When Jonathan Reynolds gathered with officials around the large television screen in his office to watch Donald Trump unleash his global trade war, he knew little more than anyone else about what was to come.

It was Wednesday night and the US president was about to upend a century of global trade with the imposition of sweeping taxes on US imports from around the world.

Moments before Trump sauntered on stage, Reynolds had been told to expect a universal baseline tariff of 10% – but he did not know whether anything else would be imposed on top. The expectation in government was that the UK would be hit with a 20% rate, which the Treasury watchdog had warned could wipe 1% off UK GDP.

As Trump brought out his sandwich board of global tariffs, Reynolds and his team shared the frustration of many viewers across the world – the board kept slipping behind the White House lectern and obscuring the all-important figures next to countries’ names.

It quickly became clear that the UK’s rate was 10%, lower than the 20% rate for the EU – but the same baseline as the US had imposed on countries including Brazil and Afghanistan. Within minutes, Downing Street described this as a “vindication” of Keir Starmer’s approach.

“When we heard it was a flat 10% there was some relief because it could have been so much worse,” one source said. “It also meant that they were true to their word about where we stood. That trust will be really important going forward.”

No 10 has been criticised for “sucking up” to Trump but getting little in return, but government sources argue that the tariff regime could have been substantially more damaging for the UK if they had not worked to develop good relations and put forward their own arguments.

They stress that the US was minded to include VAT – which has a standard rate of 20% and has been much maligned by Trump – in their calculations, but that Starmer made the case against this directly and publicly when he visited the White House in February. “We were able to talk them down,” a source said.

Trump has long been an advocate of tariffs – once describing them as the most beautiful word in the dictionary – and his promise to impose them was a central plank of his presidential election campaign. In anticipation, Downing Street developed a defensive strategy that revolved around building a strong relationship with Trump’s White House – despite clear political differences – and launching talks to strike an economic deal that would secure tariff exemptions.

Trade talks between the UK and US began soon after Trump’s inauguration, before the prime minister visited Washington in February, with the goal of agreeing a relatively narrow deal focused on advanced technologies. Talks intensified before Reynolds’ own visit to meet Howard Lutnick, the US commerce secretary, just over two weeks ago.

UK officials were assured by their US counterparts that they were in a strong position to negotiate a trade deal with Washington. “By then we knew what the faultlines were, and we were broadly there, so we just had some details to thrash out,” an official said.

The two key figures leading the negotiations are Reynolds and Varun Chandra, a corporate strategist turned senior No 10 aide known as the prime minister’s “business whisperer”. Officials have been impressed by how Chandra has navigated the US administration. “He just gets them, and they get him. The talks have been much more corporate in tone than trade negotiations usually are. That’s his world,” one said.

A senior trade department official, Kate Joseph, and Starmer’s economic international affairs adviser, Michael Ellam, have been working behind the scenes at home to get the Whitehall machine ready. Multiple scenarios were drawn up depending on what tariff regime Trump imposed.

Initially, the UK side was hopeful a deal could be done that would secure a carve-out from tariffs before they were announced on 2 April. Government sources cited Trump’s pledge to “be nice” to countries that had balanced trade with the US. “He wants to have this big moment without much nuance,” one official said. “But we’d obviously like some nuance on this.”

All that changed on Thursday 27 March, less than a week before Trump’s announcement, when UK officials were told by US contacts that “world tariff day means *world* tariff day” – and the UK would be included. The British negotiating team understood they would be in the ‘friendly’ camp, but had no idea what that would actually mean. They spent the weekend finalising their scenario planning for all potential outcomes.

Speaking onboard Air Force One last Sunday, Trump told reporters that the tariffs would apply to “all countries, so let’s see what happens”. Stock markets across the globe tumbled. It was all hands on deck. Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, spoke to the US Treasury secretary, Scott Bessent, before telling the cabinet on Tuesday to brace themselves for the tariffs hitting the UK economy.

Ministers redoubled their engagement with businesses: Reynolds held a succession of calls and, hours before Trump spoke on Wednesday, Reeves gathered senior executives from companies including Aston Martin, KPMG, Diageo, Starling Bank and Shell in Downing Street to prepare the ground.

When the announcement came, despite the measure of relief about the 10% rate on the UK, government sources admitted some of the tariff levels imposed – including up to 54% for China – were “terrifying”. There was particular concern over the EU – the UK’s biggest trading partner – being hit with a 20% rate given the inevitable knock-on effects on the British economy.

Starmer hosted business leaders for breakfast on Thursday morning, while Reynolds took to the airwaves tasked with projecting a sense of calm and stability. In the Commons, the trade secretary announced he would take the first step towards retaliation in case the UK and US did not agree a deal.

One official admitted the US was “upending the system”. Starmer said on Thursday that it was “not just a short-term tactical exercise, it is the beginning of a new era” for the world economy. David Lammy, the foreign secretary, went further on Friday, saying he regretted “the return to protectionism in the United States, something that we’ve not seen for nearly a century”.

Insiders hope that once the tariffs come into force on Saturday, Trump’s team will have the bandwidth to return to trade talks with the UK – potentially early next week. These would initially take place remotely but could quickly return to face-to-face. Trump told reporters on Air Force One on Thursday that he was open to negotiating tariffs with countries that offered something “phenomenal”.

At the same time, the prime minister and chancellor are lining up calls with their international counterparts over the weekend to discuss the tariffs and how they plan to respond.

“We have been preparing for all eventualities. The deal that we’ve been discussing with the US is progressing, and we’re working closely with businesses. Nothing is off the table when it comes to acting in our national interest,” said a Downing Street source. “This is a new era that demands we go further and faster on the work we’ve been doing on growth, reform and changing our economy. Every decision we take in coming days and weeks will be guided solely by our national interest.”

Another source said: “Do we wish it wasn’t happening? Yes. Have we said that to them? Yes. This isn’t what we wanted. But they have a very specific worldview and they’re working in what they think is their nation’s best interest. We’re doing the same.”

Donald Trump’s vast overhaul of US trade policy this week has called time on an era of globalization, alarming people, governments and investors around the world. No one should have been surprised, the US president said.

The announcement of 10% to 50% tariffs on US trading partners tanked stock markets after Trump unveiled a “declaration of economic independence” so drastic it drew comparison with Britain’s exit from the European Union – Brexit.

But Trump, who won re-election promising that tariffs would make America great again, has advocated for the return of widespread tariffs with “great consistency” for decades. “I’ve been talking about it for 40 years,” he noted in the White House Rose Garden.

Many businesses, economists and politicians believe Trump’s trade plan is wrongheaded, flawed and risky. Some have even suggested it might have been written by ChatGPT. But he is unquestionably right when it comes to the number of decades he has argued for it.

“This is so unusual for Trump. He’s a conventional politician in one way: he doesn’t believe in much deeply,” Larry Sabato, director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia. Tariffs are different. “This one thing, he seems to deeply believe in.”

As far back as 1987, when a fame-hungry real estate tycoon took out full-page ads in newspapers, the now president called for such a strategy. Other major economies are the “greatest profit machines ever created”, he argued way back when. “‘Tax’ these wealthy nations, not America.”

Eight years after the start of his first term and just 10 weeks into his second, he has finally set about seriously delivering that dream – and cast aside warnings it may deteriorate into a nightmare.

On the campaign trail last year, Trump made no secret of his vision: tariffs would unshackle the US economy, he promised, revitalize its industrial heartlands and unlock a gigantic financial windfall for the federal government.

But after pitching this big, beautiful and bold reconstruction of the global economic order, the early actions of the second Trump administration were strikingly smaller, messier and altogether more hesitant than trailed.

The focus, at first, narrowed dramatically from the world to just a handful of nations: China, Canada and Mexico. While China was hit hard, sweeping tariffs on Canada and Mexico were interrupted by a dizzying array of deadlines, delays and dispensations.

Tariffs were increased on steel and aluminum. But Trump’s trade agenda was largely characterized by threats and spats: rhetoric, but not reality.

On Wednesday, dubbed “liberation day” by Trump and his aides, he did his best to draw a sharp line under weeks of wavering, doubt and confusion – and imposed the universal and “reciprocal” tariffs he pledged so many times to introduce while fighting to regain the White House.

Defying the stark forecasts and concerns of mainstream economists and corporations, Trump went with his gut. “That was true of the Brexiteers, was it not? They really believed it deeply from the core of their souls,” said Sabato.

At one point during his address, Trump switched from president to historian. “In 1913, for reasons unknown to mankind, they established the income tax,” he said, setting the stage for a sharp reduction in tariffs on foreign goods. “Citizens, rather than foreign countries, would start paying the money necessary to run our government.”

Decades of US prosperity “came to a very abrupt end” with the Great Depression from 1929, Professor Trump opined before his class of aides, cabinet secretaries and supporters. “It would have never happened if they had stayed with the tariff policy,” he claimed. “It would have been a much different story.”

Actual historians took issue with this account. “It’s what we would call a lie. False. Not true,” said Andrew Cohen, professor of history in the Maxwell School at Syracuse University. “He’s wrong. No one thinks that. Even conservative economists don’t think that. Even protectionist economists don’t think that.”

Months into the depression, the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 – which hiked tariffs on hundreds of imports in a bid to boost the US economy – is widely considered to have prolonged, and even deepened, the crisis. No other president has tried the same tactic again – until now.

The swift rebuttal to Trump’s analysis of the past was surpassed only by the response to his ambitious predictions for the future.

The president has promised a new Golden Age, with millions of new jobs, billions more dollars’ worth of US exports and trillions of dollars in tariff revenues. Outside his administration, skepticism is high.

“The Trump tariffs mark a liberation from the benefits of free trade for American businesses and consumers,” said Eswar Prasad, professor of trade policy at Cornell University, and a former official at the International Monetary Fund. “Trump has taken the hatchet to trade with practically every major US trading partner, sparing few allies or rivals,” he added, with action that will be “severely disruptive to the US economy, with the effects felt by American consumers and businesses in practically every industry”.

Who pays the price? The rest of the world, according to the president and his aides. But import tariffs are paid by the companies and consumers that import the goods from the rest of the world – in this case, US companies and consumers – rather than the overseas companies exporting them.

Trump’s tariffs will increase the average US household’s costs by $3,800, according to the Yale Budget Lab.

“These tariff increases are likely to be some of the biggest tax increases in US history and will result (if fully implemented) in some of the highest tariff rates the US has ever seen,” wrote Jeremy Horpedahl, adjunct scholar at the libertarian Cato Institute, who noted that they could exceed the post-Smoot-Hawley levels of 1930.

“Like all tariffs, some large portion of these new levies will be paid by US consumers and businesses in the form of higher prices,” added Horpedahl.

If Trump is right, and his decades-old dream revives the world’s largest economy, enriching its citizens and transforming its industrial base into a manufacturing powerhouse, his administration will be one of the most successful in modern memory.

But if he’s wrong, the very Americans who elected him to rapidly bring down the cost of living are likely to be hit hardest.

“It’s either going to be Trump and his team or it’s going to be a large majority of experienced mainstream economists,” said Sabato. “I know where my bet is.”

US customs agents began collecting President Donald Trump’s unilateral 10% tariff on all imports from many countries on Saturday, with higher levies on goods from 57 larger trading partners due to start next week.

The initial 10% “baseline” tariff took effect at US seaports, airports and customs warehouses at 12.01am ET (0401 GMT), ushering in Trump’s full rejection of the post-second world war system of mutually agreed tariff rates.

“This is the single biggest trade action of our lifetime,” said Kelly Ann Shaw, a trade lawyer at Hogan Lovells and former White House trade adviser during Trump’s first term.

Shaw told a Brookings Institution event on Thursday that she expected the tariffs to evolve over time as countries sought to negotiate lower rates. “But this is huge. This is a pretty seismic and significant shift in the way that we trade with every country on Earth.”

Trump’s Wednesday tariff announcement shook global stock markets to their core, wiping out $5tn in stock market value for S&P 500 companies by Friday’s close, a record two-day decline. Prices for oil and commodities plunged, while investors fled to the safety of government bonds.

Among the countries first hit with the 10% tariff are Australia, the UK, Colombia, Argentina, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. A US Customs and Border Protection bulletin to shippers indicates no grace period for cargoes on the water at midnight on Saturday.

But a bulletin from the agency did provide a 51-day grace period for cargoes loaded onto vessels or planes and in transit to the US before 12.01am ET Saturday. These cargoes need arrive to by 12.01am ET on 27 May to avoid the 10% duty.

At the same hour on Wednesday, Trump’s higher “reciprocal” tariff rates of 11% to 50% are due to take effect. European Union imports will be hit with a 20% tariff, while Chinese goods will be hit with a 34% tariff, bringing Trump’s total new levies on China to 54%.

Vietnam, which benefited from the shift of US supply chains away from China after Trump’s first-term trade war with Beijing, will be hit with a 46% tariff and agreed on Friday to discuss a deal with Trump.

Canada and Mexico were exempt from both Trump’s latest duties because they are still subject to a 25% tariff related to the US fentanyl crisis for goods that do not comply with the US-Mexico-Canada rules of origin.

Trump is excluding goods subject to separate, 25% national security tariffs, including steel and aluminium, cars, trucks and auto parts.

His administration also released a list of more than 1,000 product categories exempted from the tariffs. Valued at $645bn in 2024 imports, these include crude oil, petroleum products and other energy imports, pharmaceuticals, uranium, titanium, lumber and semiconductors and copper.

Except for energy, the Trump administration is investigating several of these sectors for further national security tariffs.

Wall Street suffered its worst week since the onset of the Covid-19 crisis five years ago as investors worldwide balked at Donald Trump’s risky bid to overhaul the global economy with sweeping US tariffs.

The US president doubled down on his plan on Friday, insisting he would not back down even as the chairman of the Federal Reserve warned it would likely raise prices and slow down economic growth.

A stock-market rout continued apace, with the benchmark S&P 500 falling 322 points, or 6%, and the Dow Jones industrial average retreating 2,231.07 points, or 5.2%, in New York. The Dow’s two-day slump has wiped out $6.4tn in value, according to Dow Jones Market Data.

The tech-focused Nasdaq Composite, meanwhile, sank 5.8%, and entered bear market territory, having fallen more than 20% since peaking in December.

Over the week, the S&P 500 fell 9.1%, its worst five-day trading stretch since March 2020.

Trump sought to reverse the slide, but an insistence that his policies “will never change” in an all-caps social media post appeared to only reinforce apprehension over his strategy.

“ONLY THE WEAK WILL FAIL!” he wrote on Truth Social, his social media platform.

China outlined plans to retaliate, setting the stage for an all-out trade war between the world’s two largest economies, as other governments worldwide pulled together their response.

The sweeping package of tariffs unveiled by Donald Trump on Wednesday includes an exemption for the energy sector, which is a clear sign of the president’s fealty to his big oil donors over the American people, advocates say.

Reports also indicated that Trump only signed off on the details of his bid to drive the world into a new economic era hours before it was unveiled. The US president decided on the final plan at about 1pm on Wednesday, according to the Washington Post. He announced it at 4pm.

The US market declines capped another dismal day for global indices. The FTSE 100 fell 5% in London. The CAC 40 declined 4.3% in Paris. The Nikkei 225 dropped 2.8% in Tokyo.

“It is now becoming clear that the tariff increases will be significantly larger than expected,” the Fed chair Jerome Powell said. “The same is likely to be true of the economic effects, which will include higher inflation and slower growth.”

Gaza is one of the most dangerous places in the world to be a civilian now that Israeli forces have resumed their military campaign with even more ferocity, but for the first responders who rush towards the wreckage of bombed buildings, the risks are multiplied many times over.

The 15 paramedics and rescue workers whose bodies were found last weekend in a bulldozed pit outside Rafah knew they were putting their lives in peril to try to save others, but they could not have been prepared for what awaited them in the early hours of 23 March.

Saleh Moamer, a 45-year-old Red Crescent ambulance officer and paramedic, had already come close to death twice, his brother, Bilal, recalled. Earlier in the war Saleh was assigned to transport patients between hospitals when his vehicle came under Israeli army fire. The driver was killed instantly and a bullet lodged in Saleh’s chest near his heart. Administering first aid on himself he slid below his seat and steered the vehicle out of the line of fire by following directions given over the radio by his colleagues.

Saleh spent three months in hospital then returned to work. Not long after, on a rescue mission near Rafah, his ambulance was shot at again and he was wounded in the right shoulder. He and Bilal talked about how he had used up all his luck and the third time would be fatal. It was half-joke, half deadly serious, and turned out to be prophetic.

“He said that whatever was intended for him, would happen,” Bilal said.

Before he went out on his night shift on 22 March, Saleh bought bulk quantities of household goods for his wife, their six children, and his brother’s two children who they had been looking after since their father was killed in the conflict.

“He said it would benefit them in the future. It was as if he had a feeling he would not return,” Bilal said.

Saleh joined the Red Crescent during the 2008-09 Israeli invasion of Gaza. He had studied business administration at Al-Azhar University, but his urge to do something immediate to help people amid the turmoil and bloodshed led him to train as a paramedic.

“What kept him going, despite the dangers, was his drive to save innocent lives,” Bilal said, describing his older brother as cheerful and friendly but profoundly dedicated.

“He was deeply passionate about his work and spent most of his time in the ambulance and emergency department,” he said. “When he finished his work in the ambulance, he would head to the vehicle maintenance department at the Red Crescent, fixing any electrical problems. He even formed a team to visit the homes of the injured to check on them. If he had any medicine or medical supplies, he would seek outpatients in need.”

When the dispatch call came early on Sunday 23 March that people had been injured in an airstrike on the Tel al-Sultan area of Rafah, Saleh took an ambulance to the scene. Seeing the extent of the damage he called for more ambulances, collected the wounded he could find and returned to base, according to his brother.

On arriving back he learned that radio contact had been lost with another ambulance also dispatched to the site. That ambulance, which was being driven by Saleh’s colleague, Mustafa Khafaja, had come under intense Israeli fire and by the time he heard they were missing at about 4.30am, Khafaja and his fellow paramedic Ezz alDin Shatt were already dead, according to the third man in the ambulance, Munther Abed, who had survived but was detained by Israeli soldiers. Abed later described them as special forces.

Before dawn, Saleh drove back to the scene and could only see the empty ambulance in an area of sandy dunes in Tel al-Sultan known as Hashashin, Bilal said. He drove back to the ambulance station in al-Mawasi, a few miles up the coast, and organised a rescue convoy of Red Crescent ambulances, a bright red civil defence fire truck and a UN vehicle. In all, 13 paramedics and rescue workers drove to Hashashin to look for their missing colleagues, and that was the last time they were seen alive.

Bound and made to lie on the ground, Abed, the detained paramedic from the first ambulance, saw one rescue vehicle after another ambushed by waiting Israeli forces. Later he saw a military digger excavate a pit and the vehicles being thrown in before a bulldozer covered it over.

The families of the missing first responders spent a whole week in agony before receiving the call that bodies had been found. Bilal, his surviving brother and his parents rushed to the Nasser hospital in Khan Younis, hoping Saleh would not be among the remains, but that hope was quickly smashed.

“When the bodies arrived, they were wrapped in white shrouds with their names written on them. I was the one who uncovered my brother’s face, and I began to wonder if it was really him,” Bilal said. The bodies had been in the ground for a week. They confirmed it was Saleh by the ring on his finger.

“There were marks from restraints on Saleh’s wrists where the Israeli army had bound him. His fingers were also broken,” he said. Two other witnesses have told the Guardian that some of the victims had had their hands or feet bound.

Israel’s military has said its “initial assessment” of the incident found that its troops had opened fire on several vehicles “advancing suspiciously toward IDF troops without headlights or emergency signals”, and has claimed, so far without evidence, that Hamas fighters and other militants had been using the ambulances for cover.

For Bilal, the Israeli claim that the ambulances were carrying terrorists, was a further insult. “These paramedics were providing humanitarian services. They did not pose any threat or carry weapons. What was their crime for them to be killed like this?” he asked.

Among the other families who dashed to the morgue at Nasser hospital was a 63-year-old father, Sobhi Bahloul, searching for his son, Mohammad, a volunteer Red Crescent paramedic.

Finding his body, Sobhi said he went into shock and could not cry. “Perhaps I wasn’t fully conscious of what was happening,” he said. “[The dead] were still in their uniforms, covered in blood and dirt. I was able to recognise Mohammad’s features with difficulty. I moved closer until my face was right in front of his, and only then was I certain it was him. Then we pulled his ID from his trouser pocket.”

Sobhi said: “The gunshot wounds were clear – shots to the chest and his wrist. It looked like he had raised his hand to shield himself, and the bullets went through his hand into his chest and out of his back. There were more than four bullets, all in the chest and heart area. I believe he died instantly.”

Like Saleh, Mohammad was passionate about his work as a paramedic. He graduated from Al-Azhar University with a degree in nursing, then took a series of intensive courses, obtained an ambulance driving licence, trained as a paramedic, and had continued studies in health administration at Al-Quds Open University. He had been volunteering since 2018 and had hoped it would become a paid job, but the absence of a salary did not dim his commitment.

“We hardly saw him at home,” his father recalled. “He was constantly at the hospital, with the ambulance teams. He was courageous and proactive, never waiting for instructions – always taking the initiative.”

“I raised my children to love goodness and to do good deeds,” Sobhi said. “We had a principle in our home: do good without expecting thanks or praise. Mohammad lived by this principle.

“We never expected this to happen – not even in our worst nightmares,” Sobhi added. “They went to save lives, only to become victims themselves.”

Israel has restarted ground operations in the northern Gaza Strip and killed at least 25 people in airstrikes on the southern city of Khan Younis in what it says is a renewed military campaign aimed at pressuring Hamas into releasing Israeli hostages.

At least 25 people were killed in the attack on Khan Younis early on Friday, the local Nasser hospital told AFP, as the search for survivors continued.

More than 1,250 Palestinians in the besieged territory have been killed in Israeli bombings since 18 March, including at least 100 people on Thursday alone in airstrikes that hit three schools turned shelters. The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) said the targets were Hamas control centres.

According to the UN, 280,000 people have been forced to leave their homes or shelters since Israel decided to abandon a two-month-old ceasefire with Hamas, cutting off aid and fuel on 2 March and resuming large-scale bombing two weeks later.

Ground troops have since re-entered the strip’s southernmost city of Rafah and the Netzarim corridor that cuts off Gaza City from the rest of the territory. On Friday, the IDF said troops were advancing in Shuja’iya, a northern suburb of Gaza City.

Israeli officials vowed this week to seize large swathes of the strip as security zones and establish a new military corridor between Rafah and Khan Younis, exacerbating Palestinian fears of permanent displacement and annexation.

Friday also saw escalations on other fronts in the regional conflagration set in motion by Hamas’s October 2023 attack on southern Israel. Israel says 1,200 people, the majority of them civilians, were killed and a further 250 taken captive in the attack; all but 59 have since been released in hostage and detainee swaps. Israel’s retaliatory military campaign on Gaza has killed at least 50,600 people, most of them civilians, according to the territory’s health ministry.

In Lebanon on Friday, the Israeli military said it had killed Hassan Farhat, a senior Hamas commander, in an airstrike on the southern city of Sidon, a move that threatens to upset the fragile truce signed in November with the Hamas-allied Lebanese militant group Hezbollah.

The bombing came after Israel targeted what it said were Hezbollah facilities in the Lebanese capital, Beirut, last week for the first time since the ceasefire went into effect. That attack was launched in response to rocket fire aimed at northern Israel, which neither Hamas nor Hezbollah claimed responsibility for.

Tensions between Israel and the new transitional government in Syria are also rising after a wave of Israeli airstrikes across the country and a deepening Israeli ground incursion in the Daraa border area on Thursday, in which 13 people were killed.

Israel has long targeted Hezbollah and Iranian assets in Syria but has continued its bombing campaign since Islamist-led rebel groups forced the dictator Bashar al-Assad to flee the country in December. It has also seized land in southern Syria and warned that Islamist groups must stay away from Israeli territory.

Hakan Fidan, the foreign minister of Turkey, which backs the new regime in Damascus, on Friday accused Israel of fuelling regional instability.

“Israel is taking out, one by one, all these capabilities that a new state can use against Isis and other terrorist threats,” he said in an interview on the sidelines of a Nato summit in Brussels. “What Israel is doing in Syria is not only threatening the security of Syria, but also is paving the way for future instability of the region.”

Also on Friday, the Israeli army confirmed troops killed a Palestinian teenager after shooting at a group of boys and young men throwing stones near the occupied West Bank village of Husan the night before. Palestinian officials gave his name as Yusef Zaoul, 17. The IDF did not comment on the deceased’s name or age.

The comedian and actor Russell Brand has been charged with one count each of rape, indecent assault and oral rape as well as two counts of sexual assault.

Brand will appear in court in London on 2 May, according to the Metropolitan police, which began investigating him in September 2023 after a range of allegations.

The force said the allegations related to four separate women, as it appealed for anyone affected by the case to come forward.

It is alleged that Brand raped a woman in 1999 in the Bournemouth area, indecently assaulted a woman in 2001 in the Westminster area of London, orally raped and sexually assaulted a woman in 2004 in Westminster and sexually assaulted a woman in Westminster between 2004 and 2005.

Det Supt Andy Furphy from the Metropolitan police, who is leading the investigation, said: “The women who have made reports continue to receive support from specially trained officers.

“The Met’s investigation remains open and detectives ask anyone who has been affected by this case, or anyone who has any information, to come forward and speak with police.

“A dedicated team of investigators is available via email at CIT@met.police.uk. Support is also available by contacting the independent charity Rape Crisis.”

The Met said detectives had begun investigations after receiving a number of allegations, which followed reporting by Channel 4’s Dispatches and the Sunday Times.

Brand has previously denied allegations of rape, assault and emotional abuse that have been made against him. And in a video posted on Instagram released later on Friday, he said that he had “never engaged in non-consensual activity” and was “grateful” for the chance to defend himself in court.

The Crown Prosecution Service said in a statement that it had authorised the police to charge Brand with a number of sexual offences.

Jaswant Narwal, a barrister and prosecutor at the CPS, said: “We carefully reviewed the evidence after a police investigation into allegations made following the broadcast of a Channel 4 documentary in September 2023.

“We have concluded that Russell Brand should be charged with offences including rape, sexual assault and indecent assault.

Narwal added: “The Crown Prosecution Service reminds everyone that criminal proceedings are active, and the defendant has the right to a fair trial. It is extremely important that there be no reporting, commentary or sharing of information online which could in any way prejudice these proceedings.”

Brand is believed to have moved to the US, claiming he is being “attacked” and “shut down” by the British authorities. He interviewed Donald Trump’s eldest son, Donald Trump Jr, last year in Florida.

The decision to authorise charges follows the confirmation in November 2024 by the CPS that detectives had passed on an evidence file regarding sexual offence allegations against Brand.

Channel 4 and the production company Banijay UK also announced they had launched separate internal investigations into his conduct, after the allegations in 2023, with the BBC also reviewing Brand’s time at the corporation.

In the Dispatches programme, four women alleged assaults had taken place between 2006 and 2013, a period in which Brand was working for the BBC and Channel 4, as well as starring in Hollywood films.

An investigation, launched by Banijay UK – which bought the company that produced some of the Channel 4 shows Brand worked on – found that informally raised concerns about the comedian and actor’s behaviour while he worked on several of the channel’s programmes were “not properly escalated or adequately addressed”.

The Channel 4 investigation found “no evidence” that staff were aware of accusations about the comedian and actor contained in the Dispatches programme. A BBC review, which was published in January, found a number of people “felt unable to raise” concerns about the presenter.

Brand, who presented a BBC Radio 2 show between 2006 and 2008, left the role after his on-air prank that became known as Sachsgate, when he left a voicemail for the Fawlty Towers actor Andrew Sachs about his granddaughter.

The entertainer, who was born in Essex and started a career in entertainment as a standup comedian, became famous in Britain as the host of the television programme Big Brother’s Big Mouth.

He went on to star in Hollywood films such as St Trinian’s and the remake of Arthur. He also delved into politics, endorsing Ed Miliband in the 2015 British general election, but has now emerged as a fervent backer of Donald Trump and has appeared alongside a range of hard-right political commentators.

In recent years he has focused on podcasting and cultivating followers on video platforms. He has reinvented himself as a Christian, after being baptised in the River Thames in 2024 during a ceremony that also involved the adventurer and broadcaster Bear Grylls.

Plans for a new national police body to lead the fight against terrorism and serious organised crime are being drawn up, as UK police chiefs consider the biggest overhaul of policing since the 1960s.

Under the proposals, counter-terrorism policing units would gain independence from local forces and become part of a new force covering at least England and Wales, and sitting in a newly created national centre for policing.

Counter-terrorism policing (CTP) is currently headquartered with London’s Metropolitan police, with its head appointed by the Met commissioner.

The plans are being devised as part of preparations for a Home Office white paper heralding radical police changes, which is expected later this year.

The proposed changes come amid mounting concerns that the UK’s current system – in which 45 local forces sometimes cooperate on national issues – can no longer match societal changes in the nature of crime, which is increasingly national or international.

For counter-terrorism policing specifically, one hoped-for advantage is a boost in recruitment, which would give it a more stable workforce and improve its ability to fight violent extremism and state-sponsored espionage.

The proposals are being drawn up by a working group called the joint reform team, which includes the National Police Chief’s Council (NPCC), which represents police leaders across the UK. They sit alongside senior civil servants as well as His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary, the College of Policing and elected police and crime commissioners.

Several options are being examined but the plan to include terrorism and serious organised crime in a new national force would give Britain a law enforcement body potentially as wide reaching and powerful as the FBI in the US.

The Guardian understands the working group is “modelling” the plan, and that any changes would need government backing and new laws.

Other options for CTP being considered by the working group are for it to become a standalone independent force, rather than sitting within a national centre for policing, or leaving things as they are now.

The Met’s hosting of some of counter-terrorism’s core functions, such as its headquarters which sets policies and leadership, is a throwback to when the London force led on counter-terrorism across the UK.

The country is covered by a network of 11 counter-terrorism units, with officers and staff largely seconded or borrowed from other forces. It is led by the Met’s assistant commissioner for specialist operations, Matt Jukes. Both the Met commissioner, Sir Mark Rowley, and his predecessor, Dame Cressida Dick, came to the top job in policing after leading counter-terrorism.

There are several reasons supporters believe the change is necessary.

CTP is struggling to recruit and is about 900 people shy of a full roster of 9,000 officers and staff. Some are put off joining because it means the embattled and scandal-hit Met technically becomes their employer.

Some believe they will have to move to London, which is more expensive to live in than the rest of the country; and officers working for CTP are subject to recall to their home forces, which some argue disrupts the effort to thwart terrorist attacks.

Others are discouraged or even stopped from applying by the force that legally employs them amid a shortage of experienced detectives. One source claimed: “The network is cobbled together from forces like Frankenstein’s monster.”

It is argued that removing the counter-terrorism responsibilities from the Met could free up the London force’s leadership to concentrate on internal changes.

Scotland Yard was traditionally the home of efforts to thwart violent attacks by those motivated by a political or ideological cause. Its anti-terrorism branch spearheaded police efforts against the IRA and a network of counter-terrorism units across the country evolved as the threat from Islamist terrorism intensified.

The model may result in the centralisation of counter-terrorism, serious organised crime, equipment purchasing and efforts to improve police performance in protecting women and girls from violence.

Greater central control would be taken over rushing officers to riots and disorder, such as last summer’s violence.

A report in December by HM Inspectorate of Constabulary on the response to the disorder across England called for the creation of a national coordinator role with the powers to order police leaders to hand over riot-trained officers to be deployed around the country in the event of a national emergency caused by riots.

A second report is due and is expected to also be critical, with some in policing saying privately that local forces were too slow to allow their riot officers to be handed over to the national effort.

A spokesperson for the NPCC said: “The ambition for police reform is high. We want the establishment of the national centre for policing to be the start of changes to improvement to policing capabilities, but it is too early to say what any future design could be.”

Downsides for greater centralisation include local forces losing control over deciding what their needs are and the potential for greater central government interference.

Those who have led Britain’s counter-terrorism efforts say the model derives strength from being connected to local policing, with local officers who know their communities gleaning intelligence and feeding it back to specialist officers. They also say the counter-terrorism system works.

A Home Office source said: “We’re working with policing, which will focus on efficiencies, tech and the use of, and enhancing capabilities on local and national scales. We will always look at what works.”

The Duke of York sent letters directly to China’s president, the prince’s former senior adviser told a special immigration tribunal, with an alleged Chinese spy advising him on how to write them.

Dominic Hampshire, who worked for Andrew from 2019-22, said Andrew had “always had a communication channel” with Xi Jinping that was “accepted” and may even have been encouraged by Buckingham Palace and the late queen.

Yang Tengbo – also known as Chris Yang – who has previously said he had “done nothing wrong or unlawful”, was excluded from the UK on national security grounds by the then home secretary, Suella Braverman, in March 2023.

He unsuccessfully challenged the decision at the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (Siac) last year, with judges finding the businessman was a “close confidant” of Andrew and had “won a significant degree, one could say an unusual degree, of trust” from the duke.

Documents in the legal challenge, including Hampshire’s witness statement, were made public on Friday following a request from several media organisations.

According to Hampshire’s statement, Andrew sent a letter each year on the Chinese president’s birthday. “The royal household, including the late queen, were fully aware of this communication – it was certainly accepted and it may be fair to say it was even encouraged – it was an open channel of communication that was useful to have.”

He added: “As is my job, I would draft these letters with the help of those (in this instance Chris) that understood how messages need to be conveyed due to cultural differences.”

Hampshire described the letters to Xi as “top-level ‘nothingness’ and a courtesy type of letter. For example, the duke sends a letter to the president for his birthday each year.”

His statement, made in May 2024, said Andrew “must surely be a valuable communication point with China”. “Whilst I think China would prefer a different royal, the reality is, to this day, that if the UK government or the palace said that someone needs to see the Chinese president and talk to him, I think the duke would be able to do that, whereas I don’t think anyone else could do so as simply.”

Hampshire said that, having known Andrew for nearly 20 years, and worked closely with him for five, he believed he was “deeply trusted” within the palace at “the highest level”. He said he had had two meetings in six months last year with Andrew and the king “to discuss what the duke can do moving forward in a way that is acceptable to his majesty”.

Hampshire said the Eurasia Fund was discussed with the king at these meetings. The Eurasia Fund was an investment vehicle, involving Andrew and Yang, which intended to use Chinese funds for renewable energy projects in Africa but never got off the ground.

Buckingham Palace said of Hampshire’s meetings with the king: “While his majesty met the duke and his adviser to hear outline proposals for independent funding over the past year, the individual known as H6 [Yang] was not mentioned at any time or in any way as part of these discussions.”

It is understood that while Andrew may have mentioned a number of proposals including the Eurasia Fund, it was not discussed in any level of detail with the king, nor did the king or his advisers give approval to this business relationship or opportunity.

Hampshire said Andrew’s reputation was “irrecoverable” after his BBC Newsnight interview with Emily Maitlis about his relationship with the convicted child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. “This was a common feeling within the royal household, despite what the duke thought may happen. It was very clear internally within the royal household that we would have to look at options for the duke’s future away from royal duties.”

He said the duke’s Pitch@Palace initiative, set up to support entrepreneurs, was one of Andrew’s “indisputable successes” and there were hopes it would continue internationally. He added that Yang, who was the founder-partner of Pitch@Palace China, had not deserted the duke after the interview even while UK sponsors and supporters of Andrew’s initiative were “falling away”.

In Yang’s witness statement, further details of which were also released on Friday, he said of Andrew: “Prior to 2016, the duke did not have a good reputation in China. But because of the work on Pitch he had succeeded in building up his personal brand and reputation in China.

“He was well regarded in senior circles and in Chinese media perception. After the Maitlis interview, the duke’s reputation in China was terrible.”

Hampshire said he was summonsed by the late queen’s private secretary, Sir Edward Young, and asked if he knew Yang, who had come to the attention of the security services. Hampshire said in his statement he told Young: “Chris is pretty much our only avenue for the duke moving forward and arguably the only light at the end of the tunnel for him. Do you have a plan B? Sir Edward said he did not.”

In the five years he had known Yang, Hampshire said there had “never been one single red flag in my head” about him, and in the “limited contact” Andrew had, the duke was “of the same opinion”. He added that Yang “categorically does not have a close relationship with the duke”.

After the documents were made public on Friday, Hampshire said he left the royal household in 2022 and no longer provided advice to Andrew. He said Andrew “fully complied” with advice to end all contact with Yang.

“For the record, as soon as the Duke of York was advised to cease all contact with Mr Yang, he fully complied,” Hampshire said in a statement. “He did not receive a penny in funding or support, directly or indirectly, from any Chinese individual or entity.”

Yang has previously said he intends to appeal against the decision upholding his ban from entering the UK.

The Duke of York sent letters directly to China’s president, the prince’s former senior adviser told a special immigration tribunal, with an alleged Chinese spy advising him on how to write them.

Dominic Hampshire, who worked for Andrew from 2019-22, said Andrew had “always had a communication channel” with Xi Jinping that was “accepted” and may even have been encouraged by Buckingham Palace and the late queen.

Yang Tengbo – also known as Chris Yang – who has previously said he had “done nothing wrong or unlawful”, was excluded from the UK on national security grounds by the then home secretary, Suella Braverman, in March 2023.

He unsuccessfully challenged the decision at the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (Siac) last year, with judges finding the businessman was a “close confidant” of Andrew and had “won a significant degree, one could say an unusual degree, of trust” from the duke.

Documents in the legal challenge, including Hampshire’s witness statement, were made public on Friday following a request from several media organisations.

According to Hampshire’s statement, Andrew sent a letter each year on the Chinese president’s birthday. “The royal household, including the late queen, were fully aware of this communication – it was certainly accepted and it may be fair to say it was even encouraged – it was an open channel of communication that was useful to have.”

He added: “As is my job, I would draft these letters with the help of those (in this instance Chris) that understood how messages need to be conveyed due to cultural differences.”

Hampshire described the letters to Xi as “top-level ‘nothingness’ and a courtesy type of letter. For example, the duke sends a letter to the president for his birthday each year.”

His statement, made in May 2024, said Andrew “must surely be a valuable communication point with China”. “Whilst I think China would prefer a different royal, the reality is, to this day, that if the UK government or the palace said that someone needs to see the Chinese president and talk to him, I think the duke would be able to do that, whereas I don’t think anyone else could do so as simply.”

Hampshire said that, having known Andrew for nearly 20 years, and worked closely with him for five, he believed he was “deeply trusted” within the palace at “the highest level”. He said he had had two meetings in six months last year with Andrew and the king “to discuss what the duke can do moving forward in a way that is acceptable to his majesty”.

Hampshire said the Eurasia Fund was discussed with the king at these meetings. The Eurasia Fund was an investment vehicle, involving Andrew and Yang, which intended to use Chinese funds for renewable energy projects in Africa but never got off the ground.

Buckingham Palace said of Hampshire’s meetings with the king: “While his majesty met the duke and his adviser to hear outline proposals for independent funding over the past year, the individual known as H6 [Yang] was not mentioned at any time or in any way as part of these discussions.”

It is understood that while Andrew may have mentioned a number of proposals including the Eurasia Fund, it was not discussed in any level of detail with the king, nor did the king or his advisers give approval to this business relationship or opportunity.

Hampshire said Andrew’s reputation was “irrecoverable” after his BBC Newsnight interview with Emily Maitlis about his relationship with the convicted child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. “This was a common feeling within the royal household, despite what the duke thought may happen. It was very clear internally within the royal household that we would have to look at options for the duke’s future away from royal duties.”

He said the duke’s Pitch@Palace initiative, set up to support entrepreneurs, was one of Andrew’s “indisputable successes” and there were hopes it would continue internationally. He added that Yang, who was the founder-partner of Pitch@Palace China, had not deserted the duke after the interview even while UK sponsors and supporters of Andrew’s initiative were “falling away”.

In Yang’s witness statement, further details of which were also released on Friday, he said of Andrew: “Prior to 2016, the duke did not have a good reputation in China. But because of the work on Pitch he had succeeded in building up his personal brand and reputation in China.

“He was well regarded in senior circles and in Chinese media perception. After the Maitlis interview, the duke’s reputation in China was terrible.”

Hampshire said he was summonsed by the late queen’s private secretary, Sir Edward Young, and asked if he knew Yang, who had come to the attention of the security services. Hampshire said in his statement he told Young: “Chris is pretty much our only avenue for the duke moving forward and arguably the only light at the end of the tunnel for him. Do you have a plan B? Sir Edward said he did not.”

In the five years he had known Yang, Hampshire said there had “never been one single red flag in my head” about him, and in the “limited contact” Andrew had, the duke was “of the same opinion”. He added that Yang “categorically does not have a close relationship with the duke”.

After the documents were made public on Friday, Hampshire said he left the royal household in 2022 and no longer provided advice to Andrew. He said Andrew “fully complied” with advice to end all contact with Yang.

“For the record, as soon as the Duke of York was advised to cease all contact with Mr Yang, he fully complied,” Hampshire said in a statement. “He did not receive a penny in funding or support, directly or indirectly, from any Chinese individual or entity.”

Yang has previously said he intends to appeal against the decision upholding his ban from entering the UK.

The spring months are typically the busiest of the year in the housing market as buyers mobilise and sunshine adds to a property’s kerb appeal.

However, today’s buyers – and those remortgaging – need deeper pockets than a few years ago. Not only does the average mortgage rate start with a “5” but borrowers face hefty arrangement fees to secure the best deals. These are the fees paid to lenders purely to secure a certain rate, and come on top of any conveyancing or broker fees.

Over the past five years the average product fee on a fixed-rate mortgage has risen by £81 to £1,121, according to the data firm Moneyfacts. At the same time, the proportion of deals available without a fee has fallen from 41% to 36%. There are also fewer deals offering sweeteners such as cashback.

The highest fee Guardian Money found was £3,995 for products offered by Bespoke Bank of Ireland, although the lender specialises in “complex” cases. However, big high street lenders such as Santander, Halifax and Barclays all have deals with a hefty £1,999 price tag attached.

The Moneyfacts finance expert Rachel Springall says borrowers who locked into a cheap fix back in 2020 and are hoping to refinance will find “mortgage fees have been on the rise. Outside headline-grabbing low rates, borrowers need to check the overall cost of any mortgage, which includes any fees or cost-saving incentives.”

On top of the product fee, there could also be a valuation and legal costs to consider, especially if you are buying a home rather than remortgaging.

With nearly 7,000 residential mortgages on the market there are lots of products to choose from but “many have higher product fees”, says Chris Sykes, the technical director at the mortgage broker Private Finance.

“What lenders tend to do is offer a few tiers of product – perhaps there is a 4.25% with a £1,495 product fee, then a 4.5% with a £999 product fee, and a 4.75% with no product fee,” he says.

“Whether it is worth paying this product fee or not is just down to the maths of it, what the loan amount is and how the interest saving would offset that product fee. Product fees can often be added to the loan amount but then the interest payable on those added fees needs to be considered, too.”

To illustrate the point, Sykes costed one lender’s range based on a £450,000 loan over 25 years, with a 75% loan-to-value. The two-year fix range is 4.33% (£1,495 fee), 4.38% (£995 fee) and 4.54% (no fee). For five years it is 4.24% (£1,495 fee), 4.29% (£995 fee) and 4.46% (no fee).

The two-year deal at 4.33% has monthly repayments of £2,459 and total payments of £60,488. At 4.38%, monthly payments rise to £2,471 but the total repaid comes down slightly to £60,292. At 4.54%, the monthly repayments rise again to £2,512 but the overall paid falls to £60,275.

“Some people could be attracted to the lower rates but then actually it would be better for them to pay slightly more monthly and save themselves the fee,” he says.

On the same loan over five years, monthly and overall it works out cheaper to pay a big fee. At 4.24%, you pay £2,436 a month and £147,614 in total. At 4.29%, it moves up to £2,448 a month and £147,870 overall. For the 4.46% no-fee deal, it is £2,491 a month but the total repaid is much higher overall at £149,463.

In a market where the average UK home costs about £270,000 – and nearly £530,000 in London – the best deal ultimately will depend on your individual circumstances.

“There is often a trade-off between rate and fee,” says Mark Harris, the chief executive of the mortgage broker SPF Private Clients. He gives the example of two Nationwide five-year deals available to borrowers with a 60% loan-to-value: 4.02% with a £1,499 fee and a no-fee deal at 4.20%. “Essentially, if you borrow more than £250,000, you are financially better off taking the lower rate/higher fee combination,” he says. “For a smaller loan, the higher rate with a lower fee is a better deal.”

It is estimated that, on average, 800,000 homeowners with a fixed-rate deal with a rate of 3% or below will see their deals end this year. This means many homeowners have not yet been exposed to higher borrowing costs. At the time of writing, the average two-year fix is at 5.33%, while a five-year deal is 5.18%, according to Moneyfacts. The average two-year tracker rate is 5.20%.

Sykes gives the example of a client who bought their first home nearly five years ago with a £480,000 loan on a 25-year term. Their five-year deal at 1.39% meant monthly payments of £1,895.

“We are assessing options for them to remortgage on to now, they have a current balance of about £397,000 and a remaining term of 20 years,” he says. “But with rates now we are looking more like 4.2% on a new five-year product and payments up to about £2,449, so an increase of £554 per month.”

“Fortunately for these clients the property has increased in value over this time, and they’ve both had promotions at work, so can cover this substantial increase, but things will definitely be tighter for them,” he says. “They considered extending the mortgage term to help lower payments but decided against this.”

David Hollingworth, an associate director at the broker L&C Mortgages, suggests that lenders have introduced higher fee products to “try to squeeze the rate down a little further”.

He says: “Bigger fee deals are really a result of a very competitive market and lenders looking to do something different. A big fee could work for those with a bigger mortgage, where a lower rate will outweigh the fee. But many will be better to focus on keeping fees down, even if that means taking a slightly higher rate.”

The editor-in-chief of the Guardian, Katharine Viner, has told the high court there was a “very high public interest” in reporting allegations made against Noel Clarke after he received a special Bafta award.

In a witness statement, Viner said she believed it was conceivable that the actor’s endorsement by the British academy film awards could lead to an escalation of his allegedly abusive behaviour towards women.

Clarke, who is suing Guardian News and Media (GNM), the publisher of the Guardian, for libel over seven articles and a podcast published between April 2021 and March 2022, was given an honorary Bafta award in 2021, which was later suspended.

Viner, who has held the position of editor-in-chief at the Guardian since 2015, said that Clarke’s alleged sexual misconduct appeared to be “something of an open secret in the UK film and TV industry”.

She was made aware of the intention to follow up on leads about Clarke’s behaviour in April 2021 by the Guardian’s head of investigations, Paul Lewis.

Two journalists with experience of reporting on matters of sexual misconduct, Sirin Kale and Lucy Osborne, were assigned to the investigation, which developed at pace.

In her witness statement, Viner said she had been made aware that the Daily Mirror was also investigating Clarke but added that “we placed little, if any, importance on that in the timing of the publication”.

Clarke strongly denied the allegations when they were put to him.

Viner said that the number and credibility of the sources as well as the consistency of the accounts and the robustness of the reporting weighed in favour of publication.

She said: “I considered there was a very clear public interest in exposing allegations of misconduct in the context that the individual in question had been recently celebrated and further empowered through the special award that had been made by Bafta.

“In the light of the long period over which allegations had been made, it was conceivable that this endorsement of Mr Clarke and consolidation of his influence in the British film and television industry could enable him to continue or escalate the relevant behaviour, potentially with impunity.

“However, even if the timing of the award had not influenced the timing of publication, I consider we would likely have published the story in any case and perhaps only slightly later.”

Philip Williams, representing Clarke, 49, asked Viner about the role she played in the coverage.

She said: “I would say that I expect the reporters to do the reporting, the editors to do the editing, and then for them to escalate it to me. That is what happened in this case.”

When cross-examined, she added that when judging the public interest of a story there were formal systems in place and that she sought to take any “emotion out of it”.

The Guardian’s deputy editor, Owen Gibson, told the high court that GNM’s ownership structure ensured that there was no commercial or proprietorial pressure to publish the results of an investigation.

He confirmed that concerns that Clarke and his business partner, Jason Maza, were contacting witnesses and “could cause further intimidation or distress to sources or other women, as well as potentially deterring sources from speaking to us or going on the record” had been a consideration in the timing of the first article.

“We have to look after our sources and I considered that to be a legitimate factor when considering the timing of publication,” he said.

Anna Kaiser, a German film director, was the final witness in GNM’s defence. She told the court that she had been an intern on the film Doghouse in 2008 in which Clarke had played a leading role.

She said: “When he arrived in the morning or when I first saw him each day, he would greet me and, on several occasions, try to pull me in with an arm before going in to peck me on the lips.

“As I recall, I pulled away every time and I can’t remember if he ever actually succeeded at kissing me this way. I think this happened around a handful of times. At first it was cheeky but persistent, but it became less playful and his attitude became less friendly after I avoided it each time. My reaction each time, though I didn’t say it in so many words, was ‘oh, not this again’”.

When asked by Clarke’s barrister whether this was not simply standard behaviour on such an intimate and friendly film set, Kaiser noted that none of the other men on the set had greeted female colleagues by kissing them on the lips.

The closing submissions in the trial will be heard on Friday before a written judgment by Mrs Justice Steyn.

Farmers fear they will no longer be able to afford to restore nature in England and reduce their carbon footprint after government funding for doing this was frozen.

The environment secretary, Steve Reed, recently announced that the sustainable farming incentive (SFI), which pays farmers for making space for nature on their land, would be paused and overhauled before June’s spending review. The scope of the scheme – and its budget – are being reassessed.

He is considering blocking farmers who make a lot of money from agriculture from applying for the scheme, which is part of a package of payments that replaced the EU’s common agricultural policy and paid land managers for the amount of land in their care, with the aim of paying farmers to look after nature, soil and other public goods, rather than simply for farming and owning land.

In England, 70% of land is farmed, so if nature is to recover, farmers need support to make space for it on their land. This includes planting trees and hedges, digging ponds and leaving strips of land for wildflowers.

Amelia Greenaway, 24, farms native cattle and pigs on 365 hectares (900 acres) of the National Trust’s Killerton Estate in Devon. She was applying for £94,000 worth of SFI payments when the application was frozen.

“We are already sustainable as we are organic. We have highland cattle and rare breed pigs which we conservation graze,” she said. But she wanted to go one step further.

“We were going to start growing our own pig feed to create a circular system in our farm, we were going to sow wildflowers in there as well, and it was going to be a good thing for pollinators. We now can’t afford the seed to do that,” she said.

It is hard for tenant farmers to apply for schemes as they have to work with the landlords. Greenaway had been working on her funding application for months – time that has been wasted. “The planning we have had to do over SFI has been immense,” she said. “This has seriously wasted our time. We had to do so many paperwork applications that delayed the process.”

She said farmers were giving up on the government to provide funding and solutions for nature, and had to accept they would need to do it themselves. “I hope this gives farmers the opportunity not to put their heads in the sand. We weren’t reliant on subsidy but it was great to have that cash boost we could reinvest. Not having the reinvestment will make us become a bit stagnant if the SFI doesn’t become available again.”

Greenaway says she is lucky to have a good landlord in the National Trust, which supports nature-friendly farming, but not all farmers are so fortunate: “Since the shocking news of SFI closure, it’s just reminded us of our gratitude towards the National Trust. Without the support of empathetic landlords who want to allow sustainable farming to be a viable business we wouldn’t be a sustainable business. I am very stagnant now, not moving forward with nature recovery. I have to count my blessings, but I have to look forward to the future and work even more closely with my landlords.”

She feared other farmers may be discouraged from nature-friendly farming: “I am really worried for the landscape actually; for those farmers who were considering going into regenerative farming, the chopping and changing has completely reduced confidence so it’s caused them to want to intensify instead.”

Anthony Curwen, 63, is the country estate manager of Quex Park in Kent, which grows wheat, oilseed rape, oats, beans, potatoes and maize silage across 1,012 hectares (2,500 acres) of arable land.

He applied for the SFI just before the application window closed, and has now been left in limbo.

“It is just very shocking and surprising that it was withdrawn last week,” he said. “What we are doing is helping sustainable farming, pollen and nature strips. We don’t use insecticides, we plant cover crops. We have already started doing everything. We were hoping to get the money for doing it.”

Curwen has loved seeing nature come back to the farm. “I’ve noticed more insects, more birds. Lots of things were here 40 or 50 years ago and disappeared then came back. We’ve seen turtle doves come back to the farm, we’ve seen yellow hammers which I haven’t seen for a long time. It is joyous to see it all return.”

He is worried other farmers will not get this same opportunity: “We’ve been on this journey for several years, but the vast bulk of farmers don’t know what to do. They need persuasion, they need help. It will take a lot of rebuilding trust to hit government targets on biodiversity, carbon and soil regeneration. It is quite scary going on that route as it is very different to what they would have been doing.”

Curwen does not agree with the government’s plans to means test it, as it will encourage larger farms to intensify food production with more pesticides and less nature. “Who could say that nature doesn’t matter on a big farm? Nature matters on every farm. Many big farms may go in the opposite direction and intensify and that will hurt nature. It is trying to divide and rule to be honest with you.”

Despite using fewer pesticides and creating more space for nature, productivity has not reduced on his farm: “Less inputs and more circular farming actually give us more food security. This is all being put at risk because of the clumsy way this is all going on.”

He did not realise this would be the case to begin with, but now is a true convert and a member of the Nature Friendly Farming Network.

“I was sceptical of regenerative farming but we have now realised it makes a huge difference to everything around you,” he said. “I am in despair. I am just saddened as I think it is going to be harder now. I thought we were a world leader in this journey and now it’s all up in the air.”

Parents with children in neonatal care will gain a day-one right to paid leave and pay in a move hailed as “a lifeline for parents” with sick babies.

From Sunday, the measures will allow eligible parents to take up to 12 weeks of leave and pay, on top of maternity and paternity leave.

Neonatal care leave will be available to parents of babies who are admitted into neonatal care up to 28 days old and who have a continuous stay in care of seven days or longer. One in seven UK newborns needs to be cared for in a specialist hospital unit.

The Labour government’s employment rights bill, which passed its third reading in the House of Commons last month, will also provide other employment reforms such as menopause support, day-one rights for paternity, parental and bereavement leave for eligible workers, as well as protections against unfair dismissal for pregnant women and new mothers.

Under the changes in the proposed legislation, parents in Britain will be granted a right to bereavement leave after experiencing a miscarriage. Mothers and their partners will be given the right to two weeks of bereavement leave if they have suffered a pregnancy loss before 24 weeks’ gestation.

The reforms will also allow 1.3 million of the lowest-paid UK workers to be guaranteed sick pay worth up to 80% of their weekly salary from the first day of sickness.

The employment rights minister, Justin Madders, praised campaigners and parents with experience of caring for very poorly children, calling them “an inspiration to us all” for showing the necessity of the new leave and pay entitlement.

He said: “We know that many employers already go above and beyond the statutory minimum, which is why as part of our plan for change we are creating a level playing field that ensures parents, wherever they work, have the vital relief they need to switch off from work and focus on their newborn baby.”

Bliss, a charity that supports the families of premature and sick babies, has called the change in the law transformative and said it would provide thousands of employed parents every year with the assurance that they can take the time to be with their sick baby when they need it most.

Catriona Ogilvy, the founder of the parent-led charity the Smallest Things, said she was thrilled that leave and pay would finally be available to families from Sunday.

Ogilvy said: “This new law is the result of a decade of tireless campaigning by those who truly understand – neonatal parents themselves. They know the journey doesn’t end when babies come home from hospital.

“Neonatal leave will give families back stolen time. Time to be with their baby without the worry of work or pay. Time to bond. And time to begin to recover – both physically and mentally.”

The minister for women’s health, Gillian Merron, said the law would give parents peace of mind so they could focus on their family.

She said: “No parent should have to choose between being with their vulnerable newborn or returning to work. Our action today will make all the difference to families going through an incredibly stressful time.”

The Peace Corps is the latest federal agency to be targeted by Elon Musk’s unofficial “department of government efficiency”. It appears “Doge” could be eyeing cuts to the agency, which sends US volunteers around the world to work in local communities on health, education and environmental initiatives.

“Staff from the Department of Government Efficiency are currently working at Peace Corps headquarters and the agency is supporting their requests,” the agency said in an email to the Guardian on Friday.

One Doge representative, Bridget Youngs, visited the Peace Corps headquarters on Friday, according to two people familiar who spoke on the condition of anonymity. Those people say Peace Corps staff confirmed her identity with the White House and that she was in the building for a few hours. She asked for access to the agency’s financial records and said other Doge workers may visit the building over the weekend to continue the work, according to the two people.

In an internal email shared with the Guardian, Peace Corps administrators wrote: “We will be welcoming the Doge folks this afternoon. We have been made aware that they intend to work on the weekend, so we will need you on standby.”

The email instructs staffers to cooperate with any Doge workers and “if data from the system is requested, confirm what is required to meet their needs (data, format, etc)”.

The email adds that “under all circumstances, ensure that clear records are kept on what is requested and provided”.

In a separate agency-wide email sent to Peace Corps staffers around the world, the agency notified everyone that it received a visit from Doge on Friday and it expects “additional visits”.

Since Donald Trump was inaugurated, Musk and his allies in Doge have been steadily working to slash budgets and layoff workers in federal agencies. They’ve targeted more than 20 agencies with the mission to identify “waste, fraud and abuse”.

It’s unclear what Doge’s directive is with the Peace Corps. But obtaining access to the agency’s financial records indicates it could be looking to cut costs and cancel programs as it has done with other agencies that work on global issues and foreign aid, such as the US Agency for International Development (USAID).

Reuters first reported Doge’s visit to Peace Corps headquarters.

Musk and his top lieutenant at Doge, Steve Davis, did not return requests for comment.

The National Peace Corps Association, a nonprofit that advocates for the Peace Corps and returned volunteers, sent an email to its members on Friday also confirming Doge’s visit to the Washington DC office. “One individual from the department reported on the premises and more on the way tomorrow,” the group wrote in the email.

The Peace Corps has had more than 240,000 volunteers since its inception in 1961, when it was created by John F Kennedy. The agency’s mandate has been to send workers to the developing world to work on projects such as public health and economic development. The agency, which has an annual budget of about $400m, has long had support from Republicans and Democrats.

In its email regarding Doge’s visit, the National Peace Corps Association said: “Our community is tens of thousands strong, and will unite to champion Peace Corps ideals with courage, hope, and perseverance.”