closely.

As Tesla’s slumping sales may illustrate, only part of this story is about the response of governments. These days consumers can retaliate too. It may be a new sort of social media trade war.

Europe could decide not to continue buying the consumer brands created in the US, and loved across the world.

The monopoly in the provision of social media services by big US tech could be shaken up.

And US authorities may need to raise interest rates to combat the inevitable spike in inflation.

A messy global trade war looks inevitable.

US President Donald Trump announced a sweeping new set of tariffs on Wednesday, arguing that they would allow the United States to economically flourish.

These new import taxes, which Trump imposed via executive order, are expected to send economic shockwaves around the world.

But the US president believes they are necessary to address trading imbalances and to protect American jobs and manufacturing.

Here are the basic elements of the plan.

• Live updates: Reaction to Trump’s tariffs announcement

In a background call before Trump’s speech, a senior White House official told reporters that the president would impose a “baseline” tariff on all imports to the US.

That rate is set at 10% and will go into effect on 5 April.

It is the companies that bring the foreign goods into the US that have to pay the tax to the government, although this could have knock-on effects to consumers.

Some countries will only face the base rate. These include:

• United Kingdom
• Singapore
• Brazil
• Australia
• New Zealand
• Turkey
• Colombia
• Argentina
• El Salvador
• United Arab Emirates
• Saudi Arabia

White House officials also said that they would impose what they describe as specific reciprocal tariffs on roughly 60 of the “worst offenders”.

These will go into effect on 9 April.

Trump’s officials say these countries charge higher tariffs on US goods, impose “non-tariff” barriers to US trade or have otherwise acted in ways they feel undermine American economic goals.

The key trading partners subject to these customised tariff rates include:

• European Union: 20%
• China: 54% (which includes earlier tariffs)
• Vietnam: 46%
• Thailand: 36%
• Japan: 24%
• Cambodia: 49%
• South Africa: 30%
• Taiwan: 32%

The 10% baseline rate does not apply to Canada and Mexico, since they have already been targeted during Trump’s presidency.

The White House said it would deal with both countries using a framework set out in Trump’s previous executive orders, which imposed tariffs on both countries as part of the administration’s efforts to address the entry of fentanyl to the US and border issues.

Trump previously set those tariffs at 25% on all goods entering from both countries, before announcing some exemptions and delays.

In addition, the president confirmed the beginning of a new American “25% tariff on all foreign made-automobiles”.

This tariff went into effect almost immediately, at midnight local time.

• Live updates: Reaction to Trump’s tariffs announcement
• At a glance: The countries hit hardest by these plans
• Watch: Three things to know about Trump’s plans
• BBC Verify: How were Donald Trump’s tariffs calculated?
• Global reaction: How five big economies see new Trump tariffs
• UK: What this means for you and your money
• Explainer: What are tariffs, and why is Trump using them?
• Analysis: Trump’s tariffs are his biggest gamble yet

Outrage is a precious political currency and France’s far right has spent this week attempting, furiously and predictably, to capitalise on the perceived injustice of a court’s decision to block its totemic leader, Marine Le Pen, from standing in the 2027 presidential election.

Listen to Andrew read this article

The airwaves have been throbbing with indignation.

“Be outraged,” said one of Le Pen’s key deputies, on French television, in case anyone was in doubt as to what their reaction should be.

But it remains unclear whether Le Pen’s tough sentence will broaden support for her party, the National Rally (RN), or lead to greater fragmentation of the French far right. Either way, it has created a feverish mood among the nation’s politicians.

Le Pen and her allies have boldly declared that France’s institutions, and democracy itself, have been “executed”, are “dead”, or “violated”. The country’s justice system has been turned into a “political” hit squad, shamelessly intervening in a nation’s right to choose its own leaders. And Marine Le Pen has been widely portrayed, with something close to certainty, as France’s president-in-waiting, as the nation’s most popular politician, cruelly robbed of her near-inevitable procession towards the Élysée Palace.

“The system has released a nuclear bomb, and if it is using such a powerful weapon against us, it is obviously because we are about to win the elections,” Le Pen fumed at a news conference, comparing herself to the poisoned, imprisoned, and now dead Russian opposition politician Alexei Navalny.

As France assesses its latest political tremors, an uneven pushback has begun.

Nervous about the impact the judgement may have for the country’s frail coalition government, the Prime Minister François Bayrou has admitted to feeling “troubled” by Le Pen’s sentence and worried about a “shock” to public opinion.

But other centrist politicians have taken a firmer line, stressing the need for a clear gap between the justice system and politics.

An early opinion poll appears to show the French public taking a calm line, bursting – or at least deflating – the RN’s bubble of outrage. The poll, produced within hours of the court’s ruling, showed less than a third of the country – 31% – felt the decision to block Le Pen, immediately, from running for public office, was unjust.

Tellingly, that figure was less than the 37% of French people who recently expressed an interest in voting for her as president.

In other words, plenty of people who like her as a politician also think it reasonable that her crimes should disqualify her from running for office.

And remember, French presidential elections are still two years away – an eternity in the current political climate.

Emmanuel Macron is not entitled to stand for another term and no clear alternative to Le Pen, from the left or centre of French politics, has yet emerged. Le Pen’s share of the vote has consistently risen during her previous three failed bids for the top job but it is premature, at best, to consider her a shoo-in for 2027.

Anyone who followed the court case against her and her party colleagues in an impartial fashion would struggle to conclude that the verdicts in Le Pen’s case were unreasonable.

The evidence of a massive and coordinated project to defraud the European Parliament and its associated taxpayers included jaw-droppingly incriminating emails suggesting officials knew exactly what they were doing, and the illegality of their actions.

That the corruption was for the party, not for personal gain, surely changes nothing. Corruption is corruption. Besides, other parties have also been found guilty of similar offences.

Regarding the punishments handed out by the court, here it seems fair to argue that Le Pen and her party made a strategic blunder in their approach to the case.

Had they acknowledged the facts, and their errors, and cooperated in facilitating a swift trial rather than helping to drag the process out for almost a decade, the judges – as they’ve now made clear – might have taken their attitude towards the case into consideration when considering punishments.

“Neither during the investigation nor at the trial did [Le Pen] show any awareness of the need for probity as an elected official, nor of the ensuing responsibilities,” wrote the judges in a document explaining, often indignantly, why they’d delivered such a tough sentence.

They berated Le Pen for seeking to delay or avoid justice with “a defence system that disregards the uncovering of the truth”.

It is worth noting, here, the wider hypocrisy demonstrated by elites across France’s political spectrum who have recently been muttering their sympathy for Le Pen. It is nine years since MPs voted to toughen up the laws on corruption, introducing the very sanctions – on immediately banning criminals from public office – that were used by the judges in this case.

That toughening was welcomed by the public as an antidote to a judicial system stymied by an indulgent culture of successive appeals that enabled – and sometimes still enables – politicians to dodge accountability for decades.

Le Pen is now being gleefully taunted by her critics online with the many past instances in which she has called for stricter laws on corruption.

“When are we going to learn the lessons and effectively introduce lifelong ineligibility for those who have been convicted of acts committed while in office or during their term of office?” she asked in 2013.

Reasonable people can reasonably disagree about the court’s sentencing decisions in Le Pen’s case. But the notion – enthusiastically endorsed by populist and hard-right politicians across Europe and the US – that she is a victim of a conspiratorial political plot has clearly not convinced most French people.

At least not yet.

So where does this verdict – clearly a seismic moment in French politics – leave the National Rally and the wider far-right movement?

The short answer is that no one knows. There are so many variables involved – from the fate of Le Pen’s fast-tracked appeal, to the RN’s succession strategy, to the state of France’s precarious finances, to the broader political climate and the see-sawing appetite for populism both within France and globally – that predictions are an even more dubious game than usual.

The most immediate question – given the slow pace of the legal appeal that Le Pen has vowed to initiate – is whether the RN will seek prompt revenge in parliament by attempting to bring down the fragile coalition government of François Bayrou.

That could lead to new parliamentary elections this summer and the possibility that the RN could capitalise on its victim status to increase its lead in parliament and perhaps, even, to push the country towards a deadlock in which President Macron might – yet another “might” – feel obliged to step down.

One person who will now be facing extra scrutiny is Le Pen’s almost but not quite anointed successor, 29-year-old Jordan Bardella, who could be drafted in as a replacement presidential candidate if Le Pen’s own “narrow path” towards the Élysée remains blocked on appeal.

If social-media-savvy Bardella’s popularity among French youth is any indication of his prospects, he could well sweep to victory in 2027. He has found a way to tap into the frustrations of people angry about falling living standards and concerns about immigration.

But turning youthful support into actual votes is not always straightforward, and other, more experienced and mainstream figures on the right may well be sensing an opportunity too.

The Interior Minister, Bruno Retailleau, is widely seen to be emerging as a potential contender. Some even wonder if the provocative television personality, Cyril Hanouna, might become a serious political force on the right of French politics.

Meanwhile, Bardella, like the RN in general, has been on a highly disciplined mission to detoxify the party’s once overtly racist and antisemitic brand. In February, for instance, he abandoned plans to speak at America’s far-right CPAC event after Donald Trump’s former advisor Steve Bannon made a Nazi salute.

But this week’s events have revealed that the RN is enthusiastically committed to the distinctly Trump-ian and populist strategy of blaming its misfortunes on a “swamp” of unelected officials. Bardella, meanwhile, complained about the recent closure of two right-wing media channels alongside his party’s own legal struggles.

“There is an extremely serious drift today that does not reflect the idea we have of French democracy,” he said.

It’s the sort of language that goes down well with the RN’s core constituency, but its broader appeal may be limited in a country that remains, in many ways, deeply attached to its institutions.

To frame it another way, will French voters be more motivated by the belief that Le Pen was unfairly punished, or by concern that the judges involved have since been the victims of death threats and other insults?

As for Marine Le Pen, she has vowed that she will not be sidelined. But her destiny is not entirely in her own hands now. At the age of 56 she has become a familiar figure, fiery at times, but personally approachable, warm and, in political terms, profoundly influential and disciplined. So what next for her?

France has had one Le Pen or other (Marine’s father, Jean-Marie ran four times) on their presidential ballot paper since 1988. Always unsuccessfully.

History may well look back on this week as the moment Marine Le Pen’s fate was sealed, in one of three ways: as France’s first female and first far-right president, swept to power on a tide of outrage. As the four-time loser of a French presidential election, finally denied power by the taint of corruption. Or as someone whose soaring political career was brought to an early and shuddering halt by her own miscalculations over a serious embezzlement scandal.

South Africa’s coalition government is on shaky ground, with the sharp divisions between its two biggest parties – the African National Congress (ANC) and Democratic Alliance (DA) – exposed in a crucial vote on the national budget.

The centre-right DA voted against the fiscal framework – a key part of the budget – after rejecting an increase in VAT, and demanding a cut in spending across all government departments.

The ANC, which positions itself as a centre-left party, refused to bow to what it called the DA’s demand for an “austerity budget”.

It demonstrated its political acumen by winning the support of a slew of smaller parties – both inside and outside government – to get the fiscal framework through parliament by 194 votes to 182.

The DA filed papers in court to challenge the vote, saying it was “procedurally flawed” while its top leadership is due to meet later to decide whether or not to remain in what South Africans call a government of national unity (GNU).

Professor William Gumede, an academic at Wits University’s school of governance in Johannesburg, told the BBC it was unclear whether the DA would quit the government at this stage.

“It will be asking itself whether this is the tipping-point or whether it should wait – at least until the outcome of the court case,” Prof Gumede said.

The coalition government was formed less than a year ago after the ANC lost its parliamentary majority in elections for the first time since Nelson Mandela led it to power in 1994 at the end of white-minority rule.

South Africa’s business sector lobbied the two parties to enter into a coalition, seeing it as the best option to guarantee economic stability.

But hinting that the DA’s participation was no longer certain, DA spokesman Willie Aucamp accused the ANC of a “serious infraction” and said the party had “crossed a line in the sand”.

DA federal chair Helen Zille said the party would consider all its options, and not rush into a decision.

“We know that being in a coalition requires compromise. You can’t get it all. But the ANC also can’t get it all, and they are refusing, point blank, to share power,” Zille added.

The ANC took an equally tough stand, with its parliamentary chief whip, Mdumiseni Ntuli, accusing the DA of “complete betrayal” by breaking ranks with its partners in the GNU.

“The DA is a member, or was a member,” Ntuli said.

“I don’t know what is going to happen with them now, but the GNU remains,” he added, referring to the fact that other parties in the 10-member coalition remain committed to it.

President Cyril Ramaphosa’s spokesman Vincent Magwenya also threw down the gauntlet to the DA, saying: “You can’t be part of a government whose budget you opposed.”

The DA found itself voting alongside South Africa’s two biggest, and most populist, opposition parties – former President Jacob Zuma’s uMkhonto weSizwe (MK) party and Julius Malema’s Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF).

Advocating the nationalisation of key sectors of the economy, these two parties are the implacable foes of the pro-business DA.

But the three parties were united in opposing a VAT increase, believing it would hit the poor hard.

As DA leader John Steenhuisen put it: “The ANC is out of touch with the people, and if they bought their own groceries or filled their own tanks, they would know how expensive life already is.”

But the ANC argued that a VAT increase – set at 0.5% this year and a further 0.5% next year – was necessary to raise revenue, and to offer public services such as health and education.

Crucially, the Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP) voted with the ANC, signalling the end of the alliance it formed with the DA in the build-up to the election in a failed bid to keep Ramaphosa’s party out of power.

ActionSA – a small opposition party which broke away from the DA – helped the ANC clinch the vote.

It said it had reached a deal with the ANC that would see the VAT increase scrapped, while alternative ways of raising revenue for the government are explored.

“Yesterday’s [Wednesday’s] adoption of the report on the fiscal framework was merely one step in a multi-stage budgeting process before the final budget is approved,” ActionSA said in a statement.

Prof Gumede said the ANC would find it difficult to convince the public to pay more taxes when public services were crumbling.

“The optics don’t look good for the ANC,” he told the BBC.

“The DA has taken the budget as an opportunity to make a big impact, and to show it is pro-poor.”

The dispute over the budget is the latest sign of the sharp differences between the two parties, with the DA also challenging in the courts three other pieces of legislation – including the land expropriation act.

This law was one of the issues that led to US President Donald Trump’s administration cutting aid to South Africa.

The Trump administration has now imposed tariffs of 30% on all South African imports, in a move that is likely to be a huge blow to its already floundering economy.

“They have got some bad things going on in South Africa. You know, we are paying them billions of dollars, and we cut the funding because a lot of bad things are happening in South Africa,” the US president said, before going on to name other countries.

In a statement, Ramaphosa’s office condemned the new tariffs as “punitive”, saying they could “serve as a barrier to trade and shared prosperity”.

But for many South Africans, the tariffs signal the need for the two biggest parties to resolve their differences and work together – or risk seeing the nation sink into a deeper economic crisis at a time when the unemployment rate is already at more than 30%.

• What big business wants for South Africa’s future
• South Africans still battling ‘economic apartheid’ 30 years on
• Race policies or Israel – what’s really driving Trump’s fury with South Africa?

After months of speculation, Nintendo has confirmed the successor to its wildly popular Switch console will be released on 5 June, when it will cost £395.99 to buy in the UK.

But it’s not so much the price of the Switch 2 but its games that have been raising eyebrows, with the new Mario Kart World that is being released alongside it coming in at a whopping £74.99 for a physical copy.

Fans will have to wait weeks before seeing what the new console and game are like – and whether they are worth that sort of money – but here’s what I found when Nintendo gave me a chance to try them both out.

When I first got my hands on the Switch 2, one thing became very clear to me – like the name suggests, Nintendo wants you to know this is a direct sequel to the Switch.

This isn’t like the jump from the Wii to the confusingly named Wii U, swapping motion controllers for a tablet that looked dated even back when the console released.

Instead, the Switch 2 looks and feels just like its predecessor, with buttons in the places you’d expect – and a much larger (and nicer) screen.

It’s fair to say Mario Kart World makes a fantastic first impression, thanks to the console having more power under the hood.

It looks spectacular compared to previous Switch titles, though we’re still talking about cartoony graphics – make no mistake, the console is more powerful but it’s no match for the higher spec PlayStation 5, let alone PS5 Pro.

And in my three races the standout feature wasn’t the swishy new graphics or the controller, it was a trick that is becoming Nintendo’s hallmark: making the new feel familiar.

Despite having never picked up a Switch 2, I stormed my way to consecutive first place finishes, much to the chagrin of those around me.

But it doesn’t come cheap.

The digital version of the game costs £66.99, it’s another £8 on top of that for a physical copy – or pay an an extra £35 for a version of the Switch 2 with it built-in, something which pushes the console price to £429.99.

According to industry expert Christopher Dring, these wallet-emptying prices are down to the costs involved in manufacturing – and President Donald Trump’s tariff blitz.

“These cartridges are exclusively made in Japan, which is a country that’s just been hit with a 24% tariff from the US Government, and the threat of those tariffs may have impacted Nintendo’s pricing decisions globally,” he said.

In the US, Mario Kart World will be priced at $79.99, with the console selling for $449.99 (or $499.99 with Mario Kart bundled in).

But there’s more to the Switch 2 than Mario Kart.

Fans will no doubt have been excited to see the hotly anticipated Metroid Prime 4, the first game in the series in 18 years.

But while they will be familiar with the typical way of playing – moving and aiming with joysticks and shooting with the “A” button – there’s a significant new feature too.

At any point in the game you can rotate the controller, put it on a surface and use it like a mouse. Fans of PC games will immediately feel at home with this, and it’s a neat bit of engineering to be able to switch up on-the-fly without having to enter any menus.

The optical mouse controls pop up elsewhere too, with PC strategy game Civilization VII a game that massively benefits.

But in both cases, I do wonder how long you can play with the controller like this before the ergonomics become an issue. I have to admit I found myself wondering why I wasn’t just playing on my PC with mouse controls and a comfortable resting position.

Still, the fact that this is built in to the hardware means we may see the Switch 2 as the obvious home of future PC ports to home consoles.

And there is another trick up Nintendo’s sleeve – both controllers can be held like this and used as mice, opening up some interesting possibilities. In particular, futuristic wheelchair basketball game Drag x Drive, where both “mice” are pushed to mimic moving wheels.

Elsewhere, Donkey Kong Bananza will be the first time the ape mascot has had a 3D platforming game of his own in 25 years, so there was some pressure on Nintendo to deliver a game which justified the wait.

For lack of a better term it’s a destruct-em-up – you can destroy much of the floor and scenery in each level.

But there’s that dreaded price news again. A digital copy will cost £58.99, while a physical copy retails at £66.99.

It seems Nintendo has a lot to offer Switch fans – but it will be taking a fair bit from them too.

Some other titles I got to see in action were updated versions of Cyberpunk 2077 and Yakuza 0 – both of which big hitters on rival consoles which were deemed too complex to run on the original Switch.

Like the other Switch 2 games, they looked good – and of course they will benefit as the new console, like the original, can play games on the go.

The original Switch created the genre of the hybrid console – one which works on a TV and as a portable system.

But since that launch in 2017, things have changed a bit.

Now, it has a rival in the Steam Deck, a hybrid machine with the power to play most PC games.

Nintendo would say something its rivals don’t have is that long list of exclusive titles.

But there is a bit of a theme here: Nintendo has consciously gone for continuity.

The console is the Switch 2, rather than having a completely new name. Many of those exclusives Nintendo is so proud of are new games in established series, while others are remasters of modern classics.

I had great experiences with these games in the 20 minutes I had with them.

But for fans to get value for those high prices they will want something that holds up over weeks and months of gameplay.

Will the Switch 2’s slick nostalgia hit provide that? We’ll start to find out in June.

In the immediate aftermath of an earthquake, there is a 72-hour “golden window” when those trapped under rubble are most likely to survive.

But in the 72 hours after a 7.7 magnitude quake struck Myanmar on Friday, rescue and relief workers seeking access to some of the worst-hit areas were blocked by military authorities, multiple aid and human rights groups told the BBC.

This was despite a rare plea for international humanitarian assistance by junta chief Min Aung Hlaing.

“I would like to invite any country, any organisation, or anyone in Myanmar to come and help,” he said in a speech shortly after the disaster, claiming he had “opened all ways for foreign aid”.

On the ground, things moved less freely.

“I’ve talked to a few people now that were part of the rescue efforts in both Sagaing and Mandalay, and they said that [the military] imposed a curfew… the roads were blocked, the checkpoints were really long, and there was a huge checking of goods and services going in and a lot of questioning,” John Quinley, director of international human rights group Fortify Rights, told the BBC.

“It could have just been a lot easier to allow those people in,” he added. “Obviously the Myanmar junta said it was for safety reasons, but I don’t believe that’s totally legitimate.”

Meanwhile, the golden window closed.

At the time of writing, more than 2,886 people in Myanmar are confirmed dead as a result of the earthquake.

On Tuesday night, an attack on an aid convoy further exacerbated concerns.

At 21:21, a convoy of nine Chinese Red Cross Society vehicles carrying earthquake relief supplies was attacked by the military, according to Ta’ang National Liberation Army (TNLA), a resistance group in Shan State.

The convoy was traveling toward Mandalay when it was fired upon by soldiers with machine guns, forcing it to turn back, the TNLA said in a Telegram post late on Tuesday.

A junta spokesperson later confirmed that soldiers had shot at the vehicles, saying they had not been notified that the convoy would be passing through and fired warning shots after it failed to stop.

• Inside Mandalay: BBC finds devastation and little help for quake survivors
• What we know about the earthquake

But this is not the first time the junta has attacked aid workers, Mr Quinley said.

“They pick and choose when aid can go in, and if they can’t monitor it and they can’t use it how they want, they restrict it,” he said. “They definitely also, on top of that, actively target humanitarian workers.”

The junta, which began fighting a civil war with resistance forces in Myanmar after it seized control of the country in 2021, has a history of weaponising aid and humanitarian assistance: funnelling it towards areas that are under its control and restricting it in areas that are not.

The BBC assessed the power balance in more than 14,000 village groups as of mid-November last year, and found the military only has full control of 21% of Myanmar’s territory, nearly four years on from the start of the conflict.

In previous natural disasters, such as Cyclone Mocha in 2023 and Typhoon Yagi in 2024, which left hundreds dead, the military obstructed relief efforts in resistance-held areas by refusing to release supplies from customs, authorise travel for aid workers or relax restrictions on lifesaving assistance.

“It’s a worrying trend that happens in times of crisis, like the earthquake,” Mr Quinley said. “The junta is blocking any aid to what they see as groups that are aligned with the broader resistance.”

James Rodehaver, head of the Myanmar team at the Office for the UN’s High Commissioner for Human Rights, further suggested that the junta deprives Myanmar’s population of aid as a form of punishment.

“They do that because the local population, by and large, does not support them, so by depriving them of humanitarian aid, they are both punishing them but also cutting off their ability to support themselves and be resilient,” he told the BBC.

There are already signs the junta may be repeating this tactic in Sagaing.

Although central Myanmar, which includes the cities of Sagaing and Mandalay, is nominally run by the junta – meaning aid can only be delivered to the area with their co-operation – large parts of the broader Sagaing and Mandalay regions are considered resistance strongholds.

The likelihood that the junta might tactically deprive these areas of aid has prompted outcry from hundreds of human rights and civil society organisations, who have urged the international community to ensure relief efforts get to where they’re most needed, and aren’t channelled through the military government.

One such statement, signed by 265 civil society organisations and released on Sunday, notes that most of the worst-hit areas are under the effective control and administration of pro-democracy resistance groups.

“Myanmar’s history provides stark warnings about the dangers of channelling aid through the military junta,” it reads.

In Sagaing, the impact of aid shortfalls can already be seen in troubling ways, according to relief agencies.

They speak of shortages of food, water and fuel, while trucks carrying aid are stranded at military checkpoints around the city. Hundreds of residents, suddenly homeless, are sleeping outside on the street. Rescue volunteers who were forced to dig through the rubble with their bare hands have run out of body bags for those they couldn’t save.

Other community members seeking to respond to the earthquake are being forced to get authorisation from junta authorities by submitting lists of volunteers and items to be donated, local media reported.

This tactic – of bombarding responders with lengthy bureaucratic checklists and processes – is routinely deployed by the junta to restrict the activities of international aid organisations in Myanmar, humanitarian sources told the BBC.

According to a registration law imposed in 2023, such organisations must attain a registration certificate, and often sign a memorandum of understanding with relevant government ministries, to legally operate inside the country.

One source, who spoke to the BBC on condition of anonymity, said aid groups are often required to remove certain activities, areas or townships from their proposals, with no room for negotiation. Areas where the junta doesn’t have oversight or control over the aid work are typically those that are disallowed, they added.

Aid agencies have found ways to navigate the junta’s restriction, however: a lot of humanitarian assistance in Myanmar happens underground, via local groups that can bypass checkpoints and distribute aid without attracting the attention of the authorities.

Many financial transactions in humanitarian aid also happen outside of Myanmar’s banking system, so that actors can avoid scrutiny and potential investigation from the country’s central bank, a source told the BBC. In some cases, humanitarian organisations open bank accounts in Thailand so that they can privately receive aid funds, then carry the money over the border into Myanmar in cash.

Such covert methods take time, however, and could lead to potentially fatal delays of days or weeks.

Some aid workers are hopeful that, given the scale of Friday’s earthquake and the international appeal for assistance by Min Aung Hlaing, it may be easier to overcome barriers and provide aid more efficiently.

“In the past we have faced some challenges,” said Louise Gorton, an emergency specialist based in Unicef’s East Asia and Pacific Regional Office.

“The scale of this emergency, though, is significantly higher… I think there will be pressure on the regime to ensure unfettered and unimpeded humanitarian access – and we’ll continue to repeat the same need and find ways, sometimes low-key ways, to deliver aid.”

Cara Bragg, country manager for the Catholic Relief Services (CRS) team in Myanmar, said that while it’s too early to tell whether the junta will truly “open all ways for foreign aid”, her team is prepared to navigate the complex humanitarian situation to deliver assistance.

“It’s certainly a concern that they [the military] may direct the aid in specific places, and not based on need,” said Ms Bragg, who is based in Yangon.

“But as humanitarian actors CRS works under a humanitarian mandate, and will be very focused on getting aid to the places it needs to go – to the hardest-hit areas, regardless of who controls them.”

Early indications suggest that, despite Min Aung Hlaing’s plea to the international community, the embattled junta leader is unlikely to prioritise the unfettered flow of humanitarian aid.

Shortly after the earthquake, military jets launched a series of airstrikes on affected areas, killing more than 50 civilians, according to the National Unity Consultative Council (NUCC).

Then, on Tuesday, Min Aung Hlaing rejected ceasefire proposals that were put forward by resistance groups in a bid to facilitate aid. Military operations would continue as “necessary protective measures”, he said.

The junta changed its mind a day later, agreeing to a 20-day ceasefire to help relief efforts. But it remains to be seen whether the pause in hostilities will hold. The military stressed it would “respond accordingly” if rebels launched attacks.

For many onlookers, this seeming contradiction – of asking for aid with one hand while conducting military strikes with the other – chimes with Min Aung Hlaing’s history of duplicity.

John Quinley, from Fortify Rights, noted that the junta leader has “lied on numerous occasions” – and suggested that the recent appeal for foreign aid is more likely an appeal for international recognition.

Against that backdrop, Mr Quinley added, it’s critical to ensure earthquake relief gets to where it is most needed.

“I think as a human rights group we need to monitor: OK, [Min Aung Hlaing] allows aid in – but is it actually reaching people in need? Or is he weaponising the aid? Is he blocking the aid from getting to communities in need?” he said.

“I’m not hopeful when it comes to taking what Min Aung Hlaing says with any hint of truth.”

Bruce Springsteen is throwing open his archives to let fans hear seven completed, but never-before-released, albums.

The recordings, which date from 1983 to 2018, will “fill in rich chapters of Springsteen’s expansive career timeline – while offering invaluable insight into his life and work as an artist,” said Sony Music.

Among them are working tapes from the sessions that led to rock classic Born In The USA, and an album that experimented with drum loops and synthesisers from the early 1990s.

“I’ve played this music to myself and often close friends for years now,” Springsteen said in a statement. “I’m glad you’ll get a chance to finally hear them. I hope you enjoy them.”

The music will be revealed on a box set of seven CDs (or nine vinyl discs), titled Tracks II: The Lost Albums.

The scale of the release is quite different from its predecessor, Tracks, whose four discs collected random off-cuts and b-sides from the first 25 years of Springsteen’s career.

According to a press release, Tracks II will feature 83 songs, of which 74 have never been officially released in any form.

Many of the tracks, including Fugitive’s Dream and Don’t Back Down on Our Love, have circulated on bootlegs for years, but will finally be heard in studio quality.

Springsteen said the release had been made possible when the Covid-19 pandemic allowed him to “finish everything I had in my vault”.

Fans have known for years that Springsteen’s vault contains hours and hours of unheard material.

Speaking to Variety magazine in 2017, the star admitted: “We’ve made many more records than we released. Why didn’t we release those records? I didn’t think they were essential.

“I might have thought they were good, I might have had fun making them… but over my entire work life, I felt like I released what was essential at a certain moment, and what I got in return was a very sharp definition of who I was, what I want to do, what I was singing about.

“And I still basically judge what I’m doing by the same set of rules.”

In a video trailer for Tracks II, Springsteen added: “I often read about myself in the ’90s as having some lost period or something.

“And I really, really was working the whole time.”

Fans will finally get to hear those “lost” songs in June.

Springsteen said they would offer a glimpse into the home recordings he made after the commercial success of Born To Run and Born In The USA freed him from the pressure of using commercial recording studios.

“The ability to record at home whenever I wanted allowed me to go into a wide variety of different musical directions,” he said in a statement.

That includes the “sonic experimeentation” of Faithless, a film soundtrack to a movie that never got made.

Other unreleased albums include the country-leaning Somewhere North of Nashville, cut in May 1995; and Twilight Hours, an orchestrated pop album that was written and recorded in the same period as 2018’s Western Stars.

There are also the “richly-woven border tales” of Inyo, whose song titles – including The Aztec Dance and Ciudad Juarez – suggest a Latin American influence.

Springsteen described the last disc, Perfect World, as “the one thing on this that wasn’t initially conceived as an album”, instead highlighting several songs he wrote with longtime collaborator Joe Grushecky in the 1990s and early 2000s.

As a first taste of the collection, he released Rain In The River, from Perfect World, whose muscular drums and squalling feedback showcase the raw power of his regular backing band E Street Band.

The announcement comes a month before Springsteen kicks off his European tour, with dates in Manchester, Liverpool, Marseille, Berlin and Prague, amongst others.

The 75-year-old recently vowed to keep playing live “until the wheels come off”, but said he had scaled back his tours after his wife, Patti Scialfa, was diagnosed with myeloma, a rare blood cancer.

The UK government is drawing up a list of US products it could hit with retaliatory tariffs after President Donald Trump announced a wave of new import taxes.

This is a toughening of the government’s stance as ministers seek to finalise a trade deal with the US.

Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds says he is consulting UK firms about the likely impact of the 10% tariffs being imposed on nearly all UK exports to the US and which products should be on the list.

If UK negotiators can not agree a deal to reduce the 10% tariff by 1 May, the business secretary told MPs the government could impose retaliatory tariffs on US imports.

• Live updates: Reaction to Trump’s tariffs announcement
• At a glance: What president’s new taxes mean for EU, China and others
• Global reaction: World leaders criticise Trump tariffs as ‘major blow’
• Explainer: What are tariffs, and why is Trump using them?
• Chris Mason: UK relief but not delight at Trump tariffs

Trump told the BBC he believed Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer “was very happy on how we treated” the UK on tariffs.

But earlier on Thursday, the UK government published a sample list of US goods that could face future tariffs.

Being on the 417-page list does not necessarily mean a product will face tariffs, the government said.

The list covers 27% of imports from the US – chosen because they would have a “more limited impact” on the UK economy, the Department for Business and Trade said.

The products range from pure bred horses and children’s clothes to crude oil, firearms and bourbon whiskey.

Reynolds says talks are ongoing with the US government to secure an economic deal aimed at avoiding or reducing tariffs.

But he warned that the UK “reserves the right to take any action we deem necessary if a deal is not secured”.

In the event of reaching a deal with the US, the consultation with businesses would be paused, he added.

Speaking in the House of Commons, he said the fact the US had put lower tariffs on the UK compared to other countries “vindicated the pragmatic approach the government has taken”.

However, he said he was “disappointed” by the increase.

Conservative shadow business secretary Andrew Griffith argued “the government got no special favours” – noting the UK was facing the same tariffs as the Congo and the Christmas Islands.

The EU was being hit by 20% tariffs and the UK’s lower rate of 10% was actually a vindication of those who “were pilloried and abused” for backing Brexit, Griffith argued.

The UK exported almost £60bn worth of goods to the US last year, mainly machinery, cars and pharmaceuticals.

In addition to the 10% tariffs, a 25% tariff has been put on UK car exports, as well as steel and aluminium products.

Some products are exempt from the charges announced on Wednesday, according to White House documents – including the UK’s pharmaceutical sector, along with semiconductors, copper and some lumber items.

The government’s official forecaster estimates a worst-case scenario trade war could reduce UK economic growth by 1% and wipe out the £9.9bn of economic headroom Chancellor Rachel Reeves gave herself at last week’s Spring Statement.

It could mean that in order to meet her own fiscal rules, she would have to raise taxes or make cuts to government spending.

Behind the scenes the government says it has been laying the groundwork for a trade deal with the US.

Insiders on the UK side say a deal is practically done. But no one knows if, or when, Trump will sign off on it.

Any deal would be broader than just lower tariffs the BBC understands, focusing on technology, but also covering elements of trade in goods and services as well as agriculture – a controversial area in previous unsuccessful US-UK trade talks.

Chancellor Rachel Reeves has suggested the UK could change its taxes on big tech firms as part of a deal to overturn US tariffs.

The digital services tax, introduced in 2020, imposes a 2% levy on tech firms, including big US firms such as Amazon, bringing in about £800m in tax per year.

Both the government and business groups have largely backed a strategy of not provoking the Trump White House.

But a big question remains whether President Trump’s headline 10% universal tariff is even up for negotiation. Speaking to MPs Reynolds suggested it is, but White House officials have told the BBC the tariff is tied to a broader emergency measure that could take time to unwind.

For the first time the government has announced a loose deadline for the negotiations – the business consultation on a response must wrap up on 1 May.

If no deal is signed by then pressure will mount on the prime minister to strike back with retaliatory tariffs.

French officials investigating the deaths of a British couple in their home in south-west France have said it was murder followed by suicide.

The bodies of Andrew and Dawn Searle, who previously lived in East Lothian in Scotland, were found on 6 February at their home in Les Pequies, about a hour north of Toulouse.

Mrs Searle’s body was found in the garden with severe wounds to her head, while her husband’s body was found inside.

The prosecutor in charge of the case has told the BBC there is no evidence that another person was involved in their deaths.

Mrs Searle, 56, grew up in Eyemouth in the Scottish Borders, and Mr Searle was originally from England.

They previously lived in Musselburgh and married in France in 2023.

Prosecutors said they had lived in the Aveyron region for five years.

According to his LinkedIn page, Mr Searle, 62, previously worked in financial crime prevention at companies including Standard Life and Barclays Bank.

Police were alerted to the incident in February by a neighbour of the couple who had gone to check on them when they failed to turn up for a planned dog walk.

The area around the property was sealed off while investigations took place, and local police called in expert help from Toulouse.

A helicopter and drone were sent to the site.

Post-mortem examinations confirmed Mr Searle died from hanging and Mrs Searle, suffered “multiple blows to the head with a blunt and sharp-edged object”.

Dawn Searle’s son, the Hollyoaks actor Callum Kerr, issued a statement on social media at the time of the deaths

He said: “At this time, Callum Kerr and Amanda Kerr are grieving the loss of their mother, Dawn Searle (née Smith, Kerr) while Tom Searle and Ella Searle are mourning the loss of their father, Andrew Searle.”

He requested that the family’s privacy be respected during this “difficult period”.

Mr Kerr, 30, walked his mother down the aisle when she married Mr Searle at a ceremony in France in 2023.

Drake has been given the green light to access sensitive record company documents in his ongoing defamation case over Kendrick Lamar’s song Not Like Us.

The star had asked for copies of Kendrick Lamar’s recording contract, as well as information on salaries and bonuses for senior executives at his record label Universal Music Group (UMG).

Drake is accusing the company of defamation by allowing Lamar’s song to be published and promoted, claiming it spread the “false and malicious narrative” that he is a paedophile.

Universal filed to dismiss the case last month, calling it an “illogical” attempt to “silence” Lamar’s creative expression.

It also asked for a pause in the evidence-gathering process, known as discovery, while that request was considered.

However, on Wednesday, Judge Jeannette A Vargas, ordered that discovery should continue.

Michael Gottlieb, Drake’s lead lawyer, celebrated the decision in a statement to the BBC.

“Now it’s time to see what UMG was so desperately trying to hide,” he said.

According to a court filing, Drake’s team is seeking documents including “all contracts between UMG and Kendrick Lamar” and the salaries and incentive plans for senior record label staff, going back to 2020.

UMG had objected to the request, saying that the “costly and time-consuming” process of gathering the “commercially sensitive” information was an “undue burden” when the case could still be dismissed.

A hearing on the motion to dismiss is scheduled for 30 June.

Drake’s lawsuit marks the latest chapter in his long-running feud with Lamar.

The pair butted heads on a series of rap tracks last year. In one, Drake accused Lamar of domestic abuse.

Lamar responded with Not Like Us, in which he characterised Drake and his entourage as “certified paedophiles” who should “be registered and placed on neighbourhood watch”.

In court documents, Drake claimed that Universal knew that Lamar’s lyrics were false but “continued to fan the flames” of the controversy for profit.

The lawsuit also accused Universal of colluding with Spotify to falsely inflate streaming numbers for Not Like Us, a claim that both companies denied.

In response, Universal, which has been Drake’s label for more than a decade, said: “Not only are these claims untrue, but the notion that we would seek to harm the reputation of any artist – let alone Drake – is illogical.”

“Throughout his career, Drake has intentionally and successfully used UMG to distribute his music and poetry to engage in conventionally outrageous back-and-forth ‘rap battles’ to express his feelings about other artists.”

In addition, the label claimed that Drake had “lost a rap battle that he provoked and in which he willingly participated”.

“He now seeks to weaponise the legal process to silence an artist’s creative expression and to seek damages from [Universal] for distributing that artist’s music,” the company concluded.

Not Like Us has become the biggest hit of Kendrick Lamar’s career. In the UK, it became his first number one single, shortly after he performed it during the Super Bowl Half Time Show in February.

Huge meat-eating dinosaurs and their plant-eating prey shared the same watering holes on Skye 167 million years ago, say scientists.

University of Edinburgh researchers examined dozens of dinosaur footprints at Prince Charles’s Point on the island’s Trotternish Peninsula.

The dinosaurs included carnivorous megalosaurs – ancestors of Tyrannosaurus rex – and long necked herbivores that were up to three times bigger in size than an elephant.

The scientists analysed the footprints to understand how the animals had moved, and suggested the different dinosaurs had “milled around” shallow freshwater lagoons.

The researchers said the behaviour from the Middle Jurassic was similar to how animals congregated around watering holes today.

More than 130 footprints have been found so far at Prince Charles’s Point, on Skye’s north coast.

The area is named after Bonnie Prince Charlie who had sought shelter on the peninsula while fleeing British government troops after the Battle of Culloden in 1746.

The scientists said the footprints suggested meat-eating theropods and plant-eating sauropods habitually spent time in lagoons.

They said subsequent discoveries had made the area one of the most extensive dinosaur track sites in Scotland.

The Edinburgh research team’s Tone Blakesley said the footprints provided a “fascinating insight” into dinosaur behaviour.

Palaeontologist Steve Brusatte added: “Prince Charles’s Point is a place where Scottish history and prehistory blend together.

“It’s astounding to think that when Bonnie Prince Charlie was running for his life, he might have been sprinting in the footsteps of dinosaurs.”

The first three footprints at Prince Charles’s Point were discovered five years ago by a University of Edinburgh student and colleagues.

Important fossil discoveries have been made on Skye over the last 40 years.

They include a pony-sized dinosaur that lived 166 million years ago, and adult and juvenile mammals of the shrew-like Krusatodon.

The island also saw the discovery of the largest Jurassic pterosaur fossil, Dearc sgiathanach – a 170-million-year-old winged reptile.

A Libyan writer and politician who published documents linking his country’s intelligence service to the Lockerbie bombing has been arrested on national security charges.

Samir Shegwara was taken into custody two days after the BBC reported that the files could form evidence against a Libyan who has been accused of making the bomb that brought down Pan Am Flight 103.

The suspect, Abu Agila Masud Kheir Al-Marimi, is facing trial in Washington and has denied being involved in the attack that killed 270 people in December 1988.

The documents also implicate Libyan agents in the destruction of a French airliner that crashed in the Sahara desert in 1989, killing another 170 people.

Mr Shegwara said that they were retrieved from the archives of Libya’s former intelligence chief Abdullah Senussi after the collapse of Colonel Gaddafi’s regime in 2011.

Their contents were published in France in January this year, in the book The Murderer Who Must Be Saved, co-authored by Mr Shegwara and French investigative journalists Karl Laske and Vincent Nouzille.

The book’s publishers said Mr Shegwara is facing legal proceedings over the “alleged possession of classified security documents, without legal justification.”

The BBC reported on 18 March that Scottish detectives were examining copies of the files, which could represent the first proof from inside Libya’s intelligence agency that it was responsible for the Lockerbie bombing.

Mr Shegwara, who is also mayor of Hay al Andalous, a municipality in Tripoli, was arrested at his office by police on 20 March.

He has been writing publicly about the documents since 2018 and has made no secret of the fact that they were in his possession.

His arrest would appear to support his belief, shared by the French journalists, that the documents are genuine.

Robert Laffont Publishing says the authenticity of the documents cannot be questioned and they contain information of “major public and historical interest” to Libya, France, Scotland and the United States.

In a statement, the company said it “deplores the prosecution of Samir Shegware as well as the pressure that seems to be exerted on him to retract his denunciation of the crimes committed by the former regime of Muammar Gaddafi.

“As such, Robert Laffont Publishing joins with Karl Laske and Vincent Nouzille in calling on the Libyan authorities to drop the charges against him.”

The firm said Mr Shegwara was provisionally released on 1 April but remains under threat of reincarceration and a trial in the coming days.

A retired FBI special agent who led the agency’s original investigation into the Lockerbie disaster has described the dossier as potential “dynamite.”

One of the most significant documents appears to give an account of tests carried out on bombs hidden in suitcases, just weeks before the attack on Pan Am Flight 103.

The bomb which destroyed the plane was concealed inside a radio cassette player in a suitcase in the forward hold.

A copy of one of the Libyan files seen by the BBC records its subject matter as: “Experiments on the use of the suitcase and testing its effectiveness.”

The handwritten report is labelled “top secret” and dated 4 October 1988, with the sender given as the Information and Strategic Studies Centre in Tripoli, headed at the time by Abdelbasset Al-Megrahi, who was convicted over the Lockerbie bombing by a Scottish court in 2001.

The document says the tests were successful, with a “powerful and effective” explosion from a device which could not be detected by an X-ray scanner.

The report says an agent called Aboujila Kheir – assumed to be Abu Agila Masud Kheir Al-Marimi – was involved in the tests.

Another appears to detail the transfer of 10kg of explosives to an office in Malta, staffed by Al Amin Khalifah Fhimah, the Libyan who was cleared at the first Lockerbie trial.

Other documents are alleged to involve the “expenses” of agents who travelled to Malta shortly days before the attack on Pan Am 103.

The verdict from the Scottish court was that the bomb was smuggled onto a plane at Malta and then routed through the baggage system to Frankfurt and Heathrow, where it was loaded onto the American airliner.

The documents are also said to implicate Abdullah Senussi in the planning of the attacks on Pan Am 103 and the French plane, UTA Flight 772.

Colonel Gaddafi’s brother-in-law, Senussi was convicted of bombing UTA 772 after a trial held in his absence in 1999, although he was never served any of the life sentence imposed by the Paris court.

He was named as a suspect over Lockerbie by Scottish and American prosecutors in 2015.

Senussi is facing trial in Libya over his actions during the uprising against Gaddafi 14 years ago.

Police Scotland and Scotland’s prosecution service, the Crown Office, have declined to comment on Mr Shegwara’s arrest.

Former Scottish justice secretary Kenny MacAskill, who freed Megrahi on compassionate grounds in 2009, believes Mr Shegwara’s arrest suggests the documents are authentic.

“I find it hard to imagine that they would have pressurised him otherwise,” he said.

“Hopefully that will change because I believe the man has done the world a service and done the pursuit of justice a service.”

Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora died on the plane, said: “Anything that contributes to the knowledge of the truth about how this atrocity was carried out would be more than welcome.

“That would include these documents, if they can be proved to be genuine.”

Tate Modern has announced it has received a major gift from a couple of art collectors in the form of a painting by the US modern artist Joan Mitchell.

It was unveiled on Thursday as one of a group of works being donated by the Miami-based philanthropists, Jorge M and Darlene Pérez.

The six-metre-long triptych, entitled Iva 1973, can now be viewed for free at the London gallery next to Mark Rothko’s Seagram Murals.

Tate director Maria Balshaw said the gift was “one of the most important” it has received, describing the donation as “transformational”.

“To place such a significant and valuable work in public hands is an act of incredible generosity,” said Balshaw.

“It is also an endorsement of Tate’s ability to share our collection with the broadest possible audience,” she added. “And to care for that collection for future generations.”

Mitchell, who would’ve been 100 this year, was one of the most celebrated artists of the abstract expressionist movement.

Arts Minister, Sir Chris Bryant said the “spectacular donation” of Mitchell’s “masterpiece”, which was originally dedicated to her dog, shows “the amazing difference one person’s generosity can make”.

“I’m very grateful for this donation and for the work that went into making it possible,” he said.

“We are committed to ensuring art is for everyone, everywhere and the generosity of the Pérez family ensures that great art remains accessible to all, whilst also enriching our national collection.”

Argentine-American businessman Mr Pérez is best known as the chairman and CEO of The Related Group, a Miami-based real estate company.

He has given or pledged over $100m (£76m) to Miami’s public art museum, which was renamed the Pérez Art Museum Miami in his honour in 2013.

He also founded a not-for-profit contemporary art space in Miami called El Espacio 23.

Mr Pérez told BBC News: “We’ve been talking to the Tate for a long time, we’re great admirers of the Tate.

“Our hope is always that our art is seen by the highest number of people. The Tate has huge viewership, millions and millions of people coming in.”

He added the work suited being displayed next to other famous artists. “This painting, when you see it next to the Rothko’s, really resounds,” he said, “and it’ll be there forever.

“So when you talk about legacy, we like to think that our names will not be forgotten, and that they will live, not only with the British audience, but also with the international audience that comes to the Tate.

“We hope it fills a gap in the collection that is very important and maybe the most important art movement in America. It’s found its home, we’re very pleased with it here.”

Mrs Pérez noted female artists “play a significant role in shaping the cultural landscape” and that is was therefore “pivotal that we support and celebrate their contributions.”

“We’ve long admired Joan Mitchell’s work and are thrilled to share Iva with the world through Tate Modern.”

Their gift also includes a multimillion-dollar endowment to support Tate’s curatorial research.

Also, a range of works and photographs by artists from across Africa and the African diaspora – including by Yinka Shonibare, El Anatsui and Malick Sidibé – will make their way from the Pérezes to Tate’s collection over the coming years.

The Trump administration has fired at least three officials at the National Security Council, with more firings expected, according to the BBC’s US partner CBS News.

It is not clear why the staffers were removed from their roles, but CBS reports the decision followed a meeting between far-right activist Laura Loomer and President Donald Trump at the White House on Wednesday.

Loomer urged Trump to fire specific NSC employees who she did not deem supportive enough of the president’s agenda, according to several US media reports.

The White House told the BBC that the National Security Council “won’t comment on personnel” matters.

The firings also follow a major controversy involving the NSC last month when senior officials inadvertently added a journalist to a Signal messaging thread about military strikes in Yemen.

It is not clear whether the controversy played a role in the firings. Trump has stood by the officials involved in the incident, including National Security Adviser Mike Waltz, who reportedly added the journalist to the Signal chat accidentally.

Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth, who posted information in the chat, is now the subject of an internal review into his use of Signal and whether he complied with his department’s policies, the Pentagon’s office of the acting inspector general said on Thursday.

Those fired from the NSC on Thursday include Brian Walsh, a director for intelligence; Thomas Boodry, a senior director for legislative affairs; and David Feith, a senior director overseeing technology and national security, according to CBS News.

In a statement to US media, Loomer said she would not divulge any more details on her meeting with Trump “out of respect for President Trump and the privacy of the Oval Office”.

“It was an honour to meet with President Trump and present him with my findings, I will continue working hard to support his agenda, and I will continue reiterating the importance of strong vetting, for the sake of protecting the President and our national security,” she said.

New trade tariffs unveiled by US President Donald Trump on Wednesday are expected to have a major global impact, and have been condemned by the European Union and other key US allies.

But Trump’s latest import taxes may get a different response in China, whose leader could see them as a gift.

Here, BBC reporters in five major economies look at the nuances of how the announcements are being received where they are.

European Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen spoke on behalf of all European Union (EU) countries when she said the new tax imports would cause “dire” consequences for millions of people around the globe.

She said there was “no clear path through the complexity and chaos” that the new tariffs would unleash worldwide.

But the Commission has promised to protect EU businesses, some of which will be more hard hit than others – like Germany’s car industry, Italy’s luxury goods and France’s wine and champagne producers.

French President Emmanuel Macron has called an emergency meeting of French business leaders later on Thursday.

As the biggest single market in the world, the EU can hurt the US – targeting goods and services, including ‘big tech’ like Apple and Meta with counter-measures.

But it says its aim is not to up the ante here – it’s to persuade Trump to negotiate.

On Wednesday night, Italian PM Georgia Meloni said that while she considered the tariffs wrong, everything would be done to try and reach an agreement with the US.

A 54% tariff hit on Chinese goods entering the US is certainly huge and will no doubt hurt Chinese companies trying to sell into that market.

Beijing’s countermeasures will also hurt US companies trying to reach the massive Chinese market.

But, in one way, these moves from Trump are also a gift to Chinese President Xi Jinping.

Xi is portraying his country as a champion of free trade, a backer of multilateral institutions, and making comparisons with the world’s other superpower which is seen as trashing both of these.

Just last week, China’s leader was sitting down with chief executives from big international corporations – including many from Europe – and the imagery was clear. The US under Donald Trump = chaos, trade destruction, national self-interest. China under Xi Jinping = stability, free trade, global cooperation.

The Chinese government has already mobilised its state media sector to attack this latest round of tariffs from the Trump Administration.

People may quibble with the Chinese Communist Party’s reading of where the world sits, but every time Trump takes measures like these, it makes Xi’s sales pitch easier to deliver.

And economic necessity may draw many countries closer to China and further from the US.

• Are Trump’s Asia tariffs a ‘full-frontal assault’ on China?
• ‘Not the act of a friend’: Australia angry over tariffs
• What Trump has done – and why it matters

Folks in government here had picked up a sense of the mood music – a sense that the UK was “in the good camp rather than the bad camp” as one figure put it to me – but they had no idea in advance what that would mean exactly.

But now we do know – a 10% tariff on the UK’s exports to the US.

I detect a sense of relief among ministers, but make no mistake – they are not delighted. The tariffs imposed on the UK will have significant effects, and the tariffs on the UK’s trading partners will have a profound impact on jobs, industries and global trading flows in the weeks, months and years to come.

It will be “hugely disruptive,” as one government source put it.

There is an acute awareness in particular about the impact on the car industry.

Negotiations with the US over a trade deal continue. I am told a team of four UK negotiators are in “pretty intensive” conversation with their US counterparts – talking remotely, but willing to head to Washington if signing a deal appears imminent.

• Read more from Chris Mason: UK ministers stay up late for Trump announcements

Asian economies are among the hardest hit by Trump’s new tariffs. Americans will have to pay a 46% tax on imported goods from Vietnam, and 49% for goods from Cambodia.

Relatively speaking, India has fared better.

But a 26% across-the-board tariff rate is still steep, and will severely affect major “labour-intensive exports”, says Priyanka Kishore of the Asia Decoded consultancy.

“That will likely have a knock-on impact on domestic demand and headline gross domestic product(GDP)” at a time when growth is already stuttering, according to Kishore.

But India’s electronics exports may potentially benefit as higher tariffs on rivals such as Vietnam could leads to the re-routing of trade.

That is unlikely to mitigate the overall negative growth impact of Trump’s salvo though.

Unlike Canada, Mexico or the European Union, India has so far adopted a conciliatory approach to Trump and is negotiating a bilateral deal with the US. Whether this triggers a retaliation in Delhi, will be very closely watched.

The pharmaceutical industry – which accounts for India’s largest industrial exports at some $13bn (£9.9bn) annually – will be breathing a sigh of relief, however, as medicines are exempt from these “reciprocal” tariffs.

• Can Trump’ tariffs spark manufacturing boom in India?

Trump’s “reciprocal tariffs” are targeting dozens of African countries, including 30% for South Africa and 50% for Lesotho.

Many of these nations are already grappling with the effects of US foreign aid cuts, which provided health and humanitarian assistance to vulnerable countries.

South Africa – like some of the continent’s other biggest economies including Nigeria and Kenya – has long had open trade agreements with the US, and the new tariffs could significantly affect existing economic ties.

It is included in the long list of countries dubbed the “worst offenders” that now face higher US rates – payback for unfair trade policies, Trump says.

“They have got some bad things going on in South Africa. You know, we are paying them billions of dollars, and we cut the funding because a lot of bad things are happening in South Africa,” he said, before going on to name other countries.

In a statement, the South African presidency condemned the new tariffs as “punitive”, saying they could “serve as a barrier to trade and shared prosperity”.

• Read more from Wycliffe Muia: South Africa and Nigeria among countries hit by Trump’s tariffs

• At a glance: The countries hit hardest by these plans
• UK: What this means for you and your money
• Explainer: What are tariffs, and why is Trump using them?
• Analysis: Trump’s tariffs are his biggest gamble yet

Hungary is withdrawing from the International Criminal Court (ICC), its government has announced.

A senior official in Prime Minister Viktor Orban’s government confirmed this hours after Israel’s leader Benjamin Netanyahu, who is sought under an ICC arrest warrant, arrived in Hungary for a state visit.

Orban had invited Netanyahu as soon as the warrant was issued last November, saying the ruling would have “no effect” in his country.

In November, ICC judges said there were “reasonable grounds” that Netanyahu bore “criminal responsibility” for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity during the war between Israel and Hamas. Netanyahu has condemned the ICC’s decision as “antisemitic”.

The ICC, a global court, has the authority to prosecute those accused of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.

Hungary is a founding member of the ICC, which counts 125 member states, and will be the first European Union nation to pull out of it. A withdrawal has no impact on ongoing proceedings.

During a joint press conference, Orban asserted that the ICC had become a “political court”. He added the court’s decision to issue a warrant against the Israeli leader “clearly showed” this.

Netanyahu meanwhile hailed Hungary’s “bold and principled” decision to withdraw from the court.

“It’s important for all democracies. It’s important to stand up to this corrupt organisation,” Netanyahu said.

A statement from the Israeli prime minister’s office on Thursday said Netanyahu and Orban had spoken with US President Donald Trump about the decision and the “next steps that can be taken on this issue”.

Earlier Israel’s Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar thanked Orban on X for his “clear and strong moral stance alongside Israel”.

“The so-called International Criminal Court lost its moral authority after trampling the fundamental principles of international law in its zest for harming Israel’s right to self-defence,” Sa’ar added.

Hungary’s decision aligns with its broader foreign policy stance under Orban, who has cultivated close ties with Israel and adopted a critical view of international institutions perceived as infringing on national sovereignty.

While Hungary’s withdrawal may carry symbolic weight and political implications, it does not significantly alter the ICC’s operational capacity or legal framework.

The court has faced similar challenges in the past and continues to function with broad international support.

But Hungary’s criticism of the ICC as “politically biased” and its decision to withdraw as Netanyahu visits may set a precedent for other nations to question or abandon their commitments to international justice based on political alliances or disagreements with specific rulings.

The US, Russia, China and North Korea are among the nations that are not part of the ICC, and therefore do not recognise its jurisdiction.

Israel is also not part of the treaty, but the ICC ruled in 2021 that it did have jurisdiction over the occupied West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza, because the UN’s Secretary General had accepted that Palestinians were a member.

Hungary now needs to send written notification to the UN Secretary General to leave the treaty, with the withdrawal taking effect one year later, according to article 127 of the Rome Statute, which established the ICC.

ICC spokesman Fadi El-Abdullah told the BBC: “On the visit of Mr Netanyahu, the court has followed its standard procedures, after the issuance of an arrest warrant. The court recalls that Hungary remains under a duty to cooperate with the ICC.”

Since the warrant was issued, Hungarian authorities should technically arrest Netanyahu and hand him over to the court in the Hague, although member states do not always choose to enforce ICC warrants.

In Europe, some ICC member states said they would arrest the Israeli leader if he set foot in their country, while others, including Germany, announced that Netanyahu would not be detained if he visited.

But Germany’s Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock said on Thursday Hungary’s announcement was “a bad day for international criminal law”.

“Europe has clear rules that apply to all EU member states, and that is the Rome Statute. I have made it clear time and again that no one in Europe is above the law and that applies to all areas of law,” she added.

On the other side of the Atlantic, the US has condemned the ICC’s decision to issue warrants for Netanyahu’s arrest and he has visited the country since it was issued in November. His visit to Hungary marks Netanyahu’s first trip to Europe since then.

Hungarian Defence Minister Kristof Szalay-Bobrovniczky, greeted Netanyahu on the tarmac of Budapest airport on Wednesday night, welcoming him to the country.

Israel is appealing against the arrest warrants for Netanyahu and former defence minister Yoav Gallant, and strongly rejects the accusations. It both denies the authority of the ICC and the legitimacy of the warrants.

Netanyahu said at the time that it was a “dark day in the history of humanity”, and that the ICC had become “the enemy of humanity”.

“It’s an antisemitic step that has one goal – to deter me, to deter us from having our natural right to defend ourselves against enemies who try to destroy us,” he said.

In the same ruling, ICC judges also issued a warrant against Hamas military commander Mohammed Deif, who Israel says is dead. Hamas also rejected the allegations.

The visit comes as Israel announced it was expanding its Gaza offensive and establishing a new military corridor to put pressure on Hamas, as deadly Israeli strikes continued across the Palestinian territory.

The war in Gaza was triggered by the Hamas-led attacks on southern Israel on 7 October 2023, which killed some 1,200 people and led to 251 hostages being taken to Gaza. Since then, Israeli military attacks have killed more than 50,000 Palestinians have been killed, health authorities in Hamas-run Gaza say.

One country that did not feature on Donald Trump’s list of tariffs on US trade partners was Russia.

US outlet Axios quoted White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt as saying this was because existing US sanctions on Russia “preclude any meaningful trade” and noting that Cuba, Belarus and North Korea were also not included.

However, nations with even less trade with the US – such as Syria, which exported $11m of products last year according to UN data quoted by Trading Economics – were on the list.

The US imposed large-scale sanctions on Russia after its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Trump has generally taken a friendlier approach to Russia since his return to the White House.

He has made ending the war a priority and a top Russian official is in Washington this week for meetings with his administration, as negotiations continue on a deal.

Last month, Trump threatened to impose a 50% tariff on countries buying Russian oil if Russian President Vladimir Putin did not agree to a ceasefire.

On Thursday, Russian media also argued that their country was not on the sweeping tariffs list because of existing sanctions.

“No tariffs have been imposed on Russia, but that’s not because of some special treatment. It’s simply because Western sanctions are already in place against our country,” says state-run Rossiya 24 TV.

According to its sister channel Rossiya 1, Russia is missing from the list “to the disappointment of many in the West”.

Many Kremlin-controlled media outlets have specifically referred to US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who told Fox News: “Russia and Belarus, we don’t trade with. They’re sanctioned.”

According to the Office of the US Trade Representative, the US imported goods from Russia worth $3.5bn (£2.7bn) in 2024. It mainly consisted of fertilisers, nuclear fuel and some metals, according to Trading Economics and Russian media.

Some of the Russian coverage has taken a mocking tone, with pro-Kremlin NTV saying Trump treated America’s allies in Europe as “serfs” who only respond with “moaning”.

Many, such as Zvezda TV which is run by Russia’s defence ministry, note the inclusion of uninhabited Heard Island and McDonald Islands on the tariffs list.

“Looks like it’s some penguins who will have to pay the 10% tariff,” Zvezda said.

• Live updates: Reaction to Trump’s tariffs announcement
• At a glance: The countries hit hardest by these plans
• Watch: Three things to know about Trump’s plans
• Global reaction: How five big economies see new Trump tariffs
• BBC Verify: How were Donald Trump’s tariffs calculated?
• UK: What this means for you and your money
• Explainer: What are tariffs, and why is Trump using them?
• US analysis: Trump’s tariffs are his biggest gamble yet

Ukraine, meanwhile, is facing a 10% tariff on its exports to the US.

The country’s first deputy prime minister, Yulia Svyrydenko, said the new US tariff would mostly hit small producers.

She also said Ukraine was “working to secure better terms”.

In 2024, Ukraine exported $874m (£642m) worth of goods to the US and imported $3.4bn from the US, according to the deputy prime minister.

“Ukraine has much to offer the United States as a reliable ally and partner,” she added. “Fair tariffs benefit both countries.”

Despite the small scale of trade, the US has provided significant material support for the war against Russia. Trump has argued that the US has spent $300-$350bn on such aid, while the US Department of Defense said $182.8bn had been “appropriated” – a figure that covers US military training in Europe and replenishment of US defence stocks – for Operation Atlantic Resolve.

The US has also been attempting to reach a deal for access to Ukrainian minerals as part of negotiations to end the war.

Syria has strongly condemned a fresh wave of Israeli strikes on airbases and other military sites overnight as an “unjustified escalation”.

The foreign ministry said the attacks almost destroyed Hama airbase and injured dozens of people. A monitoring group reported that four defence ministry personnel were killed.

Israel’s military said it hit “capabilities that remained” at the western Hama and central T4 airbases, along with military infrastructure in Damascus. It also said Israeli forces killed gunmen during a ground operation in Deraa province, where authorities put the death toll at nine.

It came amid reports that Turkey was moving to station jets and air defences at Syrian airbases.

Israel’s defence minister warned Syria’s interim President Ahmed al-Sharaa on Thursday that he would “pay a very heavy price” if he allowed “forces hostile to Israel” to enter the country.

The Israeli military has carried out hundreds of strikes across Syria to destroy military assets – including jets, tanks, missiles, air defence systems, weapons factories and research centres – since former president Bashar al-Assad’s regime was overthrown by rebel forces in December after 13 years of civil war.

The rebels were led by Sharaa’s Islamist group Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) – a former al-Qaeda affiliate that is still designated as a terrorist organisation by the UN, the US, the EU and the UK.

Israel has also sent troops into the UN-monitored demilitarised buffer zone in the Golan Heights, as well as several adjoining areas and the summit of Mount Hermon.

And it has demanded the complete demilitarisation of the three neighbouring southern provinces of Deraa, Quneitra and Suweida, saying it would not accept the presence of the forces of Sharaa’s government there.

The Syrian foreign ministry said Wednesday night’s air strikes targeted “five locations across the country within 30 minutes, resulting in the near-total destruction of Hama Military Airport and injuring dozens of civilians and military personnel”.

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR) said there were at least 18 strikes which targeted planes, rail tracks and towers at Hama airbase.

Israel also hit T4 airbase, which is near Palmyra, and a branch of the Scientific Studies and Research Centre (SSRC) in the Barzeh neighbourhood of Damascus, it added.

“This unjustified escalation is a deliberate attempt to destabilise Syria and exacerbate the suffering of its people,” the Syrian foreign ministry said.

It called the strikes “a blatant violation of international law and Syrian sovereignty”, and urged the international community to “exert pressure on Israel to cease its aggression”.

Syria may have been the location for these strikes, but the real target was Turkey.

Israel has been nervously eyeing a joint defence pact Turkey is negotiating with Syria’s transitional government, and these latest air strikes come amid Turkish reports of military equipment being moved to Syrian airbases, including T4.

In a statement on Thursday morning, Israeli defence minister Israel Katz warned President Sharaa: “If you allow forces hostile to Israel to enter Syria and endanger Israeli security interests – you will pay a very heavy price.”

“Yesterday’s air force activity… is a clear message and a warning to the future – we will not allow the security of the State of Israel to be harmed.”

Katz did not elaborate on what forces he considered “hostile”, but foreign minister Gideon Saar separately said that Israel was concerned at the “negative role” that Turkey was playing in Syria.

“They are doing their utmost to have Syria as a Turkish protectorate. It’s clear that is their intention,” he told a news conference in Paris.

The SOHR also reported that Israeli ground forces shelled a national park west of the southern city of Deraa on Wednesday night, killing nine gunmen who attempted to confront them.

Prior to the shelling, dozens of Israeli military vehicles had entered the al-Jabaliya Dam area near Nawa and taken up positions there, prompting “calls from the mosques in the area [to wage] jihad against the Israeli incursion”, it added.

Deraa province’s government warned that the “massacre” of nine people had sparked widespread public anger. It has not so far identified those killed.

The Israeli military confirmed that its forces had operated in Deraa overnight, “seizing weapons and destroying terrorist infrastructure”.

“Several armed men fired at our forces in the area. The forces responded with gunfire and eliminated several armed militants from the ground and air,” it added.

The military said it would “not allow a military threat to exist in Syria”.

However, Turkey’s growing investment in Syria is seen by Israel as another level of threat.

The risk of regional confrontation is growing, and with it the risk of Syria once again becoming host to the conflicts of outside powers.

On Wednesday, President Trump unveiled new tariffs on imports to the US which will form a central part of his government’s new trade policy.

In his speech, he listed the new tariffs to be imposed on a number of countries, including the country’s biggest trading partners, and a more complete list was released later by the White House.

No further tariffs were announced for Canada or Mexico. Both countries had already seen tariffs imposed in Feburary – though these have since been partially rolled back.

China will now see an effective tariff of 54%, as the new 34% tariff will be added to the 20% tariff already in place.

Here are all the new tariffs by trading partner, with those with the highest share of imports into the US at the top. Use the arrows at the bottom of the table to move to the next page.

Read more:

• At a glance: The countries hit hardest by these plans
• UK: What this means for you and your money
• Explainer: What are tariffs, and why is Trump using them?
• Analysis: Trump’s tariffs are his biggest gamble yet

The lower house of India’s parliament has passed a controversial bill that seeks to change how properties worth billions of dollars donated by Indian Muslims over centuries are governed.

The Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2024 – which brings in dozens of amendments to an existing law – was passed late on Wednesday night after a heated debate that went on for over 12 hours.

The government says the bill will introduce transparency into the management of waqf, as the properties are called.

But opposition parties and Muslim groups have called it an attempt to weaken the constitutional rights of India’s largest religious minority.

In the Lok Sabha, as the lower house is called, the bill was passed with 288 MPs voting in favour of it, and 232 against (the halfway mark is 272).

It has now been sent to the Rajya Sabha, or upper house, for discussion and passage.

If it is passed by the Rajya Sabha, it will be sent to President Droupadi Murmu for her assent before it becomes law.

The bill was first tabled in parliament in August last year but was sent to a joint parliamentary committee (JPC) after an outcry from opposition members. The version that has been passed incorporates several changes suggested by the sharply divided committee. Opposition members who were on the panel have alleged that the JPC accepted the changes suggested by the BJP and its allies while rejecting all amendments they proposed.

• Why Muslims in India are opposing changes to a property law

Mallikarjun Kharge, Congress MP and leader of the opposition in the Rajya Sabha, said the opposition was united and would work to defeat “the unconstitutional and divisive agenda of the Modi government on the Waqf Amendment Bill”. But the numbers may not be in the opposition’s favour.

Muslim groups have argued that the bill “aims to weaken the waqf laws and pave the way for the seizure and destruction of waqf properties”.

Speaking in the Lok Sabha, Congress leader Gaurav Gogoi said the bill would “dilute the Constitution, defame minority communities, divide Indian society and disenfranchise minorities”.

Federal Home Minister Amit Shah defended the bill, saying that the opposition was scaring minorities by creating “an illusion that this bill would interfere in the religious activities of Muslim brothers and in their donated property”.

The waqf properties, which include mosques, madrassas, shelter homes and thousands of acres of land donated by Muslims, are managed by boards. Some of these properties are vacant while others have been encroached upon.

In Islamic tradition, a waqf is a charitable or religious donation made by Muslims for the benefit of the community. Such properties cannot be sold or used for any other purpose – which implies that waqf properties belong to God.

The government says that the waqf boards are among India’s largest landholders. There are at least 872,351 waqf properties across India, spanning more than 940,000 acres, with an estimated value of 1.2 trillion rupees ($14.22bn; £11.26bn).

A major criticism from opponents of the bill is that it grants the government undue power to regulate the management of these endowments and determine whether a property qualifies as “waqf”.

The bill also proposes the induction of two non-Muslim members on the waqf boards which oversee these properties. Critics have opposed this provision, arguing that most religious institutions run by non-Muslims do not permit followers of other faiths in their administration.

US President Donald Trump announced a sweeping new set of tariffs on Wednesday, arguing that they would allow the United States to economically flourish.

These new import taxes, which Trump imposed via executive order, are expected to send economic shockwaves around the world.

But the US president believes they are necessary to address trading imbalances and to protect American jobs and manufacturing.

Here are the basic elements of the plan.

• Live updates: Reaction to Trump’s tariffs announcement

In a background call before Trump’s speech, a senior White House official told reporters that the president would impose a “baseline” tariff on all imports to the US.

That rate is set at 10% and will go into effect on 5 April.

It is the companies that bring the foreign goods into the US that have to pay the tax to the government, although this could have knock-on effects to consumers.

Some countries will only face the base rate. These include:

• United Kingdom
• Singapore
• Brazil
• Australia
• New Zealand
• Turkey
• Colombia
• Argentina
• El Salvador
• United Arab Emirates
• Saudi Arabia

White House officials also said that they would impose what they describe as specific reciprocal tariffs on roughly 60 of the “worst offenders”.

These will go into effect on 9 April.

Trump’s officials say these countries charge higher tariffs on US goods, impose “non-tariff” barriers to US trade or have otherwise acted in ways they feel undermine American economic goals.

The key trading partners subject to these customised tariff rates include:

• European Union: 20%
• China: 54% (which includes earlier tariffs)
• Vietnam: 46%
• Thailand: 36%
• Japan: 24%
• Cambodia: 49%
• South Africa: 30%
• Taiwan: 32%

The 10% baseline rate does not apply to Canada and Mexico, since they have already been targeted during Trump’s presidency.

The White House said it would deal with both countries using a framework set out in Trump’s previous executive orders, which imposed tariffs on both countries as part of the administration’s efforts to address the entry of fentanyl to the US and border issues.

Trump previously set those tariffs at 25% on all goods entering from both countries, before announcing some exemptions and delays.

In addition, the president confirmed the beginning of a new American “25% tariff on all foreign made-automobiles”.

This tariff went into effect almost immediately, at midnight local time.

• Live updates: Reaction to Trump’s tariffs announcement
• At a glance: The countries hit hardest by these plans
• Watch: Three things to know about Trump’s plans
• BBC Verify: How were Donald Trump’s tariffs calculated?
• Global reaction: How five big economies see new Trump tariffs
• UK: What this means for you and your money
• Explainer: What are tariffs, and why is Trump using them?
• Analysis: Trump’s tariffs are his biggest gamble yet

Australia has been hit with a tariff of at least 10% on all exports to the US, as Donald Trump announced his new sweeping global trade regime.

Trump cited “trade barriers” such as Australia’s biosecurity laws – singling out a ban on the import of US beef – as the reason for what he called a “reciprocal tariff”.

Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese called the measure “totally unwarranted”, but said the nation would not introduce its own tariffs – also known as import taxes – in return.

The 10% dealt to Australia was the “baseline” measure, with the most severe tariffs – of up 49% – hitting countries like China, Malaysia, Vietnam and Cambodia.

“President Trump referred to reciprocal tariffs. A reciprocal tariff would be zero, not 10%,” Albanese said at a press conference on Thursday.

“The administration’s tariffs have no basis in logic and they go against the basis of our two nation’s partnership. This is not the act of a friend,” he added.

Trump’s new trade policy has hit the start of Australia’s closely battled election campaign, where the cost of living will be a key voting issue.

Opposition leader Peter Dutton said the tariffs were a “bad day” for Australia and would be a “significant impost” on jobs across the nation.

He also said the new tariffs were a reflection on Albanese’s relationship with Trump – who the prime minister had unsuccessfully been trying to organise a phone call with ahead of the decision.

“I just don’t think the prime minister has the strength or the ability to stand up to a situation that is unacceptable to us,” Dutton said.

The new measures come only weeks after President Trump imposed 25% tariffs on Australian steel and aluminium imports.

However, the prime minister said Australia would not be retaliating on US goods.

“We will not join a race to the bottom that leads to higher prices and slower growth,” he said.

But he warned the tariffs would have consequences for how Australians see ties with the US, and that the country would resort to formal “dispute resolution mechanisms” contained in its free trade agreement with the US if necessary.

During his “Liberation Day” speech, Trump pointed to Australia’s ban on fresh beef from the US – which was introduced in 2003, after cases of mad cow disease, an infectious neurological illness, were discovered in North America.

“They’re wonderful people and wonderful everything, but they ban American beef,” he said.

“They don’t want it because they don’t want it to affect their farmers.”

“I don’t blame them, but we’re doing the same thing right now,” Trump added.

The tariffs have also drawn an angry response from Australia’s National Farmers’ Federation (NFF), who expressed “profound disappointment”.

“This decision is a disappointing step backward for our nations and for the global economy,” NFF President David Jochinke said.

The NFF said the US’s decision created “unnecessary uncertainty”, but vowed to work closely with the federal government to seek a resolution.

Along with its biosecurity rules, Australia’s subsidised medicines scheme and laws requiring foreign tech companies to pay local media for news had drawn the US’s ire in recent tariff discussions.

Albanese earlier this week said those issues were non-negotiable: “I continue to stand up for Australia and have said very clearly we won’t compromise and negotiate on our PBS [Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme], on our biosecurity, on our media bargaining code.”

The US is one of Australia’s most important trading relationships, raking fifth for exports. China, however, dwarfs all of Australia’s other trade partners – in 2023-24, A$212.7bn (£102.2bn, $133.4) was exported to the Asian superpower.

In comparison, last year, Australia exported $37.5bn in goods and services to the US. Business services were the biggest sector at $6.2bn, followed by intellectual property charges and beef. In the same year, Australia imported $88.2bn in goods and services from the US.

The former president of Costa Rica, Oscar Arias, says his US visa has been revoked.

Arias, a Nobel laureate, said he was informed of the decision weeks after he had publicly criticised Donald Trump, comparing the behaviour of the US president to that of a Roman emperor.

The 84-year-old, who was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his role in brokering an end to conflicts in Central America, said US authorities had given no explanation.

Arias hinted, however, that it may be due to his rapprochement with China during the time he was president from 2006 to 2010.

Speaking at a news conference in the Costa Rican capital, San José, Arias said he had “no idea” what the reason for the cancellation was.

He said he had received a “terse” email “of a few lines” from the US government informing him of the decision.

He added that he thought that it was not President Trump but the US State Department which had taken the decision.

While he said it would be conjecture on his part to speculate about the reason behind the visa revocation, he did point out that “I established diplomatic relations with China.

“That, of course, is known throughout the world,” he told journalists of his 2007 decision to cut ties with Taiwan and establish them with China instead.

The Trump administration has sought to oppose China’s influence in the Western hemisphere and has accused a number of Central American governments of cosying up to the Chinese government and Chinese companies.

• Read: Rubio demands Panama ‘reduce China influence’ over canal

However, it has been supportive of the current Costa Rican President, Rodrigo Chaves, praising his decision to exclude Chinese firms from participating in the development of 5G in Costa Rica.

But this perceived closeness between President Chaves and the US was criticised by Arias, who wrote a post on social media in February saying that “it has never been easy for a small country to disagree with the US government, less so when its president behaves like a Roman emperor, telling the rest of the world what to do”.

He added that “during my governments, Costa Rica never received orders from Washington as if we were a banana republic”.

Arias is not the only Costa Rican to have had his US visa revoked. Three members of the country’s national assembly who opposed President Chaves’s decree to exclude Chinese companies from participating in the development of 5G have also had theirs cancelled.