Donald Trump has said the US will “take a pass” on brokering further Russia-Ukraine talks if Moscow or Kyiv “make it very difficult” to reach a peace deal.

The US president told reporters in the Oval Office on Friday that he was not expecting a truce to happen in “a specific number of days” but he wanted it done “quickly”.

His comments came hours after US Secretary of State Marco Rubio warned that the US would abandon talks unless there were clear signs of progress within days.

“We’re not going to continue with this endeavour for weeks and months on end,” Rubio said, adding that the US had “other priorities to focus on”.

This comes as Russian strikes on Ukraine continue, with two people reported killed and more than 100 injured in the north-eastern cities of Kharkiv and Sumy on Friday.

Moscow launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, and Russian troops have been advancing – albeit slowly – in eastern Ukraine.

President Vladimir Putin has placed a number of conditions on any potential ceasefire.

When asked about a deal between Russian and Ukraine, Trump said: “We’re talking about here people dying. We’re going to get it stopped, ideally.

“Now if, for some reason, one of the two parties makes it very difficult, we’re just going to say, ‘You’re foolish, you’re fools, you’re horrible people,’ and we’re going to just take a pass.”

Despite the Trump administration’s initial confidence that it could secure a deal quickly, attempts to reach a full ceasefire have yet to materialise, with Washington blaming both sides.

Following a meeting with European leaders in Paris about a potential ceasefire on Thursday, Rubio told reporters on Friday: “We need to determine very quickly now – and I’m talking about a matter of days – whether or not this is doable.”

“If it’s not going to happen, then we’re just going to move on,” he said about truce talks.

He admitted that a peace deal would be difficult to strike.

Trump had said before he re-entered office that he would stop the fighting in the first 24 hours of his presidency.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov, when asked to respond to Trump saying he expected an answer from Russia on a ceasefire, said “the negotiations taking place are quite difficult”.

“The Russian side is striving to reach a peace settlement in this conflict, to ensure its own interests, and is open to dialogue,” he said.

During a meeting with Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni in Rome on Friday, US Vice-President JD Vance said he was still “optimistic” about ending the Ukraine war.

“I want to update the prime minister on some of the negotiations between Russia, Ukraine, and also some of the things that have happened even in the past 24 hours,” he said.

“I won’t prejudge them, but we do feel optimistic that we can hopefully bring this war – this very brutal war – to a close.”

Vance’s comments followed separate news that Ukraine and the US took the first step towards striking a minerals deal, after an initial agreement was derailed when a February meeting between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky erupted into a public shouting match.

On Thursday, the two countries signed a memorandum of intent on setting up an investment fund for Ukraine’s reconstruction as part of an economic partnership agreement.

The aim is to finalise the deal by 26 April, the memo published by the Ukrainian government says.

The details of any deal remain unclear. Previous leaks have suggested the agreement has been extended beyond minerals to control of Ukraine’s energy infrastructure, as well as its oil and gas.

Ukrainian negotiators have tried to resist Trump’s demands that a joint investment fund would pay back the US for previous military aid, but have seemingly accepted his claim that it would help the country recover after the war ends.

The memo said the “American people desire to invest alongside the Ukrainian people in a free, sovereign and secure Ukraine”.

Zelensky had been hoping to use the deal to secure a US security guarantee in the event of a ceasefire deal, telling European leaders last month that “a ceasefire without security guarantees is dangerous for Ukraine”.

The US has so far resisted providing Kyiv with security guarantees.

The White House argues the mere presence of US businesses would put off Russia from further aggression, but that did not exactly work when they invaded in 2022.

Economy Minister Yulia Svyrydenko announced the signing of the memorandum on X, with pictures of Svyrydenko and US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent separately signing the document over an online call.

“There is a lot to do, but the current pace and significant progress give reason to expect that the document will be very beneficial for both countries,” Svyrydenko wrote.

Bessent said the details were still being worked out but the deal is “substantially what we’d agreed on previously.”

Trump hinted at the deal during a press conference with Meloni, saying “we have a minerals deal which I guess is going to be signed on (next) Thursday… and I assume they’re going to live up to the deal. So we’ll see. But we have a deal on that”.

Ivanna Klympush-Tsintsadze, an MP and the chair of Ukraine’s parliamentary committee on EU Integration, told the BBC the Ukrainian parliament would have “the last word” in the deal.

She added: “I hope that there will be enough reasoning to ensure that whatever is signed, and if it is going to be ratified that it is in the interest of our country and our people”.

On Thursday, Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha met Rubio and Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff in Paris to discuss how to end the war.

Sybiha said they had “discussed the paths to a fair and lasting peace, including full ceasefire, multinational contingent, and security guarantees for Ukraine”.

Every iPhone comes with a label which tells you it was designed in California.

While the sleek rectangle that runs many of our lives is indeed designed in the United States, it is likely to have come to life thousands of miles away in China: the country hit hardest by US President Donald Trump’s tariffs, now rising to 245% on some Chinese imports.

Apple sells more than 220 million iPhones a year and by most estimates, nine in 10 are made in China. From the glossy screens to the battery packs, many of the components in an Apple product are made, sourced and assembled into iPhones, iPads or Macbooks in China. Most are shipped to the US, Apple’s largest market.

Luckily for the firm, Trump suddenly exempted smartphones, computers and some other electronic devices from his tariffs last week.

But the comfort is short-lived.

The president has since suggested that more tariffs are coming: “NOBODY is getting ‘off the hook'”, he wrote on Truth Social, as his administration investigated “semiconductors and the WHOLE ELECTRONICS SUPPLY CHAIN”.

The global supply chain that Apple has touted as a strength is now a vulnerability.

The US and China, the world’s two biggest economies, are interdependent and Trump’s staggering tariffs have upended that relationship overnight, leading to an inevitable question: who is the more dependent of the two?

China has hugely benefited from hosting assembly lines for one of the world’s most valuable companies. It was a calling card to the West for quality manufacturing and has helped spur local innovation.

Apple entered China in the 1990s to sell computers through third-party suppliers.

Around 1997, when it was on the verge of bankruptcy as it struggled to compete with rivals, Apple found a lifeline in China. A young Chinese economy was opening up to foreign companies to boost manufacturing and create more jobs.

It wasn’t until 2001 though that Apple officially arrived in China, through a Shanghai-based trading company, and started making products in the country. It partnered with Foxconn, a Taiwanese electronic manufacturer operating in China, to make iPods, then iMacs and subsequently iPhones.

As Beijing began trading with the world – encouraged by the US no less – Apple grew its footprint in what was becoming the world’s factory.

Back then, China was not primed to make the iPhone. But Apple chose its own crop of suppliers and helped them grow into “manufacturing superstars”, according to supply chain expert Lin Xueping.

He cites the example of Beijing Jingdiao, now a leading manufacturer of high-speed precision machinery, which is used to make advanced components efficiently. The company, which used to cut acrylic, was not considered a machine tool-maker – but it eventually developed machinery to cut glass and became “the star of Apple’s mobile phone surface processing,” Mr Lin says.

Apple opened its first store in the country in Beijing in 2008, the year the city hosted the Olympics and China’s relationship with the West was at an all-time high. This soon snowballed to 50 stores, with customers queuing out of the door.

As Apple’s profit margins grew, so did its assembly lines in China, with Foxconn operating the world’s largest iPhone factory in Zhengzhou, which has since been termed “iPhone City”.

For a fast-growing China, Apple became a symbol of advanced Western tech – simple yet original and slick.

Today, most of Apple’s prized iPhones are manufactured by Foxconn. The advanced chips that power them are made in Taiwan, by the world’s largest chip manufacturer, TSMC. The manufacturing also requires rare earth elements which are used in audio applications and cameras.

Some 150 of Apple’s top 187 suppliers in 2024 had factories in China, according to an analysis by Nikkei Asia.

“There’s no supply chain in the world that’s more critical to us than China,” Apple’s CEO Tim Cook said in an interview last year.

In Trump’s first term, Apple secured exemptions on the tariffs he imposed on China.

But this time, the Trump administration has made an example of Apple before it reversed tariffs on some electronics. It believes the threat of steep taxes will encourage businesses to make products in America instead.

“The army of millions and millions of human beings screwing in little screws to make iPhones – that kind of thing is going to come to America,” Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said in an interview earlier this month.

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt reiterated that last week: “President Trump has made it clear America cannot rely on China to manufacture critical technologies such as semiconductors, chips, smartphones and laptops.”

She added: “At the direction of the president, these companies are hustling to onshore their manufacturing in the United States as soon as possible.”

But many are sceptical of that.

The thought that Apple could move its assembly operation to the US is “pure fantasy”, according to Eli Friedman, who formerly sat on the firm’s academic advisory board.

Mr Friedman said the company has been talking about diversifying its supply chain away from China since 2013, when he joined the board – but the US was never an option.

He added that Apple didn’t make much progress over the next decade but “really made an effort” after the pandemic, when China’s tightly-controlled Covid lockdowns hurt manufacturing output.

“The most important new locations for assembly have been Vietnam and India. But of course the majority of Apple assembly still takes place [in China].”

Apple did not respond to the BBC’s questions but its website says its supply chain spans “thousands of businesses and more than 50 countries”.

Any change to Apple’s current supply chain status quo would be a huge blow for China, which is trying to kickstart growth post-pandemic.

Many of the reasons that the country wanted to be a manufacturing hub for Western companies in the early 2000s ring true today – it creates hundreds of thousands of jobs, and gives the country a crucial edge in global trade.

“Apple sits at the intersection of US-China tensions, and tariffs highlight the cost of that exposure,” says Jigar Dixit, a supply chain and operations consultant.

It might explain why China has not bowed to Trump’s threats, retaliating instead with 125% levies on US imports. China has also imposed export controls on a range of critical rare earth minerals and magnets it has in stores, dealing a blow to the US.

There is no doubt the US tariffs still being levied on other Chinese sectors will hurt, though.

And it’s not just Beijing facing higher tariffs – Trump has made it clear he will target countries that are part of the Chinese supply chain. For instance Vietnam, where Apple has moved AirPods production, was facing 46% tariffs before Trump hit pause for 90 days, so moving production elsewhere in Asia is not an easy way out.

“All conceivable places for the huge Foxconn assembly sites with tens or hundreds of thousands of workers are in Asia, and all of these countries are facing higher tariffs,” Mr Friedman said.

So what does Apple do now?

The company is fighting off stiff competition from Chinese firms as the government pushes for advanced tech manufacturing in a race with the US.

Now that “Apple has cultivated China’s electronic manufacturing capabilities, Huawei, Xiaomi, Oppo and others can reuse Apple’s mature supply chain,” according to Mr Lin.

Last year, Apple lost its place as China’s biggest smartphone seller to Huawei and Vivo. Chinese people are not spending enough because of a sluggish economy and with ChatGPT banned in China, Apple is also struggling to retain an edge among buyers seeking AI-powered phones. It even offered rare discounts on iPhones in January to boost sales.

And while operating under President Xi Jinping’s increasingly close grip, Apple has had to limit the use of Bluetooth and Airdrop on its devices as the Chinese Communist Party sought to censor political messages that people were sharing. It weathered a crackdown on the tech industry that even touched Alibaba founder and multi-billionaire Jack Ma.

Apple has announced a $500bn (£378bn) investment in the US, though that may not be enough to appease the Trump administration for long.

Given the several U-turns and the uncertainty around Trump’s tariffs, more unexpected levies are expected – which could again leave the company with little manoeuvring room and even less time.

Mr Dixit says smartphone tariffs will not cripple Apple should they rear their head again, but regardless will add “pressure – both operationally and politically” to a supply chain that cannot be unwound quickly.

“Clearly the severity of the immediate crisis has been lessened,” Mr Friedman says, referring to last week’s exemption for smartphones.

“But I really don’t think this means Apple can relax.”

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi said he discussed his country’s potential to collaborate with the US on “technology and innovation” during a conversation with Elon Musk.

On Friday, Modi shared a post on X detailing his telephone conversation with the tech billionaire and said they had revisited topics from their meeting in Washington earlier this year.

Modi’s conversation with Musk comes as India is working towards securing a bilateral trade agreement with the US to offset the brunt of US President Donald Trump’s potential tariffs.

It also comes days before US Vice-President JD Vance’s four-day trip to India.

“We discussed the immense potential for collaboration in the areas of technology and innovation,” Modi wrote in his post on X.

He added that India remained “committed to advancing our partnerships with the US” in these domains.

Musk, who is seen as being close to Trump and also heads the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), is looking at making inroads into India with his business plans.

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.

• Musk’s X is suing India, as Tesla and Starlink plan entry
• Musk v Ambani: Billionaires battle over India’s satellite internet

Tesla could also 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.

Meanwhile, Vance is set to meet Modi on 21 April, the first day of his trip, for discussions on economic, trade and geopolitical ties.

He will be accompanied by his children and wife Usha Vance whose parents migrated to the US from the southern Indian state of Andhra Pradesh.

The visit comes against the backdrop of an intensifying trade war between the US and China.

Trump slapped India too with 27% US tariffs on 2 April, before he announced a 90-day pause.

Since then, Delhi and Washington have been working towards an early conclusion of trade negotiations.

Donald Trump and Giorgia Meloni talked up the chances of a trade deal between the US and Europe, as the Italian prime minister visited Washington.

“There will be a trade deal, 100%,” Trump said, “but it will be a fair deal”, while Meloni said she was “sure” they could reach an agreement, later adding that her aim was to “make the West great again”.

Meloni is the first European leader to visit Washington since Trump imposed, then paused, 20% tariffs on imports from the bloc.

The US president separately said on Thursday that he is confident of making “a very good deal” with China, adding that representatives from Beijing have reached out “a number of times”.

Trump and Meloni enjoy a good relationship and the Italian leader hopes to position herself as a bridge between the EU and the US amid fractured relations and mounting concerns about the global impact of Trump’s tariffs.

Despite his confidence in an eventual deal, Trump said he was in “no rush”.

“Everybody wants to make a deal. And if they don’t want to make a deal, we’ll make the deal for them,” he said, adding that he expects to cut deals with every country “over the next three to four weeks”.

Trump also suggested that he was reluctant to further raise tariffs on China – which currently stand at 145%.

“I may not want to go higher. I may want to go to less because you know, you want people to buy and, at a certain point, people aren’t gonna buy,” he told reporters at the White House.

At a press conference on Thursday following Trump’s and Meloni’s conversation, the leaders said they had discussed defence spending, immigration and tariffs.

The atmosphere in the Oval Office appeared relaxed and good-natured – similar to the reception UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer received during his visit to the White House in February.

However Meloni’s aides had described the visit as a “commercial peace mission” following Trump’s decision to impose a 10% baseline tariff on almost all foreign imports to the US.

He has strongly criticised the European Union on trade, claiming it was “formed to screw the United States”. A 20% “retaliatory” tariff on the EU has been temporarily suspended until July.

Meloni previously called the tariffs “absolutely wrong” and said they would end up damaging the EU “as much as the US”.

While she didn’t score any tangible wins on tariffs during the meeting, she did convince Trump to accept an invitation to visit Rome, which she said would be an occasion for him to meet other European leaders.

Given the fraught relations between the EU and the US, Meloni will likely chalk that up as a significant win, particularly if Trump agrees to meet the president of the European Commission, Ursula Von der Leyen, during the visit.

Meloni will return to Europe with stronger credentials as the so-called “Trump whisperer”, something that will be reinforced when she meets US Vice President JD Vance in Rome tomorrow.

The Italian leader was careful to praise Trump and align herself with the US president’s viewpoints.

In her statement following the meeting, she criticised “woke ideology” and championed the “war against illegal migration”.

“The goal for me is to make the West great again, and I think we can do it together,” she added.

She also seized the opportunity to tout the work of her own government. “I’m proud of sitting here as prime minister of an Italy that today has a very good situation – a stable country, a reliable country,” Meloni said.

She noted that her government had brought inflation down and improved employment, before gesturing towards Trump and adding with a broad smile: “Forgive me if I promote my country, but you’re a businessman and you understand me”. Trump grinned back.

Meloni basked in the praise lavished on her by Trump – from compliments about her work as prime minister to gushing about her Italian sounding “beautiful”.

The US president praised Meloni for taking a tough stance on immigration and said he wished more people were like her. Meloni said that change was happening, thanks to the example set by Italy, referring to yesterday’s EU announcement on safe countries.

It was only occasionally that she showed a tinge of irritation when asked about Italy’s low defence spending.

Meloni said that she expects Italy to announce at the next Nato meeting in June that her country would be able to meet the alliance’s requirement that each member nation spends 2% of GDP on defence.

Defence spending has been a key sticking point for Trump, with the US leader repeatedly demanding that Nato allies increase spending.

Italy is one of eight countries that currently does not meet the 2% threshold, spending 1.49% on defence.

Italian opposition leader Carlo Calenda said there had been “two very positive outcomes” from the visit: that Meloni “stayed on track on Ukraine and managed to convince Trump to meet EU figures in Italy”.

Calenda said Meloni had “gained credibility as a bridge between the US and the EU” but criticised her praise of “Trump’s fight on woke culture”.

Healthcare in the Gaza Strip is itself a casualty of 18 months of war between Israel and Hamas. With doctors struggling to cope, the BBC followed one GP through her shift at a Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) clinic.

By 07:30, a slight figure in a pink headscarf, Dr Wissam Sukkar, is picking her way through the devastated streets of Gaza City.

“I was walking for around 50 minutes to reach our clinic,” she explains when she is met by a local BBC journalist who helped us log her day. With virtually no fuel left in Gaza, few taxis are running.

“With our limited resources we’re still trying to be here in northern Gaza through these difficult times,” adds Dr Sukkar.

The UN’s World Health Organization (WHO) says that only 21 of Gaza’s 36 hospitals are currently partially functional. Medical supplies are running critically low due to Israel’s ongoing blockade of Gaza.

The GP points out what is left of her former workplace, an MSF burns clinic that came under fire in the early weeks of the war, during street battles between Israeli soldiers and Hamas fighters.

Her team has now converted an office towards the west of Gaza City into a clinic – and by 09:30, as Dr Sukkar is putting on her white robe, there are already some 150 people waiting outside in a tented reception area.

“Most of our patients are displaced people,” Dr Sukkar says. “They live in shelters, they even live in tents in the streets.”

Since a ceasefire collapsed a month ago, thousands of Gazans have once again left their homes and fled to this neighbourhood, seeking safety.

With little food and clean water, there is a rise in malnutrition and diseases – from stomach bugs to scabies. The elderly and young are worst affected, and the first patients of the day are babies with viral infections.

“We receive a lot of children who suffer from upper respiratory tract infections and diarrhoea. In the shelters, there are a lot of children in the same place and a virus can spread very quickly,” the doctor explains.

One toddler has his face dotted with mosquito bites and Dr Sukkar administers some soothing cream. As cooking gas has run out, families have taken to using open fires to heat food and this has also led to an increase in serious burns.

Within an hour, Dr Sukkar and three other physicians have seen dozens of patients. But there are many whom they struggle to help.

“We have more and more challenges with the huge number of patients with less and less medical supplies,” Dr Sukkar says wearily.

“Also, we receive complicated cases, and we don’t know where to refer these patients because the health system in Gaza has collapsed.”

There has been an influx in seriously wounded patients arriving at the clinic since last Sunday, when Israeli warplanes attacked al-Ahli Arab hospital in Gaza City.

Israel accused Hamas of using a hospital building as a “command and control centre”; something the armed group denied.

Al-Ahli – which was the main medical site for treating trauma in northern Gaza – can no longer accept patients. The WHO says the emergency room, laboratory, X-ray machines and pharmacy were destroyed.

“I started my treatment at al-Shifa hospital, then I got transferred to al-Ahli and they bombed it,” says Saeed Barkat, an older man with a fractured thigh bone, who arrives at the MSF clinic on crutches.

He had surgery after he was wounded by Israeli artillery fire on the shelter where he was staying late last year. He has pins in his leg, and it is swollen.

“I came here for any treatment and to follow-up,” says Mr Barkat, as nurses change his dressing and give new painkillers.

At midday, when Dr Sukkar checks on the small pharmacy at the clinic, she looks worried. Many of the shelves are bare.

Israel closed all crossings to Gaza at the start of March, saying it was putting pressure on Hamas to release the remaining hostages it is holding. Since then, no aid has entered.

“For diabetes, we don’t have insulin, we don’t have treatments for epilepsy, we don’t have basic medicines like anti-fever drugs,” Dr Sukkar says.

“It’s the season for skin infections and we don’t have creams or ointments for bacterial infections, no medicines to treat scabies and head lice.”

The doctors are rationing the supplies that remain.

“We are doing our best so that it will be enough for the coming week,” sums up Dr Sukkar, “but we expect that our stock will run out in more or less two weeks.”

Soon Dr Sukkar is back in her consultation room. The rush of patients continues with many more sick children. They have coughs, fevers and stomach upsets.

By 15:30, it is time to close up the clinic for the day. The four doctors here calculate that they have seen nearly 390 patients.

After a long, tiring day, there is the long, tiring walk home for Dr Sukkar.

As she leaves the clinic she telephones her family. Her thoughts turn to looking after her own children, who have been displaced with her nine times in the past year and a half.

“Like every Gazan, I have a daily struggle to secure clean water, food for my kids,” says Dr Sukkar. “We don’t have electricity, so it’s really hard even to charge the battery of my mobile.”

“Most of all, it’s really hard to have any hope,” she goes on. “I feel I live in a nightmare that doesn’t end. When will this war end?”

For now, there is no answer, and no respite.

Police in Pakistan have made dozens of arrests following a string of protests targeting KFC branches across the country which led to one man being killed.

Protesters, angry at the war in Gaza, have been urging a boycott of the chain, claiming it’s a symbol of the United States and its ally Israel.

At least 20 attempted attacks on KFC outlets have been recorded across the country in the past week, Pakistan’s Minister of State for the Interior Talal Chaudhry told the BBC.

Videos on social media show mobs armed with iron rods entering KFC stores and threatening to burn them down before police arrive to arrest protesters. In Karachi, two stores were set on fire.

A video on social media shows a man yelling, “They are buying bullets with the money you make.”

Condemning the violence, Chaudhry said that “most of the vendors involved are Pakistani” and “the profits go to Pakistanis”.

A police officer confirmed to BBC News that the man who was killed, 45-year-old Asif Nawaz, was a staff member at KFC who was shot during one of the protests in the city of Sheikhupura, on the outskirts of Lahore, on 14 April.

Sheikhupura Regional Police Officer Athar Ismail said Nawaz was working in the kitchen at the time and was hit in the shoulder by a bullet that was fired from a pistol more than 100ft away. He told BBC News that the main culprit is still at large, but that police have made 40 arrests so far.

A bullet fired from that distance is not usually fatal, but a post-mortem found that after hitting his shoulder, the bullet travelled towards his chest.

Mr Ismail told BBC News there was no evidence so far that suggested Mr Nawaz was the intended target and the shooting may have been accidental.

Across Pakistan, influential figures have condemned the war in Gaza.

The Islamist party, Tehreek-e-Labbaik Pakistan (TLP) has called for protests against Israel and the US, but has denied any involvement in the attacks on KFC.

Pakistan’s most influential Sunni scholar, Mufti Taqi Usmani, has encouraged a boycott of products perceived to be linked to the war.

But both have urged protesters to avoid resorting to violence.

Usmani said in remarks made at the National Palestine Conference on Thursday that while it was essential to boycott products and companies from or linked to Israel, Islam “is not a religion that encourages harming others” and said it is prohibited to “throw stones or put anyone’s life at risk”.

“So, continue your protest and boycott, but do so in a peaceful manner. There should not be any element of violence or non-peaceful behavior,” he said.

TLP spokesman Rehan Mohsin Khan said the group “has urged Muslims to boycott Israeli products, but it has not given any call for protest outside KFC”.

There have been several cases of Western brands facing attacks, boycotts and protests in Pakistan and other Muslim countries since Israel’s war on Gaza began.

Last year, McDonald’s confirmed it would buy back all of its Israeli restaurants because a boycott over its perceived support for Israel caused a sales slump.

In 2023, Starbucks called for peace and blamed “misrepresentation” of its views after a series of protests and boycott campaigns in part tied to the Israel-Gaza war.

KFC and its parent company Yum Brands have not yet responded to the BBC’s request for comment.

An Indian archaeologist, whose career was marked by brilliance and controversy, made one of the world’s greatest historical discoveries. Yet he remains largely forgotten today.

In the early 1900s, Rakhaldas Banerjee (also spelled Banerji) unearthed Mohenjo-daro – meaning “mound of the dead men” in the Sindhi language – in present-day Pakistan. It was the largest city of the thriving Indus Valley (Harappan) Civilisation, which stretched from north-east Afghanistan to north-west India during the Bronze Age.

Banerjee, an intrepid explorer and talented epigraphist, worked for the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) when the country was under British colonial rule. He spent months travelling to distant corners of the subcontinent, looking for ancient artefacts, ruins and scripts.

But while his discovery of Mohenjo-daro was ground-breaking, Banerjee’s legacy is clouded by disputes. His independent streak and defiance of colonial protocols often landed him in trouble – tainting his reputation and perhaps even erasing parts of his contribution from global memory.

Interestingly, Banerjee’s reports on Mohenjo-daro were never published by the ASI. Archaeologist PK Mishra later accused then ASI chief John Marshall of suppressing Banerjee’s findings and claiming credit for the discovery himself.

“The world knows Marshall discovered the civilisation’s ruins and it is taught in institutions. Banerjee is an insignificant footnote,” Prof Mishra told the Times of India newspaper.

In her book, , historian Nayanjot Lahiri writes that Banerjee “lacked diplomacy and tact and displayed a high-handedness that ruffled feathers”. Her book also sheds light on the controversies he was embroiled in during his time at the ASI.

She notes how once, he attempted to procure inscriptions and images from a museum in north-east India without the approval or knowledge of his boss.

Another time, Banerjee attempted to relocate some stone sculptures from a museum in Bengal to the one he was stationed at without the necessary permissions.

In another instance, he purchased an antique painting for a sum without consulting his superiors who thought he’d paid more than was necessary.

“Banerjee’s many talents seemed to include being always able to rub people the wrong way,” Lahiri writes.

But Banerjee remains a prominent figure among world historians and scholars in Bengal because of his connection with Mohenjo-daro.

He was born in 1885 to a wealthy family in Bengal.

The medieval monuments that dotted Baharampur, the city he grew up in, kindled his interest in history and he pursued the subject in college. But he always had an adventurous streak.

Once, when he was tasked with writing an essay about the Scythian period of Indian history, he travelled to a museum in a neighbouring state to study first-hand sculptures and scripts from that era.

In her book, , author Yama Pande notes how Banerjee joined the ASI as an excavation assistant in 1910 and rose quickly within the ranks to become a superintending archaeologist in western India in 1917.

It was in this post that he first set eyes on Mohenjo-daro in Sindh in 1919. In the following years, he conducted a series of excavations at the site that revealed some of the most fascinating finds: ancient Buddhist stupas, coins, seals, pots and microliths.

Between 1922 and 1923, he discovered several layers of ruins that held clues about various urban settlements that had emerged in the region, but most importantly, the oldest one that had existed some 5,300 years ago – the Indus Valley Civilisation.

At that time, historians had not yet discovered the full scale of the Indus Civilisation which, we now know, covered an expanse of approximately 386,000 sq miles (999,735 sq km) along the Indus river valley.

Three seals from Banerjee’s excavation bore images and scripts similar to those from Harappa in the Punjab province in present-day Pakistan. This helped establish a link between the two sites, shedding light on the vast reach of the Indus Valley civilisation.

But by 1924, Banerjee’s funds for the project had dried up and he was also transferred to eastern India. He had no further contact with the site, nor did he participate in any excavations there, Pande writes in her book.

But Nayanjot Lahiri notes that Banerjee was transferred at his own request, after becoming entangled in questions over his spending. He had failed to account for several job-related expenses.

It was also revealed that Banerjee had used excavation grants to buy office furniture and his travel expenses were deemed excessive.

His explanations failed to convince his superiors and disciplinary action was recommended. After some negotiation, Banerjee was granted his request and transferred to another region.

Banerjee continued to work with the ASI in eastern India. He spent most of his time in Calcutta (now Kolkata) and oversaw the restoration work of many important monuments.

He resigned from the ASI in 1927, but his departure was marred by controversy. In the years prior to his departure, he became the prime suspect in a case of idol theft.

It all started in October 1925, when Banerjee had visited a revered Hindu shrine in Madhya Pradesh state that housed a stone idol of a Buddhist goddess. Banerjee was accompanied by two low-ranking assistants and two labourers, Lahiri notes in her book.

However, following their visit, the idol went missing, and Banerjee was implicated in its theft. He denied any involvement in the disappearance and an investigation was launched.

The idol was later recovered in Calcutta. Though the case against Banerjee was dismissed and the charges were found to be unsubstantiated, Marshall insisted on his resignation.

After leaving the ASI, Banerjee worked as a professor, but faced financial difficulties because of his lavish lifestyle.

Historian Tapati Guha-Thakurta told the Telegraph newspaper that Banerjee splurged on good food, horse carriages and friends. In 1928, he joined the Banaras Hindu University (BHU) as a professor. He died just two years later at the age of 45.

A Maryland man who the Trump administration mistakenly deported to El Salvador has been moved to a new prison, US Senator Chris Van Hollen has said.

The Democratic senator was speaking after returning from El Salvador where he met Kilmar Ábrego García, who was sent to the notorious mega-jail Cecot (Centre for the Confinement of Terrorism) last month.

Mr Ábrego García was “traumatised” and fearful of other prisoners while inside the facility, Van Hollen said, adding that he was moved to another facility in the country over a week ago.

The Supreme Court has ordered the government to “facilitate” his return, however Trump administration officials have continued to push back against the order.

The White House accuses him of being member of the transnational Salvadorian gang MS-13, a designated foreign terrorist organisation, and has said he would not return to the US.

Mr Ábrego García has never been convicted of a crime. His family and attorneys have fiercely denied he is a member of MS-13.

Chris Van Hollen said he was initially blocked from meeting Mr Ábrego García by Salvadoran authorities. Later, he said government officials helped facilitate a meeting and Mr Ábrego García was brought to the senator’s hotel.

“His conversation with me was the first communication that he had with anybody outside of prison since he was abducted,” Van Hollen said.

“He said he felt very sad about being in a prison because he had not committed any crimes.”

Van Hollen added that conditions in the new prison, in Salvadoran city of Santa Ana, were better.

“He still has no access to any news from the outside world and no ability to communicate with anybody in the outside world,” Van Hollen said.

Mr Ábrego García’s case is part of a simmering showdown between the Trump administration and the US courts system on the issue of immigration.

A separate feud has been brewing after a judge said he could hold the Trump administration in contempt for its “wilful disregard” of his order barring deportation flights.

Multiple judges – including a unanimous US Supreme Court ruling – said the government should facilitate Mr Ábrego García’s return to the US. But the White House has insisted the Maryland man would “never” live in the US again.

“If he [Mr Ábrego García] ever ends up back in the United States, he would immediately be deported again,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said.

President Donald Trump told reporters at the White House Mr Ábrego García was “not a very innocent guy”.

• What next in legal fight over El Salvador deportations?
• Who is the man in middle of Maryland deportation case?

Sen Van Hollen said the Trump administration wants to “flat out lie about what this case is about”.

“If you want to make claims about Ábrego García, you should present them in the courts, not on social media,” he said.

Mr Ábrego García was arrested by immigration authorities on 12 March in Baltimore, before being deported from Texas to El Salvador on 15 March.

The Trump administration acknowledged in court he was wrongly deported due to an “administrative error”.

An Indian man accused of orchestrating terror attacks in the northern state of Punjab has been arrested in the US.

On Friday, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) said Harpreet Singh had been arrested by the FBI and Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) in Sacramento.

The FBI alleged that Singh was linked to two international terrorist groups and had entered the US illegally and had been using burner phones to evade arrest.

Singh is in custody and has not commented on the allegations yet.

In a post on X, the FBI called Singh an “alleged terrorist responsible for terror attacks in Punjab, India”.

According to local media, Singh is linked to 14 of 16 grenade attacks in Punjab over the past seven months, targeting police posts, religious sites and homes of public figures.

Singh, who is also known as Happy Passia, is specifically wanted by Indian authorities in connection with a grenade attack on a house in Chandigarh city in 2024.

According to India’s National Investigation Agency (NIA), the attack was aimed at a retired Punjab police officer.

In January, the NIA announced a reward of 500,000 rupees ($5,855; £4414) to anyone who shared information about Singh.

In March, the NIA brought formal charges against four people, including Singh, over the attack.

The NIA said in a statement that the four belonged to Babbar Khalsa International (BKI) – a militant organisation that aims to create an independent state of Khalistan in the Punjab region. India has designated BKI a terrorist group.

The statement also named Singh and Harwinder Singh Sandhu – also known as Rinda – and referred to the two men as “terrorists”, as the “primary handlers and masterminds behind the attack”.

“They had provided logistical support, terror funds, weapons and ammunition to India-based on-ground operatives in Chandigarh for executing the grenade attack,” it said.

It added that investigations had revealed Singh and Sandhu had orchestrated the conspiracy to “strike terror among law enforcement officials and general public”.

Sandhu’s whereabouts are not known and he is listed as a “most wanted” suspect by the NIA.

Ukraine started today with, for once, the diplomatic wind in its sails.

It had finally agreed a mineral deal “framework” with Washington. An agreement that would see the US invest in Ukraine’s recovery, in return for a share of the country’s future profits from its natural resources, energy infrastructure and its oil and gas.

There had also been a first round of peace talks between American, European and Ukrainian officials in Paris, which had been hailed as “positive”.

That was until the both US President Donald Trump and his Secretary of State Marco Rubio threatened to pull out of brokering a ceasefire until progress appeared quickly.

It had been hoped by Ukraine that America’s growing impatience with Russia would translate into further sanctions for Moscow. Instead, the threat of the US washing its hands of the ongoing peace efforts suits the Kremlin more than Kyiv.

The consensus is that the collective weight of Ukraine and its European allies would still be insufficient to counter Russian aggression in the long term. Despite continuing in its quest to conquer and occupy as much of Ukraine as possible, Moscow claims it is still striving for peace.

What it has done is launch some of the deadliest missile strikes on civilians in recent days. In Kharkiv in the north-east, more than 100 people were injured and one person was killed after three struck a residential part of the city.

But these attacks have not brought the slightest condemnation from the White House, which has continued to use more of a stick with Kyiv, by pausing military aid, and a carrot with Moscow, by improving relations, to get both sides to mirror its appetite for peace.

Kyiv agreed to a full ceasefire after the US paused its military aid and intelligence sharing. Moscow has not bent from its continued maximalist demands of more Ukrainian territory and the toppling of President Volodymyr Zelensky. It’s hard to see how this threat will bring a breakthrough.

On the calm, open waters of the Black Sea, Mykhailo commands his US-made naval patrol ship. As we stand in the bridge, I ask him whether he feels he’s fighting for Europe, as well as his country.

“If Russia occupies all of Ukraine, who knows?” he replies. “In ten or fifteen years’ time, Russia will go to Poland, Lithuania, Estonia, any of the Baltic countries, that is quite clear.”

US military aid for Ukraine is gradually going to run out. No more packages are going to be put before Congress or unlocked by presidential draw-down powers.

Should Washington turn its back on these peace efforts, it would leave Ukraine reliant on its European allies to counter Russia’s continued invasion. The consensus is that that collective weight would be insufficient in the long term.

On this stretch of Ukrainian-controlled coastline Kyiv has a success story. Through launching Western and domestically-produced drones, Russia’s fleet has been forced back, and a major shipping lane has been restored.

But the problem for defending forces, as President Zelensky admits, is the battlefield realities being lost on a wider audience.

Despite the US and Ukraine stepping closer to this mineral deal, the Trump administration’s threat leaves it looking more like a business venture.

It also poses greater questions on whether Washington cares who controls Ukraine in the long term, as long as US commercial interests are protected.

For the last few weeks, many foreign students living in the US have watched as a sequence of events has repeated itself on their social media feeds: plain-clothes agents appearing unannounced and hauling students off in unmarked cars to detention centres.

Those taken into custody in a string of high-profile student detentions captured on video have not faced any criminal charges and instead appear to have been targeted for involvement in pro-Palestinian protests on college campuses.

The Trump administration has said repeatedly that visas are a “privilege” and can be revoked at any time for a wide variety of reasons.

But the crackdown appears to be far wider than initially thought, with more than 1,000 international students or recent graduates at colleges across the US now having had their visas revoked or legal statuses changed, according to a tracker from Inside Higher Ed, an online news site covering the sector.

For many, the precise reasons are unknown, and universities have often only learned of the changes when checking a government-run database that logs the visa status of international students.

The combination of targeted detentions and reports of wide-scale visa revocations have left campuses on edge, from the biggest public universities to elite Ivy League institutions, students and faculty told the BBC.

“I could be next,” said one student visa-holder attending Georgetown University, who has written articles about Israel and the war in Gaza.

He’s begun carrying around a card in his pocket that lists his constitutional rights, in case he is ever stopped by law enforcement.

Another student in Texas said he’s afraid to leave his apartment, even to buy groceries.

And at some colleges, departments are being hit as researchers abroad refuse to return to the US.

Most students the BBC spoke to requested anonymity out of fear that having their names in the media could make them a target.

The BBC has contacted the Department of Education for comment.

The reasons for visa cancellations vary. In some cases, criminal records appear to be a factor. Other instances have reportedly included minor legal infractions like driving over the speed limit. But “a lot” of those targeted have been involved in pro-Palestinian protests, Secretary of State Marco Rubio himself has said.

• Marco Rubio says US revoked at least 300 foreign students’ visas
• Why has Trump revoked hundreds of international student visas?
• Trump signs order to dismantle US education department

It is part of a wider White House push to crack down on protesters whom officials say created an unsafe environment for Jewish students on many campuses. They also accuse demonstrators of having expressed support for Hamas, an officially designated terrorist group.

“Every time I find one of these lunatics, I take away their visas,” Rubio told reporters in late March. “We do it every day.”

Civil liberties groups have protested the detentions and moves to deport student demonstrators as a violation of constitutional rights. And the students themselves reject associations with Hamas, saying that they are being targeted for political speech about the war in Gaza and US support for Israel.

At Georgetown, signs that read “protect our students” have been taped to the doors of bathroom stalls, adding a sense of gloom to the cherry blossom trees and tulips that typically mark the arrival of spring on campus.

A postdoctoral fellow from the university, Badar Khan Suri, was grabbed by federal agents outside his Virginia home in March. The Department of Homeland Security accused the conflict resolution researcher of “promoting antisemitism on social media” and having links to a “known or suspected terrorist”.

• The Indian scholar arrested in US over father-in-law’s Hamas link
• US court blocks deportation of Georgetown University researcher

This was an apparent reference to the Palestinian father of his US-born wife, a former adviser to killed Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh.

Mr Suri’s lawyers say he has only met his father-in-law a handful of times and is being targeted due to his wife’s identity.

His detention followed that of Columbia University student protest organiser Mahmoud Khalil, a permanent resident arrested at home in New York but now awaiting deportation from a facility in Louisiana.

Tufts University graduate student Rumeysa Ozturk, who co-authored a student newspaper op-ed about Gaza and was detained in Massachusetts, is also being held in Louisiana.

Last Monday, Mohsen Mahdawi, another Columbia student protester, was detained in Vermont as he attended an interview to obtain US citizenship. Like Mr Khalil, he holds a green card, rather than a student visa.

“Based on the detentions that we’re seeing, I think there is a possibility anyone who has been outspoken about Palestine can be detained,” said the Georgetown student, who knew Mr Suri.

The White House says it is going after those who have been involved in activities that “run counter” to US national interests. In Mr Khalil’s case, officials have cited a 1952 law that empowers the government to order someone deported if their presence in the country could pose unfavourable consequences for US foreign policy.

In a post on X, the Columbia Jewish Alumni Association celebrated Mr Khalil’s arrest, calling him the “ringleader of chaos” at the university.

Polling suggests that immigration is an issue where President Trump enjoys some of his highest approval ratings, with recent Reuters and AP-NORC surveys suggesting about half of US adults approve of action in that area, several points higher than his overall rating.

Universities are also being targeted at an institutional level. This week, the White House’s task force on combating antisemitism froze over $2bn in funding for Harvard University, after the university refused to agree to a list of demands that it said would amount to “surrendering its independence”.

• Harvard just stood up to Trump. How long can it last?
• Trump administration threatens Harvard with foreign student ban

Trump officials have said that if Harvard doesn’t comply with a request for information on certain student visaholders, it will stop granting visas to international students who want to study there.

Georgetown professor Nader Hashemi said he believes the government’s main goal is “silencing dissent” by intimidating would-be protesters.

The Georgetown student says he has asked his parents not to fly from India to the US to see him graduate with a master’s degree in just a few weeks. He is still unsure if he will even attend the ceremony.

In addition to checking his email daily to see if he is among the hundreds that have had their visas revoked recently, he has also prepared for the possibility of sudden arrest.

“I have cleared my chats across messaging apps, and I have learned how to quickly lock my phone in SOS mode,” he said.

Georgetown professors have even begun offering spare rooms to students who worry about being visited by immigration agents at their residences, said Prof Hashemi.

“This is part of the trauma that I think students are facing,” he said.

At Tufts University, outside of Boston, Massachusetts, students are waiting to see what happens to Ms Ozturk, who was detained outside her home.

Video shows her confused and shaking in fear as she is intercepted by agents while headed to a Ramadan dinner celebration. Last year, she had co-authored an op-ed supporting the boycott, divest and sanction (BDS) movement against Israel.

Tufts PhD student Anteri Mejr told the BBC that the actions have had a “chilling effect”, and that international students she knows who have left the country to visit home or attend conferences are now afraid to return.

“There are students working remotely because they’re afraid they can’t get back in the country,” he said.

At the University of Texas, rumours about Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids on campus have some students terrified.

“I’m scared to be out. I’m scared to come to school. I’m scared to go grocery shopping,” a master’s student there said.

“I’m afraid that if I’m walking, I will be approached by agents in incognito clothes and plain disguise,” he continued.

Despite being a green card holder and having not played a role in pro-Palestinian protests on campus, he says he is still in “crippling anxiety” because he has written things that are critical of the president.

“How far does this administration dig through, like, an immigrant’s history?” he asked. “What if I did say something and I’m not aware.”

Sir Keir Starmer and Donald Trump discussed “ongoing and productive” trade talks, No 10 has said, in their first call since the US president imposed tariffs on UK goods.

The prime minister stressed his commitment to “free and open trade and the importance of protecting the national interest”, a Downing Street spokesperson said.

They added that the two leaders also discussed “the situation in Ukraine, Iran and recent action taken against the Houthis in Yemen”.

Sir Keir is hoping to secure a deal with the US after Trump unveiled 10% tariffs on UK goods and a higher 25% rate on imports of cars, steel and aluminium.

“The leaders began by discussing the ongoing and productive discussions between the UK and US on trade,” No 10 said in a statement.

A readout of the call from the White House said the two leaders discussed bilateral trade, ongoing talks to bring the conflict in Ukraine to a peaceful resolution, and regional security in the Middle East.

It added that Trump was looking forward to his upcoming state visit with His Majesty King Charles III in the UK later this year.

US Vice-President JD Vance said on Tuesday there was a “good chance” a trade deal could be reached with the UK.

Trump announced a barrage of tariffs earlier this month and shares on stock markets around the world have since tumbled.

The S&P 500 index of the largest firms listed in the US, the UK FTSE 100, German Dax, and French Cac 40 have recovered some value as Trump has delayed some tariffs and made exceptions, but are lower than before 2 April.

The current tariff policy now puts a 10% “baseline” tariff on all imports from the UK, France and other long-standing trade partners. China faces much harsher tariffs.

A tariff is a tax on businesses buying a good from overseas, but businesses often pass the costs from the tariff onto the consumer or overseas the seller.

The World Trade Organization said on Wednesday that global trade will shrink as a result of the tariffs while the International Monetary Fund downgraded its predictions for growth because of them.

The UK has been trying to avoid the tariffs by agreeing some kind of economic deal with the US, while the EU and Canada has responded with counter tariffs.

As Iran and the United States prepare to hold a second round of high-stakes nuclear talks in Rome, hopes for de-escalation are being tempered by mounting military threats and mixed messages.

US President Donald Trump reminds Tehran nearly every day of its options: a deal or war.

He has previously said Israel would lead a military response if the talks failed.

On Wednesday, the New York Times reported that Trump had “waved off” an Israeli plan to strike Iranian nuclear sites as early as next month.

“I wouldn’t say waved off. I’m not in a rush to do it,” Trump told reporters in response to the article on Thursday, adding that he preferred to give diplomacy a chance.

“I think that Iran has a chance to have a great country and to live happily without death… That’s my first option. If there’s a second option, I think it would be very bad for Iran.”

After both sides described the first round of talks in Oman last weekend as constructive, Trump had said he would be “making a decision on Iran very quickly”.

In 2018, Trump pulled the US out of a 2015 agreement which saw Iran limit its nuclear activities and allow inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in return for sanctions relief.

He said it did too little to stop Iran’s potential pathway to a nuclear weapon and reinstated US sanctions as part of a “maximum pressure” campaign to compel Iran to negotiate a new deal.

However, Iran refused and increasingly breached restrictions in retaliation. It has now stockpiled enough highly-enriched uranium to make several bombs if it chose to do so – something it says it would never do.

The threat of military action appears to have played a role in bringing Iran back to the negotiating table. Yet it insists that is not the reason.

The website of the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said Iran had agreed to talks only because the US limited its demands strictly to nuclear issues – not out of fear of US and Israeli strikes.

Even so, reaching a deal remains far from certain.

Trump’s Special Envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff, who is leading the US negotiating team, posted on X on Tuesday: “Any final arrangement must set a framework for peace, stability, and prosperity in the Middle East – meaning that Iran must stop and eliminate its nuclear enrichment and weaponization programme.”

It came just a day after he had suggested in an interview with Fox News that Iran would be allowed to continue enriching uranium.

“They do not need to enrich past 3.67%,” he said, referring to the limit set by the 2015 nuclear deal.

“This is going to be much about verification on the enrichment programme and then ultimately verification on weaponization.”

Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, the head of the Iranian delegation, responded by noting Witkoff’s “contradictory statements” and stressing that “real positions will be made clear at the negotiating table”.

“We are ready to build trust regarding possible concerns over Iran’s enrichment, but the principle of enrichment is not negotiable,” he said.

This Saturday’s talks in Rome come amid a flurry of diplomatic activity.

Saudi Arabia’s Defence Minister, Prince Khalid bin Salman, visited Tehran on Thursday, delivering a personal message from his father King Salman to Ayatollah Khamenei. He also met Iran’s President, Masoud Pezeshkian.

Iran has warned that any US military action would be met with retaliation against American bases in the region – many of them hosted by Iran’s Arab neighbours.

At the same time, Araghchi visited Moscow and handed a letter from Khamenei to Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Iran and Russia have strengthened their military ties since the start of the war in Ukraine, with Tehran accused of supplying drones to support Moscow’s war effort.

The Russian parliament ratified a 20-year strategic partnership between Iran and Russia 10 days ago. However, the deal does not include a mutual defence clause.

Meanwhile, IAEA chief Rafael Grossi completed a two-day visit to Tehran this week, meeting Iranian nuclear officials and the foreign minister in a bid to ease tensions and restore inspection protocols.

Since Trump returned to office this year, Ayatollah Khamenei has consistently denounced negotiations with Washington.

“Negotiating with this administration is not logical, not wise, nor honourable,” he said in a February speech, just two months before agreeing to the current round of talks.

The supreme leader’s distrust stems from Trump’s withdrawal from the nuclear deal, the “maximum pressure” campaign that followed, and the assassination of General Qassem Soleimani in a US strike in Iraq in 2020.

Ayatollah Khamenei expressed satisfaction with the first round of talks, saying it was “implemented well”.

But he cautioned that he was “neither overly optimistic nor overly pessimistic”.

He has also previously warned that Iran would ​retaliate in the event of strikes on its nuclear programme.

Some officials, including his adviser Ali Larijani, have even said that Iran might be “forced” to acquire a nuclear weapon if attacked.

“We are not pursuing weapons, and we have no problem with IAEA oversight – even indefinitely. But if you resort to bombing, Iran will have no choice but to reconsider. That is not in your interest,” Larijani told state TV earlier this month.

Each side is pushing its own narrative about how the talks are being conducted.

The US says they are direct. Iran says they indirect, and that Oman is mediating by exchanging written notes.

After the first round in Muscat, Araghchi acknowledged he had a brief exchange with Witkoff “out of diplomatic courtesy” after crossing paths.

US news website Axios, citing sources, reported the two chief negotiators spoke for up to 45 minutes.

Tehran prefers secrecy. Washington seeks publicity.

After both sides put out positive statements about the first round, Iran’s currency surged by 20%.

Iran’s leadership is well aware of public discontent over the country’s harsh economic conditions – and the potential for protests it may trigger.

For the Islamic Republic, the fear is not just over bombs – it’s protests too.

When US President Donald Trump hit China with tariffs in his first term, Vietnamese entrepreneur Hao Le saw an opportunity.

His company is one of hundreds of businesses that have emerged to compete with Chinese exports that have increasingly been facing restrictions from the West.

Le’s SHDC Electronics, which sits in the budding industrial hub of Hai Duong, sells $2m (£1.5m) worth of phone and computer accessories every month to the United States.

But that revenue could dry up if Trump imposes 46% tariffs on Vietnamese goods, a plan that is currently on hold until early July. That would be “catastrophic for our business,” Le says.

And selling to Vietnamese consumers is not an option, he adds: “We cannot compete with Chinese products. This is not just our challenge. Many Vietnamese companies are struggling in their own home market.”

Trump tariffs in 2016 sent a glut of cheap Chinese imports, originally intended for the US, into South East Asia, hurting many local manufacturers. But they also opened new doors for other businesses, often into global supply chains that wanted to cut their dependence on China.

But Trump 2.0 threaten to shut those doors, which it sees as an unacceptable loophole. And that’s a blow for fast-growing economies like Vietnam and Indonesia that are gunning to be key players in industries from chips to electric vehicles.

They also find themselves stuck between the world’s two biggest economies – China, a powerful neighbour and their biggest trading partner, and the US, a key export market, which could be looking to strike a deal at Beijing’s expense.

And so Xi Jinping’s long-planned trip to Vietnam, Malaysia and Cambodia this week took on fresh urgency.

All three countries rolled out the the red carpet for him, but Trump saw it as more evidence of them conspiring to “screw” the US.

The White House will use its upcoming negotiations with smaller nations to pressure them into limiting their dealings with Beijing, according to reports.

But that could be a fanciful ambition given the amount of money flowing between China and South East Asia.

In 2024, China earned a record $3.5tn from exports – 16% of those went to South East Asia, its biggest market. Beijing, in turn, has paid for railways in Vietnam, dams in Cambodia and ports in Malaysia as part of its “Belt and Road” infratructure programme that seeks to boost ties abroad.

“We can’t choose, and we will never choose [between China and the US],” Malaysia’s trade minister Tengku Zafrul Aziz told the BBC on Tuesday, ahead of Xi’s visit.

“If the issue is about something that we feel is against our interest, then we will protect [ourselves].”

In the days after Trump unveiled his sweeping tariffs, South East Asian governments scrambled into deal-making mode.

In what Trump described as a “very productive call” with Vietnamese leader To Lam, the latter offered to completely scrap tariffs on US goods.

The US market is crucial to Vietnam, an emerging electronics powerhouse where manufacturing giants like Samsung, Intel and Foxconn, the Taiwanese firm contracted to make iPhones, have set up shop.

Meanwhile, Thai officials are headed to Washington with a plan that includes higher US imports and investments. The US is their largest export market, so they are hoping to avoid the 36% levy on Thailand that Trump may reinstate.

“We will tell the US government that Thailand is not only an exporter but also an ally and economic partner that the US can rely on in the long term,” Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra said.

The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean) has ruled out retaliation against Trump’s tariffs, instead choosing to emphasise their economic and political importance to the US.

“We understand the concerns of the US,” Mr Zafrul told the BBC. “That’s why we need to show that actually we, Asean, especially Malaysia, can be that bridge.”

It’s a role that South East Asia’s export-driven economies have played well – they have benefitted from both Chinese and US trade and investment. But Trump’s paused levies could derail that.

Take Malaysia, for instance. In recent years, chip manufacturers from the US and elsewhere have invested there, as Washington blocks the sale of advanced tech to China. Last year China imported $18bn worth of chips from Malaysia. These chips are used in Chinese-made electronics, such as iPhones, typically bound for the US.

Trump’s proposed tariffs on Malaysia – 24% – could cut off the multi-billion dollar US market. But that’s not all.

“If this continues, then companies will have to rethink their investment commitments,” Mr Zafrul says. “This will have an impact not just on Malaysia’s economy, but on the global economy.”

Then there is Indonesia, which could face 32% tariffs, and is home to vast nickel reserves and has its sights set on the global electric vehicle supply chain.

Cambodia, a Chinese ally, faces the steepest levies: 49%. One of the poorest countries in the region, it has thrived as a trans-shipment hub for Chinese businesses seeking to skirt US tariffs. Chinese businesses currently own or operate 90% of the clothes factories, which mainly export to the US.

Trump may have hit pause on these tariffs but “the damage is done,” says Doris Liew, an economist at Malaysia’s Institute for Democracy and Economic Affairs.

“This serves as a wake-up call for the region, not only to reduce reliance on the US, but also to re-balance overdependence on any single trade and export partner.”

In these uncertain times , Xi Jinping is trying to send a steadfast message: Let’s join hands and resist “bullying” from the US.

That is no easy task because South East Asia also has trade tensions with Beijing.

In Indonesia, business owner Isma Savitri is worried that Trump’s 145% tariffs on China means more competition from Chinese rivals who can no longer export to the US.

“Small businesses like us feel squeezed,” says the owner of sleepwear brand Helopopy. “We are struggling to survive against an onslaught of ultra-cheap Chinese products.”

One of Helopopy’s popular pyjamas sells for $7.10 (119,000 Indonesian rupiah). Isma says she has seen similar designs from China going for around half that price.

“South East Asia, being close by, with open trade regimes and fast-growing markets, naturally became the dumping ground,” says Nguyen Khac Giang, visiting fellow at the ISEAS Yusof-Ishak Institute in Singapore. “Politically, many countries are reluctant to confront Beijing, which adds another layer of vulnerability.”

While consumers have welcomed competitively-priced Chinese products – from clothes to shoes to phones – thousands of local businesses have not been able to match such low prices.

More than 100 factories in Thailand have closed every month for the last two years, according to an estimate from a Thai think tank. During the same period in Indonesia, around 250,000 textile workers were laid off after some 60 garment manufacturers shut, local trade associations say – including Sritex, once the region’s largest textile maker.

“When we see the news, there are lots of imported products flooding the domestic market, which messes up our own market,” Mujiati, a worker who was laid off from Sritex in February after 30 years, tells the BBC.

“Maybe it just wasn’t our luck,” says the 50-year-old, who is still hunting for work. “Who can we complain to? There’s no-one.”

South East Asian governments responded with a wave of protectionism, as local businesses demanded to be shielded from the impact of Chinese imports.

Last year Indonesia considered 200% tariffs on a range of Chinese goods and blocked e-commerce site Temu, popular among Chinese merchants. Thailand tightened inspections of imports and imposed additional tax on goods worth less than 1,500 Thai baht ($45; £34).

This year Vietnam has twice imposed temporary anti-dumping duties on Chinese steel products. And after Trump’s latest tariffs announcement, Vietnam is reportedly set to crack down on Chinese goods being trans-shipped via its territory to the US.

Allaying these fears would have been on Xi’s agenda this week.

China is concerned that channelling its US-bound exports to the rest of the world would “end up really alienating and aggravating” its trading partners, David Rennie, the former Beijing bureau chief for the Economist newspaper, told BBC’s Newshour.

“If a tidal wave of Chinese exports ends up swamping those markets and damaging employment and jobs … that’s a massive diplomatic and geopolitical headache for the Chinese leadership.”

China has not always had an easy relationship with this region. Barring Laos, Cambodia and a war-torn Myanmar, the others are wary of Beijing’s ambitions. Territorial disputes in the South China have soured ties with the Philippines. This is also an issue with others such as Vietnam and Malaysia, but trade has been a balancing factor.

But that might change now, experts say.

“South East Asia had to think about whether they really wanted to offend China. Now this complicates things,” says Chong Ja-Ian, associate professor at the National University of Singapore.

China’s loss could be South East Asia’s gain.

Hao Le, in Vietnam, says he has seen a surge in enquiries from American customers scouting for new electronics suppliers, outside of China: “In the past, US buyers would take months to switch suppliers. Today, such decisions are made within days.”

Malaysia, with sprawling rubber plantations and the world’s largest medical rubber glove maker, has nearly half the world’s market for rubber gloves. But it is poised to grab a bigger share from its main competitor, China.

The region still faces a 10% baseline tariff, like most of the world. And that is bad news, says Oon Kim Hung, president of the Malaysian Rubber Glove Manufacturers Association.

But even if the paused tariffs kick in, he says, customers will find paying an additional 24% on Malaysian gloves vastly preferable to the 145% levy they will have to cough up for Chinese-made gloves.

“We’re not exactly jumping with joy, but this may well benefit our manufacturers, as well as those in Thailand, Vietnam and Cambodia.”

Artists and creatives are pushing back against a recent trend using artificial intelligence (AI) to generate “starter pack” images of people as toys – which they say may be in danger of risking their livelihoods.

Since the start of April, thousands of people have uploaded their photos to generate images of themselves as dolls, despite warnings of damaging the environment, giving away personal information, and devaluing creativity.

Nick Lavellee, who has made custom action figures for six years, told the BBC he was concerned his work may be at risk after “AI images saturated social media”.

“People are sick of them,” he said. “It’s an artistic aesthetic – AI-generated art diminishes that.”

Nick has made figures of – and for – comedians, film directors, and artists such as Weezer and Tyler Childers, which sell for as much as $250 (£188) online on his Wicked Joyful website.

His success has led to a clothing brand and will soon be followed by a physical shop in his hometown of Manchester, New Hampshire.

But he’s concerned action figure commissions could soon dry up, as well as the public perception of his work, from thousands of AI images mimicking his passion.

The feeling has been shared by other creatives with the rise of the #StarterPackNoAI movement, which has been used thousands of times since first appearing on Instagram in early April before spreading to X soon after.

After Patouret’s post, others quickly joined the counter-trend, with artist Maria Picassó Piquer saying she chose to take part “for fun, but also as a statement”.

“While AI pieces all looked more or less the same, I was amazed at the variety of the ‘human’ works,” she said.

“Plus, self-portraits added an extra layer of, well, humanity.”

Maria, like many other artists, sees the dual risk of AI images threatening intellectual property rights by being “fed on ‘stolen’ art”, and the possibility of reducing her finding new clients.

Illustrator Dav le Dessineux, working in Bordeaux, France, said some in his industry had already lost contracts to AI design work.

He contributed his starter pack because “like many artists who use their real hands”, he was “tired” of the deluge of AI-generated doll images.

Dav’s illustration featured only a pencil and sheet of white paper – tools he said are “all you need to start being an artist”.

“People usually forget about it because of the technology surrounding us, but we really don’t need more than basic stuff to create something and be original,” he said.

Eli Dibitonto, an artist living in Barletta, Italy, agreed, describing the process of digitally illustrating his own starter pack as “carefree and fun”.

“It doesn’t have to be perfect – mine isn’t,” he said. “Art isn’t meant to be perfect or look flawless.”

And illustrator and student Evie Joyce said creating her own artwork meant being able to consider what to reflect of her personality during a process lasting several hours, rather than seconds.

“I think that what’s so magical about it is you’re seeing people put time and effort and their personality, all of their experiences, into pieces of art,” she said.

“With AI, it can even steal from artists and steal their work and their style, it just loses that touch of personality.”

Back in New Hampshire, Nick understands the rebellion from illustrators, but says he believes there is use for AI.

“I don’t necessarily want to say AI is bad when I know that it could be a useful tool,” he said.

“I think all of us have experimented with it.”

And Henk van Ess, a global expert in using AI in investigative research, has proven how useful it can be – but it would be safe to say he does not believe it lies in starter packs.

“It’s like watching a supercomputer calculate how many Hobnobs fit in a Sports Direct mug, while solving climate change sits on the ‘to-do’ list,” he said.

“Technically impressive? Sure. But it’s the technological equivalent of using the Large Hadron Collider to heat up your Pot Noodle.

“While everyone’s busy generating these digital equivalents of small talk, they’re missing the actually revolutionary stuff AI can do – it’s just wasteful to put all that energy into creating digital fluff when we can use it for solving real-world problems.”

And Nick remains positive.

“The musicians who get my stuff, who are excited to hold a Wicked Joyful in their hands, they know it’s my artwork, they know it’s mine,” he said.

Likewise, Dav is confident in the worth of human work.

Despite the rise of pre-fabricated furniture, he says, “people still call on cabinetmakers”.

“I hope I’ll be one of those artisans,” he said.

Nick, who says he found his purpose “in bringing joy to people” with his creations, said he similarly wanted to remain hopeful about the future.

“I really hope people are totally sick of AI action figures,” he said.

“But I hope that they are smart enough to understand the difference in something that I’m doing versus what is computer-generated.”

The 700,000 residents of Sudan’s Zamzam camp were already among the world’s most destitute people when they were attacked by paramilitary fighters last week.

Two decades of conflict in the Darfur region, which intensified after civil war broke out across the whole of Sudan two years ago, meant they had already fled their homes to find safety and shelter.

They gradually began to rebuild their lives at Zamzam, Sudan’s biggest camp for internally displaced people.

But any sense of stability was upended when the camp was ravaged by an intense ground and aerial assault.

Zamzam was attacked by the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF), which has been trying to seize the nearby city of el-Fasher from its rivals, the Sudanese army.

The RSF has denied reports of atrocities at Zamzam but confirmed it had taken over the camp.

As a result of the attack, Zamzam is “completely destroyed”, North Darfur Health Minister Ibrahim Khater told the BBC’s Newsday programme.

“No-one is there,” he said.

Among the many thousands who fled Zamzam was 28-year-old Fathiya Mohammed, who had been at the camp for three months.

She walked barefoot for four days before reaching the town of Tawila.

“I was carrying one child on my back, another in my arms, and luggage on my head,” she told the BBC.

She lost her husband during the chaos of the attack and still does not know where he is.

The family were attacked by thieves on the journey to Tawila, Ms Mohammed said, and they endured exhaustion, hunger and thirst.

Medical charity Doctors Without Borders (MSF) says that tens of thousands of people have fled from Zamzam to Tawila since the attack.

Saadiya Adam left the camp with her children aged two and five after her makeshift home was destroyed.

“They burned my house in Zamzam and they burned my sheep,” said Ms Adam, who had been living in Zamzam for two months.

“Everything I owned was burned. I have nothing left.”

Images filmed by a freelance journalist working for the BBC show thousands of internally displaced people entering Tawila by foot, truck and donkey cart.

These arrivals face overwhelmed facilities – MSF said that over two days, more than 20,000 people have sought treatment at the hospital it runs in Tawila.

“We see many people injured by bullets, it is becoming routine,” said head nurse Tiphaine Salmon.

“Yesterday it was a seven-month-old baby who just stared and could no longer cry – she had bullet injuries under the chin and on the shoulder.”

One patient at Tawila hospital described coming under attack at Zamzam.

”We were six of us, we encountered RSF,” said Issa Abdullah.

“Three vehicles opened fire over us. They hit me on the head. A bullet came near my mouth. I’m OK now, but there are others in worse condition.”

Hussein Khamis was shot in the leg during the attack.

“After I was injured, there was no-one to carry me,” he said.

Mr Khamis managed to reach a nearby hospital despite his injury, but he “found no-one, everyone had fled”.

Eventually he managed to get a lift to Tawila. Like Ms Mohammed, he says he was robbed along the way.

The RSF has not commented on these specific allegations.

MSF said that it had received more than 170 people with gunshot and blast injuries in Tawila since the attack, 40% of whom have been women and girls.

“People tell us that many injured and vulnerable people could not make the trip to Tawila and were left behind. Almost everyone we talk to said they lost at least one family member during the attack,” said Marion Ramstein, MSF’s project coordinator in Tawila.

• Why has fighting broken out in Sudan?

Zamzam was established in 2004 to house internally displaced people fleeing ethnic violence in Darfur.

Its seizure would be strategically significant for the RSF, which last month lost control of Sudan’s capital, Khartoum.

The RSF remains in control of much of western Sudan, including most of Darfur.

This week the group announced plans to launch a parallel government in the parts of Sudan in controls, heightening fears Sudan could ultimately split in two.

Safe, at least for now, Ms Mohammed reflected on the immense loss this war has caused those like her.

“We want the war to stop,” she said. “Peace is the most important thing.”

• Sudan’s years of war – BBC smuggles in phones to reveal hunger and fear
• Fear, loss and hope in Sudan’s ruined capital after army victory
• WATCH: Inside Khartoum, a city left in ruins after two years of war

Before Donald Trump imposed tariffs on Canada and threatened its sovereignty, the Canadian psyche was consumed with another major issue: housing affordability. With an election on the horizon, voters are wondering if any party has a plan to fix what has become a generational problem.

Willow Yamauchi says she was just a “regular” person when she and her husband bought their family home in Vancouver 25 years ago for a modest sum of C$275,000 – around C$435,000 ($312,000; £236,400) in today’s dollars.

That same property is now worth several million.

In the city on Canada’s west coast, Ms Yamauchi’s story is as common as the rainy weather. The average price of a detached home in Vancouver in 2000 was around C$350,000. Now, it is more than C$2m.

“My husband and I were very privileged to be able to purchase a house when we did,” the 52-year-old writer tells the BBC. As a member of Generation X, timing was on her side.

The same, she says, cannot be said for younger people, who – without “the bank of mom and dad” – are effectively priced out of the city they grew up in.

Vancouver, a cultural and economic hub with a population of less than one million, is often seen as the epicentre of Canada’s housing crisis. A report by Chapman University in California last year listed it among the top “impossibly unaffordable” cities in the world.

But it is not the only Canadian city where the cost of homes is out of reach for many. Canada as a whole has one of the highest house-price-to-income ratios among developed nations.

In 2021, the average household income after taxes in Canada was around C$88,000, according to national data. That same year, the average home price hit C$713,500 – more than eight times higher. The gap is even larger in major cities like Toronto and Vancouver.

For many Canadians, housing is one of the top issues in the federal election, eclipsed only recently by US President Donald Trump and his tariffs on Canada.

Before Trump, concerns on housing affordability had boosted the Conservative Party, which has consistently been seen as the best equipped to fix the crisis.

But then a trade war with the US came along and it catapulted the governing Liberal party to the top of the polls.

Even with the Trump factor, the topic featured prominently in the two election debates this week. During the French language one, moderator and journalist Patrice Roy displayed figures showing how much home prices had increased in Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver in the last decade.

“I’m sure this won’t come as a surprise,” Mr Roy told the federal leaders, before asking for their plans on how they would fix the crisis.

Polls show young people are especially worried about the housing crisis and what it means for their future.

Speaking to students at the University of British Columbia’s (UBC) Vancouver campus, it quickly became clear that the issue was top of mind for many.

Many said they have either opted to live at home during their studies to save on costs, or are paying anywhere from C$1,100 to C$1,500 for a single room near campus, often in a home shared with five or six others.

Emily Chu, a 24-year-old who is in her final semester at UBC, says that she at one point had to delay her studies by two years in order to work, as she struggled to afford paying both tuition and rent.

She now shares an apartment with her older brother, who works full-time and pays the majority of the rent. Ms Chu considers herself one of the lucky ones.

As for home ownership in the future, she says “that’s not even possible” for most people her age. “Everybody kind of assumes that we can’t ever own housing.”

Young professionals with well-paying jobs, like Margareta Dovgal, are also priced out. The 28-year-old director at Vancouver-based non-profit Resource Works told the BBC that she has considered moving to the neighbouring province of Alberta due to its lower cost of living, despite being a lifelong and “committed Vancouverite”.

Still, Calgary, Alberta’s largest city, saw house prices increase by 15% in 2024 from the previous year as the city experienced its highest population growth rate since 2001.

The root causes of Canada’s housing affordability crisis are complex. One of the main issues is a supply that has not kept up with a growing population, which has driven up costs for both buyers and renters.

The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC), the national housing agency, estimates that more than 3.8 million homes need to be built in the next six years to address the shortage.

Construction of new housing, however, has been well below that target, raising questions on whether Canada will meet this goal. Experts say barriers to ramping up building include the high cost and scarcity of land in urban areas, where most Canadians tend to live and work.

There are also regional barriers, like city zoning laws that prevent the construction of more affordable, higher density housing – including apartment buildings or multiplexes – in some neighbourhoods.

Daniel Oleksiuk, co-founder of the advocacy group Abundant Housing Vancouver, says his city is one example, where more than half of the land has historically been zoned for single-family homes.

“We’ve kept almost all of the land reserved,” Mr Oleksiuk told the BBC. “There are whole neighbourhoods where all you have is three to five million dollar homes.”

On the campaign trail, each major federal party has put forward a plan to fix the crisis, all with the goal of building as many homes as quickly as possible.

The Liberals, led by Mark Carney, said their aim is to build 500,000 new homes a year with the help of a new government agency called Build Canada Homes that would oversee and finance the construction of affordable housing in Canada – a plan similar to one implemented after the Second World War to house veterans.

Critics have questioned whether Carney’s target is viable, as it would require Canada to more than double its current construction rate.

Meanwhile, the Conservatives, led by Pierre Poilievre, vowed to tie federal funding to housing starts by rewarding cities that build more homes and penalising those that block construction – a carrot-and-stick approach.

Poilievre also promised to remove federal taxes on newly constructed homes in an effort to cut costs to would-be homebuyers. Critics, however, say this policy may have minimal effect, as most homes purchased in Canada are resold, rather than brand new.

Voters who spoke to the BBC say they welcome any plan to ramp up housing construction in Canada.

While much of housing is governed by provinces and cities, Ms Dovgal notes that the federal government has an ability “to lead persuasively” and implement measures that make it cheaper and easier to build across the country.

But others watching the issue closely caution that the steps proposed may not be enough.

Paul Kershaw, a public policy professor at UBC and founder of think tank Generation Squeeze, argues that politicians have failed to address the elephant in the room: the wealth older homeowners have generated off the housing crisis.

“The political bargain has asked younger Canadians to suffer higher rents and mortgages in order to protect those higher home values,” Kershaw notes.

“None of the parties are really naming that generational tension,” he says, adding that politicians may privately feel there is a political risk in trying to stall the cost of housing, and thus, older Canadians’ assets.

Prof Kershaw calls this a “cultural problem”, and says that parties should also focus on reducing costs for younger people as a way to alleviate this generational burden.

Fixing the housing crisis, he argues, is just as integral as asserting sovereignty and prosperity in the face of threats posed by Trump’s tariffs.

The “dysfunction that has entered our housing market is disruptive to the well-being of the country”, he says.

Until a fix is found, the possibility of homeownership still looks bleak for many.

Ms Dovgal contends half-heartedly that, other than moving elsewhere, “you have to win the lottery, or marry a multi-millionaire. These are kind of the options”.

Computer chip giant Nvidia has once again found itself at the centre of US-China tensions over trade and technology.

On Thursday Nvidia’s chief executive Jensen Huang flew to Beijing to meet senior Chinese officials, just after the US imposed new export controls on its chips.

The California-based company will require licenses to export its H20 AI chip to China, a move which the US Commerce Department said was designed to safeguard “national and economic security”. Nvidia said federal officials had told them the requirement will be in force for the “indefinite future”.

But why is the company so pivotal in the race for AI supremacy between the US and China?

Nvidia designs advanced chips, or semiconductors, that are used in generative artificial intelligence. Generative AI can produce new content from a user’s prompt, like ChatGPT.

In recent years, a surge in global demand for AI chips led Nvidia to become one of the world’s most valuable companies. In November, Nvidia briefly unseated Apple as the largest company in the world by market capitalisation.

Because its chips are seen as so essential to advancements in generative AI, successive US administrations have scrutinised Nvidia’s relationship with China.

Washington hopes the new export controls will slow China’s development of advanced AI chips – especially their use by the Chinese military – and secure an advantage in AI competition with Beijing.

US restrictions on Nvidia selling chips to China are not new.

In 2022, Joe Biden’s administration imposed separate export controls on the sale of advanced semiconductors to China. Nvidia specifically designed the H20 chip to comply with those existing restrictions.

A more powerful Nvidia chip, the H100, was already banned for sale in China.

However, the recent emergence of DeepSeek, a Chinese generative AI company, has prompted fresh concerns in the US that even less powerful chips could lead to significant technological breakthroughs.

DeepSeek claimed it could operate as effectively as other applications like ChatGPT using less advanced chips.

Now, there is increasing demand for Nvidia’s H20 chips among Chinese technology companies such as Tencent, Alibaba, and ByteDance, the parent company of TikTok.

Those companies have outstanding orders for the chips. But because there is no grace period on the imposition of the new curbs, Nvidia expects to be hit by losses of $5.5bn (£4.15bn) from these orders that it can no longer fulfil.

Chim Lee, a senior analyst at the Economist Intelligence Unit in Beijing, told the BBC that there are alternative AI chips being developed in China, by companies like Huawei.

Although they are currently viewed as inferior to Nvidia’s, Mr Lee said the US curbs could prompt China to focus on developing better chips.

“It will introduce challenges to China’s AI scene, but it won’t massively slow down China’s AI development and deployment,” Mr Lee added.

China is a critical market for Nvidia. The world’s second-largest economy accounted for 13% of its total sales last year, though that is still far less than the United States, which accounted for nearly half.

The timing of Mr Huang’s trip is being seen as an effort to shore up Nvidia’s business in China despite the latest curbs.

In his Beijing meeting with Ren Hongbin, head of the China Council for the Promotion of International Trade, Mr Huang said he hoped “to continue to cooperate with China”, according to state broadcaster CCTV.

On Thursday, the Financial Times reported that Mr Huang’s trip to China also included a meeting with DeepSeek’s founder, Liang Wenfeng.

Separately, top Chinese official He Lifeng told Mr Huang that “China’s market investment and consumption potential is huge”, according to state news agency Xinhua.

During talks with Shanghai’s mayor on Friday, Mr Huang said he was committed to the Chinese market, according to a Shanghai government statement.

The controls are part of Washington’s broader goal to de-risk supply chains for advanced technology away from China, and bring more semiconductor production back to the US.

Nvidia this week announced plans to build up AI servers in the US worth up to $500bn. US president Donald Trump later claimed his re-election drove Nvidia’s decision.

And in March, Taiwanese semiconductor giant TSMC, which manufactures Nvidia’s chips, announced it would invest an additional $100bn in advanced manufacturing facilities in Arizona.

Gary Ng, senior economist at Natixis, told the BBC the latest developments show that global technology is becoming increasingly polarised between “two systems”, one dominated by the US and the other by China.

“Tech will be less global in that sense, and it will be subject to more restrictions.”

It was once the Indian start-up world’s shining star, but Ola is now battling a multitude of crises.

Founded in 2010, it quickly became a household name, expanding from ride-hailing to electric vehicles and battery cells, challenging Uber along the way.

The company jumped on the AI bandwagon in 2023 with Krutrim, India’s first AI company valued at over $1bn.

Marquee global investors such as Japan’s SoftBank, US-based Tiger Global and Singapore’s Temasek bankrolled this expansion. Last year, Ola’s electric vehicles (EV) arm raised close to $734m (£567m) in a blockbuster initial public offering (IPO), India’s biggest in 2024.

But this ambitious rise has been accompanied by a series of controversies lately, particularly at its EV arm.

Ola Electric has lost close to 70% of its value in the seven months since the IPO was launched. It is facing competition from more established two-wheeler giants, along with mounting regulatory scrutiny.

Sales of Ola’s scooters are down to less than half from April last year and the company’s losses have widened. Customers have posted videos on social media of Ola scooters going up in flames or breaking down mid-ride.

There’s a government inquiry under way at hundreds of newly-opened Ola showrooms regarding licences and registrations. One of its vendors also filed an insolvency plea against the company, which Ola said in a statement to stock exchanges that it had settled.

The BBC has learnt from former employees and industry sources that delayed payments have led to many major suppliers and logistics partners ending ties with them.

Ola has been cutting jobs, restructuring operations and automating functions in a bid to reduce costs and trim losses. Media reports say it has undertaken a second round of layoffs since November, with over 1,000 roles axed.

The BBC sent detailed questions to Ola about these issues. The company shared links to some of its earlier press statements, not responding specifically to all the queries.

So, what’s gone wrong?

Ola CEO Bhavish Aggarwal positioned the company as Tesla’s two-wheeler equivalent, solving the emissions problem for the price-sensitive Indian market.

He poured in millions of marketing dollars, opening Ola showrooms across India, even delivering scooters at the doorstep of people who’d made online bookings.

But Ola has struggled to read the market well, says Rohit Paradkar, an analyst with the auto magazine Overdrive.

Its scooter is modelled on the AppScooter from Etergo, a Dutch start-up that Ola Electric acquired in 2020.

Several former employees told the BBC that Ola’s first EV scooter was launched without many changes to Etergo’s version. A former employee who worked in the compliance department told the BBC that clearances were rushed through to meet unrealistic launch deadlines.

In response to queries, Ola referred to an October 2023 blog post where it addressed the “myth” that the vehicle had “not been engineered and tested for India”. It said it had “fully re-engineered” Etergo’s scooter and tested it for “Indian conditions”.

“The whole vehicle has been tested at three levels [for India] – digital simulations, component tests and vehicular lab tests, and vehicular field tests,” it said in the post.

But several safety-related incidents reported by customers have raised questions.

Some scooters began catching fire which, auto experts say, was likely due to short-circuits or faulty battery management system.

Ola recalled more than 1,400 first-generation scooters in 2022 to investigate the fires, but the report was not publicly released. It had then said the battery systems were compliant for Indian and European standards but didn’t explain what caused the fires.

Some riders also reported the front suspension – which holds the wheel in place – breaking mid-ride, causing injuries.

In early 2023, after such an accident, Ola called it a rare case, noting there were only a few such issues among 150,000 scooters.

The front fork arm, they said, had a significant safety margin for accidents and was designed to handle 80% more load than what it would typically experience during daily use.

Meanwhile, Ola’s rivals – mostly established automakers – have rolled out electric scooters smoothly, adding to the pressure on the company.

Their entry shook the market. Ola’s share had plunged from 52% to 19% by December, then recovered to 25% in January.

Ola aims to sell 50,000 units monthly to turn profitable, but analysts doubt the target, despite the company saying recent restructuring has helped it achieve $10m monthly savings and faster deliveries.

Government data shows that less than 10,000 scooters were sold in February, but Ola claims 25,000, blaming registration delays due to vendor contract changes. The federal transport ministry has issued notices over the discrepancy. Ola said it had registered over 23,000 scooters sold in March and held a 30% market share for the fiscal year.

But competing scooters with fewer features are now outselling Ola simply because they come from trusted, well-established brands, said Jay Kale, executive vice-president and auto analyst at Elara Capital.

To push sales, Ola has offered deep discounts, launching newer models at cheaper price points. But losses have widened to $65m in the October-December quarter from $43.6m a year ago.

Besides product issues, the reliability of its customer service has been another major issue, says Kale.

When angry customers flooded social media and consumer helplines with complaints about the fires and front suspension, their service requests were reportedly unanswered for days.

At one point, thousands of complaints were piling up monthly, a former employee at Ola told the BBC. India’s consumer rights agency, the Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA), also sent a notice to Ola after it got 10,000 complaints over the period of a year.

But since Ola had eschewed the established dealer route in a bid to sell directly to buyers and had just a few service centres, aggrieved consumers had few places to turn to.

Late last year, Ola wrote to the CCPA that it had a “robust mechanism to address complaints”, and that most raised with the regulator had been satisfactorily resolved.

Aggarwal was initially dismissive of the problems on social media but later announced that Ola would be opening nearly 4,000 stores with service facilities, following a heated public exchange on X with a stand-up comedian who took up the customers’ cause.

A majority of these new centres, however, came under the government’s scanner for lacking relevant licences to store and sell vehicles.

On 21 March, Ola confirmed investigations in four states and said it was responding to authorities.

The sharp turn in Ola’s fortunes is making investors – especially those who bought in at high IPO valuations – nervous.

Ola has been a key player in India’s push to cut carbon emissions and expand manufacturing.

It benefits from two separate state subsidies, one to make scooters and the second to set up its own 20 gigawatt EV battery plant. But Reuters has reported that the costly gigafactory project is delayed and has missed a key milestone, potentially leading to penalties.

Critics say Ola’s troubles emanate from typical culture issues that plague many start-ups – including CEO-driven decision-making, constant pivots and unrealistic, high-pressure deadlines.

“Software mindsets don’t work with hardware products, which need time to build,” said Deepesh Rathore, who used to head product strategy at Ola Electric and now runs consultancy firm Insight EV.

Some top executives across the wider company have quit recently, including a former Ola Cab CEO who quit within months. Key leaders in tech, marketing, sales and business also left last year.

Experts say the exits have also affected Ola’s efforts to fix product and service issues.

An Indian archaeologist, whose career was marked by brilliance and controversy, made one of the world’s greatest historical discoveries. Yet he remains largely forgotten today.

In the early 1900s, Rakhaldas Banerjee (also spelled Banerji) unearthed Mohenjo-daro – meaning “mound of the dead men” in the Sindhi language – in present-day Pakistan. It was the largest city of the thriving Indus Valley (Harappan) Civilisation, which stretched from north-east Afghanistan to north-west India during the Bronze Age.

Banerjee, an intrepid explorer and talented epigraphist, worked for the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) when the country was under British colonial rule. He spent months travelling to distant corners of the subcontinent, looking for ancient artefacts, ruins and scripts.

But while his discovery of Mohenjo-daro was ground-breaking, Banerjee’s legacy is clouded by disputes. His independent streak and defiance of colonial protocols often landed him in trouble – tainting his reputation and perhaps even erasing parts of his contribution from global memory.

Interestingly, Banerjee’s reports on Mohenjo-daro were never published by the ASI. Archaeologist PK Mishra later accused then ASI chief John Marshall of suppressing Banerjee’s findings and claiming credit for the discovery himself.

“The world knows Marshall discovered the civilisation’s ruins and it is taught in institutions. Banerjee is an insignificant footnote,” Prof Mishra told the Times of India newspaper.

In her book, , historian Nayanjot Lahiri writes that Banerjee “lacked diplomacy and tact and displayed a high-handedness that ruffled feathers”. Her book also sheds light on the controversies he was embroiled in during his time at the ASI.

She notes how once, he attempted to procure inscriptions and images from a museum in north-east India without the approval or knowledge of his boss.

Another time, Banerjee attempted to relocate some stone sculptures from a museum in Bengal to the one he was stationed at without the necessary permissions.

In another instance, he purchased an antique painting for a sum without consulting his superiors who thought he’d paid more than was necessary.

“Banerjee’s many talents seemed to include being always able to rub people the wrong way,” Lahiri writes.

But Banerjee remains a prominent figure among world historians and scholars in Bengal because of his connection with Mohenjo-daro.

He was born in 1885 to a wealthy family in Bengal.

The medieval monuments that dotted Baharampur, the city he grew up in, kindled his interest in history and he pursued the subject in college. But he always had an adventurous streak.

Once, when he was tasked with writing an essay about the Scythian period of Indian history, he travelled to a museum in a neighbouring state to study first-hand sculptures and scripts from that era.

In her book, , author Yama Pande notes how Banerjee joined the ASI as an excavation assistant in 1910 and rose quickly within the ranks to become a superintending archaeologist in western India in 1917.

It was in this post that he first set eyes on Mohenjo-daro in Sindh in 1919. In the following years, he conducted a series of excavations at the site that revealed some of the most fascinating finds: ancient Buddhist stupas, coins, seals, pots and microliths.

Between 1922 and 1923, he discovered several layers of ruins that held clues about various urban settlements that had emerged in the region, but most importantly, the oldest one that had existed some 5,300 years ago – the Indus Valley Civilisation.

At that time, historians had not yet discovered the full scale of the Indus Civilisation which, we now know, covered an expanse of approximately 386,000 sq miles (999,735 sq km) along the Indus river valley.

Three seals from Banerjee’s excavation bore images and scripts similar to those from Harappa in the Punjab province in present-day Pakistan. This helped establish a link between the two sites, shedding light on the vast reach of the Indus Valley civilisation.

But by 1924, Banerjee’s funds for the project had dried up and he was also transferred to eastern India. He had no further contact with the site, nor did he participate in any excavations there, Pande writes in her book.

But Nayanjot Lahiri notes that Banerjee was transferred at his own request, after becoming entangled in questions over his spending. He had failed to account for several job-related expenses.

It was also revealed that Banerjee had used excavation grants to buy office furniture and his travel expenses were deemed excessive.

His explanations failed to convince his superiors and disciplinary action was recommended. After some negotiation, Banerjee was granted his request and transferred to another region.

Banerjee continued to work with the ASI in eastern India. He spent most of his time in Calcutta (now Kolkata) and oversaw the restoration work of many important monuments.

He resigned from the ASI in 1927, but his departure was marred by controversy. In the years prior to his departure, he became the prime suspect in a case of idol theft.

It all started in October 1925, when Banerjee had visited a revered Hindu shrine in Madhya Pradesh state that housed a stone idol of a Buddhist goddess. Banerjee was accompanied by two low-ranking assistants and two labourers, Lahiri notes in her book.

However, following their visit, the idol went missing, and Banerjee was implicated in its theft. He denied any involvement in the disappearance and an investigation was launched.

The idol was later recovered in Calcutta. Though the case against Banerjee was dismissed and the charges were found to be unsubstantiated, Marshall insisted on his resignation.

After leaving the ASI, Banerjee worked as a professor, but faced financial difficulties because of his lavish lifestyle.

Historian Tapati Guha-Thakurta told the Telegraph newspaper that Banerjee splurged on good food, horse carriages and friends. In 1928, he joined the Banaras Hindu University (BHU) as a professor. He died just two years later at the age of 45.

Half a million weapons obtained by the Taliban in Afghanistan have been lost, sold or smuggled to militant groups, sources have told the BBC – with the UN believing that some have fallen into the hands of al-Qaeda affiliates.

The Taliban took control of around one million weapons and pieces of military equipment – which had mostly been funded by the US – when it regained control of Afghanistan in 2021, according to a former Afghan official who spoke to the BBC anonymously.

As the Taliban advanced through Afghanistan in 2021, many Afghan soldiers surrendered or fled, abandoning their weapons and vehicles. Some equipment was simply left behind by US forces.

The cache included American-made firearms, such as M4 and M16 rifles, as well as other older weapons in Afghan possession that had been left behind from decades of conflict.

Sources have told the BBC that, at the closed-door UN Security Council’s Sanctions Committee in Doha late last year, the Taliban admitted that at least half of this equipment is now “unaccounted” for.

A person from the committee said they had verified with other sources that the whereabouts of half a million items was unknown.

In a report in February, the UN stated that al-Qaeda affiliates, including Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan, the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, the East Turkestan Islamic Movement, and Yemen’s Ansarullah movement, were accessing Taliban-captured weapons or buying them on the black market.

The BBC put this to Hamdullah Fitrat, deputy spokesperson for the Taliban government, who told the BBC it took the protection and storage of weapons very seriously.

“All light and heavy weapons are securely stored. We strongly reject claims of smuggling or loss,” he said.

A 2023 UN report said the Taliban allowed local commanders to retain 20% of seized US weapons, and that the black market was thriving as a result. These commanders are affiliated to the Taliban but often have a degree of autonomy in their regions.

The UN noted that the “gifting of weapons is widely practiced between local commanders and fighters to consolidate power. The black market remains a rich source of weaponry for the Taliban”.

A former journalist in the city of Kandahar told the BBC that an open arms market existed there for a year after the Taliban takeover, but has since gone underground via the messaging service WhatsApp. On it, wealthy individuals and local commanders trade new and used US weapons and equipment – mostly the weapons left by US-backed forces.

The number of weapons recorded by the US body tasked with overseeing Afghan reconstruction projects, known as Sigar, is lower than those cited by our sources, but in a 2022 report it acknowledged it was unable to get accurate information.

The reason given for this was that equipment has been funded and supplied by various US departments and organisations over the years.

Sigar added that there had been “shortfalls and issues with DoD’s [Department of Defense] processes for tracking equipment in Afghanistan” for more than a decade.

It also criticised the State Department, adding: “State provided us limited, inaccurate, and untimely information about the equipment and funds it left behind.” The department denied this was the case.

This is very much a political issue, and US President Donald Trump has repeatedly said that he will reclaim weapons from Afghanistan. He said that $85bn (£66bn) of advanced weaponry was left there.

“Afghanistan is one of the biggest sellers of military equipment in the world, you know why? They’re selling the equipment that we left,” Trump said during his first cabinet meeting of the new administration.

“I want to look into this. If we need to pay them, that’s fine, but we want our military equipment back.”

The president’s figure has been disputed, as money spent in Afghanistan also funded training and salaries. Also, Afghanistan did not feature in the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute’s top 25 largest exporters of major arms last year.

In response to Trump’s comments, Zabihullah Mujahid, the Taliban’s chief spokesperson, told Afghan state TV: “We seized these weapons from the previous administration and will use them to defend the country and counter any threats.”

The Taliban regularly parades US weapons, including at Bagram Airfield, which served as the main US-Nato base, and frame them as symbols of victory and legitimacy.

After withdrawing in 2021, the Pentagon claimed US equipment left in Afghanistan was disabled, but the Taliban have since built a capable military using US weapons and gained superiority over rival groups, such as the National Resistance Front and Islamic State Khorasan Province – the regional affiliate of the Islamic State group.

A source from the former Afghan government told the BBC that “hundreds” of unused Humvees, mine-resistant ambush protected vehicles (MRAPs), and Black Hawk helicopters remain in Kandahar warehouses.

The Taliban has showcased some of this captured equipment in propaganda videos, but their ability to operate and maintain advanced machinery, such as Black Hawk helicopters, is limited due to a lack of trained personnel and technical expertise. Much of this sophisticated equipment remains non-operational.

However, the Taliban have been able to utilise more straightforward equipment, like Humvees and small arms, in their operations.

While Donald Trump appears determined to reclaim US weapons from Afghanistan, the former head of Sigar, John Sopko, says such an attempt would be pointless.

At a recent event hosted by the Afghan Institute for Strategic Studies, he said that “the cost would exceed its actual value”.

Whether Trump will take any action remains to be seen, but, in the meantime, concerns about the spread of weapons in the region and access by militant groups remain unresolved.

The US has revealed plans to impose port fees on Chinese ships to try to revive shipbuilding in the US and challenge China’s dominance of the industry.

From mid-October, Chinese ship owners and operators will be charged $50 per ton of cargo with the fees increasing each year for the next three years.

There have been concerns that the measures would further disrupt global trade after US President Donald Trump’s raft of tariff policies, but the fee is less severe than originally suggested.

A spokesperson for the Chinese foreign ministry said the fees will raise prices for American consumers and “will not revitalise the US shipbuilding industry”.

The US Trade Representative (USTR) said: “China has largely achieved its dominance goals, severely disadvantaging US companies, workers, and the US economy”.

Fees on Chinese vessel owners and operators of ships built in China will be based on the weight of their cargo, how many containers they carry or the number of vehicles onboard.

For affected bulk vessels, the fee will be based on the weight of their cargo, while the charge for container ships will depend on how many containers a vessel is carrying.

The $50 per ton of cargo will rise by $30 a ton each year for the next three years. Fees on Chinese-built ships will start at $18 a ton or $120 per container and also rise over the next three years.

Non-US built ships carrying cars will be charged $150 per vehicle.

The fee will be applied once per voyage on affected ships and not more than five times a year.

The USTR also decided not to impose fees based on how many Chinese-built ships are in a fleet or based on prospective orders of Chinese ships, as it had originally proposed.

Empty vessels that arrive at US ports to carry bulk exports like coal or grain are exempted.

Vessels that move goods between American ports as well as from those ports to Caribbean islands and US territories are also exempted from rules, as are US and Canadian ships that call at ports in the Great Lakes.

The fees are much lower than a plan floated in February to charge up to $1.5m (£1.1m) for each American port a Chinese ship visits.

The USTR said a second phase of actions will begin in three years to favour US-built ships carrying liquified natural gas (LNG). These restrictions will rise incrementally over the following 22 years.

The announcement came as global trade is already being disrupted by Trump’s trade tariffs, experts have said.

Cargoes originally destined for ports in the US from China are instead being redirected to European ports, a trade group said.

Businesses have warned this will raise prices for US consumers.

Since returning to the White House in January, Trump has imposed taxes of up to 145% on imports from China. Other countries are facing a blanket US tariff of 10% until July.

His administration said this week that when the new tariffs are added on to existing ones, the levies on some Chinese goods could reach 245%.

These tariffs have caused “significant build ups” of ships, especially in the European Union, but also “significant congestion” at UK ports, according to Marco Forgione, director general of the Chartered Institute of Export & International Trade.

More containers are coming to the UK, he said.

“We’ve seen a lot of diversion of ships from China, that were due to head to the US, diverting and coming to the UK and into the EU.”

In the first three months of 2025, Chinese imports into the UK have increased by about 15% and into the EU by about 12%.

“That’s a direct impact of what President Trump is doing,” he said, adding that uncertainty and increased disruption pushes up prices for consumers.

Sanne Manders, president of logistics firm Flexport, said both tariffs and strikes at ports in the Netherlands, Germany and Belgium in the first three months of the year had been “clogging” ports.

Congestion in the UK “is particularly severe in Felixstowe”, while in continental Europe Rotterdam and Barcelona are “also pretty severe”.

“I do believe that if more cargo is going to be routed towards Europe, finding new buyers that will drive up the volumes even further, that could lead to more congestion,” he said – although terminals would be open for more hours per day in the summer due to better weather.

He said shippers were looking for new markets, but that also there may be a surge of goods to the US to try to take advantage of that 90-day window for goods from some countries.

He said in the US, consumers would pay for the tariffs, but European consumers would not see “much impact”.

Companies would also probably start redesigning their supply chains, he said.

Ryan Gosling is to star in a new Star Wars film, which is set to be released in two years’ time.

The new Disney project is titled Star Wars: Starfighter, and will be directed by Deadpool & Wolverine director Shawn Levy.

“The reality is that this script is just so good. It has such a great story with great and original characters,” said Barbie actor Gosling at a Star Wars Celebration in Tokyo.

“It’s filled with so much heart and adventure, and there just really is not a more perfect filmmaker for this particular story than Shawn.”

Gosling’s lifelong passion for the franchise was on display at the event, which showed his childhood Star Wars bedsheets on screen.

“You can see from the picture, I guess I was probably dreaming about Star Wars before I even saw the film,” he said.

“And it’s probably framed my idea of what a movie even was,” he said.

Set to be released on 7 May 2027, the film is a standalone story and won’t follow the main plotline of the Skywalker family and recent sequels starring Daisy Ridley.

Not many details about the storyline have been revealed yet.

According to the Star Wars website, it is “set approximately five years after the events of Star Wars: The Rise Of Skywalker” with Gosling playing a new character.

The new space adventure is “not a prequel, not sequel, it’s a new adventure. It’s set in a period of time that we haven’t seen explored yet”, added Levy.

The next Star Wars film release is set to be The Mandalorian And Grogu, a sequel to The Mandalorian starring Pedro Pascal and directed by Jon Favreau.

Gosling was nominated at the Oscars for his portrayal of Ken in 2023’s Barbie blockbuster, which also starred Margot Robbie.

The Canadian actor, known for roles in La La Land and The Notebook, also starred as a stuntman in last year’s The Fall Guy.

Hamas has formally rejected Israel’s latest ceasefire offer, saying it is prepared to immediately negotiate a deal that would see the release of all remaining hostages in return for an end to the war and the release of Palestinian prisoners.

In a video statement, Hamas’s chief negotiator, Khalil al-Hayya, said: “We will not accept partial deals that serve [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu’s political agenda.”

Fifty-nine hostages remain in captivity and 24 are thought to be alive. Israel’s latest offer involved a 45-day ceasefire in return for the release of 10 hostages.

Far-right Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich said it was time “to open the gates of hell” on Hamas.

Hamas officials had already indicated to the BBC earlier in the week that they would reject the plan.

“Netanyahu and his government use partial agreements as a cover for their political agenda, which is based on continuing the war of extermination and starvation, even if the price is sacrificing all his prisoners [hostages],” Hayya said.

He added the group was “ready to immediately negotiate a deal to swap all hostages with an agreed number of Palestinians jailed by Israel” and end the war.

Hamas has previously said it would contemplate an overall deal to end the war but the two sides are nowhere near any kind of agreement that would bring that about.

Israel’s stated aim is the complete disarmament and destruction of Hamas. Meanwhile dozens of Gazans are dying each day in air strikes with no humanitarian aid entering the strip at all.

The latest series of Israeli strikes killed at least 37 people, the majority of them displaced civilians living in a tented camp, according to Gaza’s Hamas-run civil defence agency.

Witnesses in al-Mawasi said dozens of Palestinians including children had died after tents were set ablaze following a “powerful” explosion.

“I rushed outside and saw the tent next to mine engulfed in flames,” a man told the BBC’s Gaza Lifeline programme.

The Israeli military did not immediately comment but said that it was looking into reports of the strikes.

Israel has previously told Palestinians to evacuate from other parts of Gaza to al-Mawasi.

The Israeli military said attacks over the past two days had “struck over 100 terror targets” including “terrorist cells, military structures and infrastructure sites”.

Israel said there was no shortage of aid and that it was maintaining the blockade installed on 1 March to pressure Hamas to release the remaining hostages.

However the heads of 12 major aid groups said the humanitarian aid system in Gaza was “facing total collapse”.

The war began on 7 October 2023 when Hamas carried out a cross-border attack on Israeli communities, killing around 1,200 people and seizing 251 hostages according to Israeli tallies.

Israel’s military campaign against Hamas has killed at least 51,065 people, according to the territory’s Hamas-run health ministry.

The best thing about Coachella is that it happens twice – so if you missed the first weekend, don’t worry!

Lady Gaga, Travis Scott, Charli XCX and everyone else will return to the Colorado Desert on Friday for a second dose of musical mayhem, and punishing gusts of wind.

Better yet, the opening weekend let us know who was worth watching (Lady Gaga), who we can safely avoid (Travis Scott) and who might be this year’s breakout star (Benson Boone).

With that in mind, here’s a guide to this weekend’s sets – and when you can watch them on Coachella’s comprehensive YouTube livestream.

Lady Gaga’s elaborate stage performances have been known to collapse under the weight of their own ambition. Not this time.

Her second visit to Coachella, after stepping in as a last-minute replacement for Beyoncé in 2017, was one of the greatest pop performances ever. Two hours full of energy and presence and pounding synth hooks.

Staged in a crumbling gothic opera house, the two-hour show depicted the star’s inner angels and demons wrestling for her soul.

During Poker Face, the two sides faced off in a deadly game of chess; while Perfect Celebrity – a song about her tabloid commodification in the 2000s – saw her buried in a shallow grave, singing to a skeleton.

It was bold and audacious and over the top, in all the best ways, with celebratory, nine-minute performance of Bad Romance to cap it all off.

If you only watch one performance, make it this one.

Despite a career that’s lasted three decades, Missy Elliot only staged her first ever tour last year.

Luckily, tracks like Get Ur Freak On, Lose Control and Pass That Dutch still sound as fresh and futuristic now as they did first time around – and Missy’s relative lack of stage experience was never apparent.

She arrived onstage inside a giant car exo-skeleton, like a hip-hop Transformer, and sped through her set with pin-sharp choreography and boundless good humour.

The only downside was that her set had to end after just 55 minutes.

“I’m either going to faint or throw up,” declared Lola Young near the start of her set last weekend. “One of the two is about to happen”.

The British singer, whose song Messy has been embraced by fans worldwide, was battling sickness and heatstroke throughout her set. But she powered through, leading a mass singalong to Messy, and debuting a new single called Spiders.

With her health back on track, her second weekend performance should erase any bad memories from her debut.

Although Travis Scott closed the main stage on Saturday, Green Day were technically the headliners – and the California band delivered a thrilling, cathartic set worthy of their billing.

They plunged head-first into a furious rendition of American Idiot, keeping up their recent tradition of changing the lyrics, so that frontman Billie Joe Armstrong sang: “I’m not part of the MAGA agenda”.

That aside, politics were kept to a minimum, as the group delivered a high-voltage blast of their greatest hits, from the bratty pop-punk of Basket Case to the more reflective Boulevard of Broken Dreams.

It might have been the end of the weekend, but fans still had energy to spare for Post Malone’s headline slot on Sunday night.

He rewarded them with a laid-back set, that repurposed some of his earlier pop/rap hits with the “yee-haw” twang of his recent album F-1 Trillion.

It all worked surprisingly well, although the eight-piece band occasionally overpowered his voice, and some fans were disappointed by the lack of hip-hop beats – saying the show would have been better suited to Coachella’s sister festival Stagecoach (which is where Post launched his country phase last year).

Surprisingly, the set was devoid of special guests, leading to speculation that the 29-year-old was holding fire for weekend two.

As someone who’s recently collaborated with Taylor Swift, Beyoncé and Dolly Parton, that could definitely be worth staying up for.

In 2019, Blackpink made history by becoming the first Korean group to headline Coachella. This year, two of its members – Lisa and Jennie – were back with dazzling solo sets, before the band reconvenes for a stadium tour in the summer.

Lisa was up first, on Friday night, with a slick, highly-choreographed set that combined hard-edged rap cuts like Money and Lifestyle, with the softer sounds of Moonlit Floor and Dream.

After her appearance in the third series of The White Lotus, she clarified that music is, in fact, her main job. Backstage, she held a post-mortem on the performance with her bandmate Rosé (Conclusion: The desert wind makes it hard to sing).

Jennie packed the Outdoor Theater on Sunday evening, for a set of clubby disco anthems that don’t sound a million miles away from her friend and collaborator Dua Lipa.

Highlights included the bombastic Like Jennie – produced by Diplo, and boasting it’s own viral dance break – and the swoonsome pop of Love Hangover, which showcased her vocal abilities.

The 29-year-old has never been the most precise performer, but it somehow works to her advantage – making her more “real” than the imperious perfection of her peers.

Charli XCX drew one of the weekend’s biggest crowds, for a sleazy, hedonistic run-through of her sleazy, hedonistic breakout album, Brat.

Performing entirely on her own, the star was in constant motion – a mesmerising blur of hip-rolls, hair tosses, stomach crunches and knee-drops, as she turned Coachella’s main stage into sweat-drenched, laser-lit club night.

Compared to the maximalism of other sets, it was a lesson in how one person can hold a stage on their own… Well, almost.

At several points, she brought out her collaborators from Brat’s companion album – Troye Sivan, Billie Eilish and Lorde. It was, one excitable fan commented, “like The Avengers for gay people”.

Whether the guest-list will be the same on Coachella’s second weekend remains to be seen. But Charli is worth your time either way.

Anyone who’s had the pleasure of watching Benson Boone over the last year will know he’s fond of performing a front flip off his piano, the big show off.

He didn’t let us down at Coachella – bouncing around the stage like a Duracell Bunny attached to a car battery. To cap it all off, he brought out Brian May for a surprisingly successful version of Bohemian Rhapsody.

Less fortunate, however, was Texan singer d4vd, whose attempt at a backflip went disastrously wrong.

Thankfully, he recovered in time to pull off an energetic set that highlighted the life-affirming vibes of his bedroom pop hits Feel It and What Are You Waiting For.

After the set, he swore to practice harder for this weekend’s performance. “Imagine if I fall again,” he cringed.

Last Saturday, the entire LA Philharmonic Orchestra boarded a bus and set off for the desert to make their Coachella debut.

Under the baton of Venezuelan conductor Gustavo Dudamel, they performed what was billed as “Gustavo’s mixtape” – moving seamlessly between classical standards like Wagner’s Ride of the Valkyries and Beethoven’s Fifth Symphony, and modern pop hits.

For the latter, they were joined on stage by a host of A-list stars, including indie titan Beck, Icelandic songstress Laufey, country singer Maren Morris and rap icon LL Cool J.

“I told to the orchestra, ‘I’m so happy conducting, but I wish I could be in the middle of the crowd and enjoy the moment,'” Dudamel told Variety magazine ahead of the show.

Weekend two will feature an all-new array of guest stars, he promised, but details are being kept under wraps for now.

“It took me 20 years to get on this stage,” said T-Pain towards the end of his set on Saturday, and he certainly made the most of his hour-long set.

He covered Journey’s Don’t Stop Believin’ and Chris Stapleton’s country hit Tennessee Whiskey, while racing through early 2000s hits like Buy U A Drank and I’m In Luv, and revisiting his verses on Flo Rida’s Low, and Kanye West’s Good Life.

For that, he received a hero’s welcome, with the crowd treating his set as an excuse for some turn of the millennium escapism.

By the time it ended, a campaign had started for T-Pain to play next year’s Super Bowl half-time show.

Luckily, you’re not forced to stay up all night to watch the stars strut their stuff in California.

Coachella’s generous livestreams repeat throughout the day, and you can rewind several hours to find the performances you want.

Other highlights from the first weekend included Megan Thee Stallion, whose star-studded set included appearances from Queen Latifah, Victoria Monét, and Ciara; and Kraftwerk, reminding everyone that they essentially invented electronic music.

Belinda Carlisle reunited with her old band The Go-Gos for a dose of sun-kissed 1980s nostalgia, and the UK’s Sam Fender tore through a blistering set that showcased the songwriting chops of his new album, People Watching.

Among the newcomers with main stage aspirations were South Africa’s hip-swivelling R&B star Tyla, and New York dance act Fcukers, whose breakout hit Bon Bon was one of the weekend’s most inescapable tracks.

You can see the full line-up for Coachella’s second weekend on the festival’s website.

Several Eurostar trains between London, Paris and Brussels have been hit by delays ahead of the Easter weekend.

At least one train was cancelled on Friday, and four others delayed by at least an hour, according to the Eurostar website.

Eurostar apologised to affected passengers, saying disruption was caused by an “overhead power issue” near Paris’ Gare du Nord terminal – but added that “all trains are now on the move”.

It said earlier in the day that the delays were caused by a fire near the tracks, without giving further details or the location.

On Friday, UK firefighters put out a fire underneath a bridge near Ebbsfleet International, east of London, according to a post on X by Network Rail Kent and Sussex.

It said services had been impacted and replacement buses were now in operation.

Southeastern Railway later wrote on X that the line had reopened but “at a reduced speed of 160kph (100mph)”.

Reports in France said trains to and from Gare du Nord station in Paris were affected, and facing severe disruption.

“We’re sorry for the inconvenience and thank our passengers for their patience while we work to get services back to normal,” Eurostar said in a statement.

Wembley, Old Trafford and Anfield regularly welcome football tourists from foreign shores – but they are a far less common sight at Harborough Town’s home ground in Leicestershire.

So imagine the surprise when more than 100 Spanish sports fans turned up to enjoy the non-league club’s match against St Ives Town on Saturday.

The Spaniards were subscribers to a Spanish YouTube channel devoted to English football which has now started arranging trips.

“Some of the local fans were quite surprised, probably wondering what 100 Spaniards were doing there,” said Madrid-born and new Harborough Town fan Alvaro Sanz.

The channel La Media Inglesa (LMI) was founded by Barcelona-born Ilie Oleart and covers English football matches for Spanish speaking fans across the world.

Since launching in 2011, the channel has gained more than 440,000 subscribers and began offering trips to the UK in 2018 so the fans could watch games in person.

Mr Oleart, who supports La Liga side Espanyol, said the next step for LMI was to not only show English football but also try to be involved with an English football club in some way.

“Our aim was to transform a small local English club into a small local club with a global fanbase,” he said.

After speaking to different lower league clubs, Mr Oleart asked his subscribers which club they should link up with – and Harborough Town FC emerged as the fans’ choice.

“I met people at the club in September to get to know their history, the town and the facilities,” said Mr Oleart.

“We thought they were the perfect club with the right values to share with our audience.”

Harborough Town games in the seventh tier of English football will now be live-streamed on the LMI Youtube channel, giving Spanish-speaking fans a chance to become “virtual supporters” of the club.

The club – nicknamed the Bees – have already captured the imagination this season by reaching the FA Cup second round for the first time and having former Brazilian international Sandro play for them.

Club chairman Peter Dougan said the partnership with LMI was an “opportunity to grow our fanbase and our income” through a global audience and could open the door to sponsorship deals.

“It was being in the right place at the right time,” he said.

“LMI liked what they saw and we decided they were right for our club too.”

Despite Harborough losing 2-1 to St Ives Town in their Southern League Premier Division Central encounter, Mr Oleart said his group were “very happy” with their experience.

“It was certainly the best trip we have had so far,” he said.

“We occupied a full stand and started cheering from the first second of the game,” added fan Alvaro Sanz.

“Quite a few local fans joined us, and we even taught them some chants in Spanish.

“We didn’t stop supporting the team for the entire match.”

Before the game, residents watched in amusement as two coachloads of Spanish supporters arrived in the town centre before marching around singing Spanish songs before kick-off.

“It wasn’t just any club anymore, it felt like our club,” said Mr Oleart.

“We were able to meet the players after the match and even have a drink with them in the pub, which is something that is impossible to imagine at a Premier League club.

“We wanted to ensure the trip was a chance for us to create a relationship with their fans too.

“There are many things to do to work on the alliance and to make it stronger, but I am sure there are many great memories to create in the future and I am hoping to bring 200-300 fans with me next time.

“Many football fans are looking for this experience and we are glad to do it with Harborough Town FC.”

Bees chairman Pete Dougan said: “It was a great day and the atmosphere they generated was superb.

“It was like song tennis in the stadium, our fans were singing songs in English and then they sang songs back in Spanish. It was good fun.”

Dougan said he was looking forward to welcoming his new fans back next season and revealed the club are heading to Barcelona and Madrid for a pre-season tour in July.

Donald Trump has said the US will “take a pass” on brokering further Russia-Ukraine talks if Moscow or Kyiv “make it very difficult” to reach a peace deal.

The US president told reporters in the Oval Office on Friday that he was not expecting a truce to happen in “a specific number of days” but he wanted it done “quickly”.

His comments came hours after US Secretary of State Marco Rubio warned that the US would abandon talks unless there were clear signs of progress within days.

“We’re not going to continue with this endeavour for weeks and months on end,” Rubio said, adding that the US had “other priorities to focus on”.

This comes as Russian strikes on Ukraine continue, with two people reported killed and more than 100 injured in the north-eastern cities of Kharkiv and Sumy on Friday.

Moscow launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, and Russian troops have been advancing – albeit slowly – in eastern Ukraine.

President Vladimir Putin has placed a number of conditions on any potential ceasefire.

When asked about a deal between Russian and Ukraine, Trump said: “We’re talking about here people dying. We’re going to get it stopped, ideally.

“Now if, for some reason, one of the two parties makes it very difficult, we’re just going to say, ‘You’re foolish, you’re fools, you’re horrible people,’ and we’re going to just take a pass.”

Despite the Trump administration’s initial confidence that it could secure a deal quickly, attempts to reach a full ceasefire have yet to materialise, with Washington blaming both sides.

Following a meeting with European leaders in Paris about a potential ceasefire on Thursday, Rubio told reporters on Friday: “We need to determine very quickly now – and I’m talking about a matter of days – whether or not this is doable.”

“If it’s not going to happen, then we’re just going to move on,” he said about truce talks.

He admitted that a peace deal would be difficult to strike.

Trump had said before he re-entered office that he would stop the fighting in the first 24 hours of his presidency.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov, when asked to respond to Trump saying he expected an answer from Russia on a ceasefire, said “the negotiations taking place are quite difficult”.

“The Russian side is striving to reach a peace settlement in this conflict, to ensure its own interests, and is open to dialogue,” he said.

During a meeting with Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni in Rome on Friday, US Vice-President JD Vance said he was still “optimistic” about ending the Ukraine war.

“I want to update the prime minister on some of the negotiations between Russia, Ukraine, and also some of the things that have happened even in the past 24 hours,” he said.

“I won’t prejudge them, but we do feel optimistic that we can hopefully bring this war – this very brutal war – to a close.”

Vance’s comments followed separate news that Ukraine and the US took the first step towards striking a minerals deal, after an initial agreement was derailed when a February meeting between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky erupted into a public shouting match.

On Thursday, the two countries signed a memorandum of intent on setting up an investment fund for Ukraine’s reconstruction as part of an economic partnership agreement.

The aim is to finalise the deal by 26 April, the memo published by the Ukrainian government says.

The details of any deal remain unclear. Previous leaks have suggested the agreement has been extended beyond minerals to control of Ukraine’s energy infrastructure, as well as its oil and gas.

Ukrainian negotiators have tried to resist Trump’s demands that a joint investment fund would pay back the US for previous military aid, but have seemingly accepted his claim that it would help the country recover after the war ends.

The memo said the “American people desire to invest alongside the Ukrainian people in a free, sovereign and secure Ukraine”.

Zelensky had been hoping to use the deal to secure a US security guarantee in the event of a ceasefire deal, telling European leaders last month that “a ceasefire without security guarantees is dangerous for Ukraine”.

The US has so far resisted providing Kyiv with security guarantees.

The White House argues the mere presence of US businesses would put off Russia from further aggression, but that did not exactly work when they invaded in 2022.

Economy Minister Yulia Svyrydenko announced the signing of the memorandum on X, with pictures of Svyrydenko and US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent separately signing the document over an online call.

“There is a lot to do, but the current pace and significant progress give reason to expect that the document will be very beneficial for both countries,” Svyrydenko wrote.

Bessent said the details were still being worked out but the deal is “substantially what we’d agreed on previously.”

Trump hinted at the deal during a press conference with Meloni, saying “we have a minerals deal which I guess is going to be signed on (next) Thursday… and I assume they’re going to live up to the deal. So we’ll see. But we have a deal on that”.

Ivanna Klympush-Tsintsadze, an MP and the chair of Ukraine’s parliamentary committee on EU Integration, told the BBC the Ukrainian parliament would have “the last word” in the deal.

She added: “I hope that there will be enough reasoning to ensure that whatever is signed, and if it is going to be ratified that it is in the interest of our country and our people”.

On Thursday, Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha met Rubio and Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff in Paris to discuss how to end the war.

Sybiha said they had “discussed the paths to a fair and lasting peace, including full ceasefire, multinational contingent, and security guarantees for Ukraine”.

Every iPhone comes with a label which tells you it was designed in California.

While the sleek rectangle that runs many of our lives is indeed designed in the United States, it is likely to have come to life thousands of miles away in China: the country hit hardest by US President Donald Trump’s tariffs, now rising to 245% on some Chinese imports.

Apple sells more than 220 million iPhones a year and by most estimates, nine in 10 are made in China. From the glossy screens to the battery packs, many of the components in an Apple product are made, sourced and assembled into iPhones, iPads or Macbooks in China. Most are shipped to the US, Apple’s largest market.

Luckily for the firm, Trump suddenly exempted smartphones, computers and some other electronic devices from his tariffs last week.

But the comfort is short-lived.

The president has since suggested that more tariffs are coming: “NOBODY is getting ‘off the hook'”, he wrote on Truth Social, as his administration investigated “semiconductors and the WHOLE ELECTRONICS SUPPLY CHAIN”.

The global supply chain that Apple has touted as a strength is now a vulnerability.

The US and China, the world’s two biggest economies, are interdependent and Trump’s staggering tariffs have upended that relationship overnight, leading to an inevitable question: who is the more dependent of the two?

China has hugely benefited from hosting assembly lines for one of the world’s most valuable companies. It was a calling card to the West for quality manufacturing and has helped spur local innovation.

Apple entered China in the 1990s to sell computers through third-party suppliers.

Around 1997, when it was on the verge of bankruptcy as it struggled to compete with rivals, Apple found a lifeline in China. A young Chinese economy was opening up to foreign companies to boost manufacturing and create more jobs.

It wasn’t until 2001 though that Apple officially arrived in China, through a Shanghai-based trading company, and started making products in the country. It partnered with Foxconn, a Taiwanese electronic manufacturer operating in China, to make iPods, then iMacs and subsequently iPhones.

As Beijing began trading with the world – encouraged by the US no less – Apple grew its footprint in what was becoming the world’s factory.

Back then, China was not primed to make the iPhone. But Apple chose its own crop of suppliers and helped them grow into “manufacturing superstars”, according to supply chain expert Lin Xueping.

He cites the example of Beijing Jingdiao, now a leading manufacturer of high-speed precision machinery, which is used to make advanced components efficiently. The company, which used to cut acrylic, was not considered a machine tool-maker – but it eventually developed machinery to cut glass and became “the star of Apple’s mobile phone surface processing,” Mr Lin says.

Apple opened its first store in the country in Beijing in 2008, the year the city hosted the Olympics and China’s relationship with the West was at an all-time high. This soon snowballed to 50 stores, with customers queuing out of the door.

As Apple’s profit margins grew, so did its assembly lines in China, with Foxconn operating the world’s largest iPhone factory in Zhengzhou, which has since been termed “iPhone City”.

For a fast-growing China, Apple became a symbol of advanced Western tech – simple yet original and slick.

Today, most of Apple’s prized iPhones are manufactured by Foxconn. The advanced chips that power them are made in Taiwan, by the world’s largest chip manufacturer, TSMC. The manufacturing also requires rare earth elements which are used in audio applications and cameras.

Some 150 of Apple’s top 187 suppliers in 2024 had factories in China, according to an analysis by Nikkei Asia.

“There’s no supply chain in the world that’s more critical to us than China,” Apple’s CEO Tim Cook said in an interview last year.

In Trump’s first term, Apple secured exemptions on the tariffs he imposed on China.

But this time, the Trump administration has made an example of Apple before it reversed tariffs on some electronics. It believes the threat of steep taxes will encourage businesses to make products in America instead.

“The army of millions and millions of human beings screwing in little screws to make iPhones – that kind of thing is going to come to America,” Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said in an interview earlier this month.

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt reiterated that last week: “President Trump has made it clear America cannot rely on China to manufacture critical technologies such as semiconductors, chips, smartphones and laptops.”

She added: “At the direction of the president, these companies are hustling to onshore their manufacturing in the United States as soon as possible.”

But many are sceptical of that.

The thought that Apple could move its assembly operation to the US is “pure fantasy”, according to Eli Friedman, who formerly sat on the firm’s academic advisory board.

Mr Friedman said the company has been talking about diversifying its supply chain away from China since 2013, when he joined the board – but the US was never an option.

He added that Apple didn’t make much progress over the next decade but “really made an effort” after the pandemic, when China’s tightly-controlled Covid lockdowns hurt manufacturing output.

“The most important new locations for assembly have been Vietnam and India. But of course the majority of Apple assembly still takes place [in China].”

Apple did not respond to the BBC’s questions but its website says its supply chain spans “thousands of businesses and more than 50 countries”.

Any change to Apple’s current supply chain status quo would be a huge blow for China, which is trying to kickstart growth post-pandemic.

Many of the reasons that the country wanted to be a manufacturing hub for Western companies in the early 2000s ring true today – it creates hundreds of thousands of jobs, and gives the country a crucial edge in global trade.

“Apple sits at the intersection of US-China tensions, and tariffs highlight the cost of that exposure,” says Jigar Dixit, a supply chain and operations consultant.

It might explain why China has not bowed to Trump’s threats, retaliating instead with 125% levies on US imports. China has also imposed export controls on a range of critical rare earth minerals and magnets it has in stores, dealing a blow to the US.

There is no doubt the US tariffs still being levied on other Chinese sectors will hurt, though.

And it’s not just Beijing facing higher tariffs – Trump has made it clear he will target countries that are part of the Chinese supply chain. For instance Vietnam, where Apple has moved AirPods production, was facing 46% tariffs before Trump hit pause for 90 days, so moving production elsewhere in Asia is not an easy way out.

“All conceivable places for the huge Foxconn assembly sites with tens or hundreds of thousands of workers are in Asia, and all of these countries are facing higher tariffs,” Mr Friedman said.

So what does Apple do now?

The company is fighting off stiff competition from Chinese firms as the government pushes for advanced tech manufacturing in a race with the US.

Now that “Apple has cultivated China’s electronic manufacturing capabilities, Huawei, Xiaomi, Oppo and others can reuse Apple’s mature supply chain,” according to Mr Lin.

Last year, Apple lost its place as China’s biggest smartphone seller to Huawei and Vivo. Chinese people are not spending enough because of a sluggish economy and with ChatGPT banned in China, Apple is also struggling to retain an edge among buyers seeking AI-powered phones. It even offered rare discounts on iPhones in January to boost sales.

And while operating under President Xi Jinping’s increasingly close grip, Apple has had to limit the use of Bluetooth and Airdrop on its devices as the Chinese Communist Party sought to censor political messages that people were sharing. It weathered a crackdown on the tech industry that even touched Alibaba founder and multi-billionaire Jack Ma.

Apple has announced a $500bn (£378bn) investment in the US, though that may not be enough to appease the Trump administration for long.

Given the several U-turns and the uncertainty around Trump’s tariffs, more unexpected levies are expected – which could again leave the company with little manoeuvring room and even less time.

Mr Dixit says smartphone tariffs will not cripple Apple should they rear their head again, but regardless will add “pressure – both operationally and politically” to a supply chain that cannot be unwound quickly.

“Clearly the severity of the immediate crisis has been lessened,” Mr Friedman says, referring to last week’s exemption for smartphones.

“But I really don’t think this means Apple can relax.”

A Maryland man who the Trump administration mistakenly deported to El Salvador has been moved to a new prison, US Senator Chris Van Hollen has said.

The Democratic senator was speaking after returning from El Salvador where he met Kilmar Ábrego García, who was sent to the notorious mega-jail Cecot (Centre for the Confinement of Terrorism) last month.

Mr Ábrego García was “traumatised” and fearful of other prisoners while inside the facility, Van Hollen said, adding that he was moved to another facility in the country over a week ago.

The Supreme Court has ordered the government to “facilitate” his return, however Trump administration officials have continued to push back against the order.

The White House accuses him of being member of the transnational Salvadorian gang MS-13, a designated foreign terrorist organisation, and has said he would not return to the US.

Mr Ábrego García has never been convicted of a crime. His family and attorneys have fiercely denied he is a member of MS-13.

Chris Van Hollen said he was initially blocked from meeting Mr Ábrego García by Salvadoran authorities. Later, he said government officials helped facilitate a meeting and Mr Ábrego García was brought to the senator’s hotel.

“His conversation with me was the first communication that he had with anybody outside of prison since he was abducted,” Van Hollen said.

“He said he felt very sad about being in a prison because he had not committed any crimes.”

Van Hollen added that conditions in the new prison, in Salvadoran city of Santa Ana, were better.

“He still has no access to any news from the outside world and no ability to communicate with anybody in the outside world,” Van Hollen said.

Mr Ábrego García’s case is part of a simmering showdown between the Trump administration and the US courts system on the issue of immigration.

A separate feud has been brewing after a judge said he could hold the Trump administration in contempt for its “wilful disregard” of his order barring deportation flights.

Multiple judges – including a unanimous US Supreme Court ruling – said the government should facilitate Mr Ábrego García’s return to the US. But the White House has insisted the Maryland man would “never” live in the US again.

“If he [Mr Ábrego García] ever ends up back in the United States, he would immediately be deported again,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said.

President Donald Trump told reporters at the White House Mr Ábrego García was “not a very innocent guy”.

• What next in legal fight over El Salvador deportations?
• Who is the man in middle of Maryland deportation case?

Sen Van Hollen said the Trump administration wants to “flat out lie about what this case is about”.

“If you want to make claims about Ábrego García, you should present them in the courts, not on social media,” he said.

Mr Ábrego García was arrested by immigration authorities on 12 March in Baltimore, before being deported from Texas to El Salvador on 15 March.

The Trump administration acknowledged in court he was wrongly deported due to an “administrative error”.

When US President Donald Trump hit China with tariffs in his first term, Vietnamese entrepreneur Hao Le saw an opportunity.

His company is one of hundreds of businesses that have emerged to compete with Chinese exports that have increasingly been facing restrictions from the West.

Le’s SHDC Electronics, which sits in the budding industrial hub of Hai Duong, sells $2m (£1.5m) worth of phone and computer accessories every month to the United States.

But that revenue could dry up if Trump imposes 46% tariffs on Vietnamese goods, a plan that is currently on hold until early July. That would be “catastrophic for our business,” Le says.

And selling to Vietnamese consumers is not an option, he adds: “We cannot compete with Chinese products. This is not just our challenge. Many Vietnamese companies are struggling in their own home market.”

Trump tariffs in 2016 sent a glut of cheap Chinese imports, originally intended for the US, into South East Asia, hurting many local manufacturers. But they also opened new doors for other businesses, often into global supply chains that wanted to cut their dependence on China.

But Trump 2.0 threaten to shut those doors, which it sees as an unacceptable loophole. And that’s a blow for fast-growing economies like Vietnam and Indonesia that are gunning to be key players in industries from chips to electric vehicles.

They also find themselves stuck between the world’s two biggest economies – China, a powerful neighbour and their biggest trading partner, and the US, a key export market, which could be looking to strike a deal at Beijing’s expense.

And so Xi Jinping’s long-planned trip to Vietnam, Malaysia and Cambodia this week took on fresh urgency.

All three countries rolled out the the red carpet for him, but Trump saw it as more evidence of them conspiring to “screw” the US.

The White House will use its upcoming negotiations with smaller nations to pressure them into limiting their dealings with Beijing, according to reports.

But that could be a fanciful ambition given the amount of money flowing between China and South East Asia.

In 2024, China earned a record $3.5tn from exports – 16% of those went to South East Asia, its biggest market. Beijing, in turn, has paid for railways in Vietnam, dams in Cambodia and ports in Malaysia as part of its “Belt and Road” infratructure programme that seeks to boost ties abroad.

“We can’t choose, and we will never choose [between China and the US],” Malaysia’s trade minister Tengku Zafrul Aziz told the BBC on Tuesday, ahead of Xi’s visit.

“If the issue is about something that we feel is against our interest, then we will protect [ourselves].”

In the days after Trump unveiled his sweeping tariffs, South East Asian governments scrambled into deal-making mode.

In what Trump described as a “very productive call” with Vietnamese leader To Lam, the latter offered to completely scrap tariffs on US goods.

The US market is crucial to Vietnam, an emerging electronics powerhouse where manufacturing giants like Samsung, Intel and Foxconn, the Taiwanese firm contracted to make iPhones, have set up shop.

Meanwhile, Thai officials are headed to Washington with a plan that includes higher US imports and investments. The US is their largest export market, so they are hoping to avoid the 36% levy on Thailand that Trump may reinstate.

“We will tell the US government that Thailand is not only an exporter but also an ally and economic partner that the US can rely on in the long term,” Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra said.

The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean) has ruled out retaliation against Trump’s tariffs, instead choosing to emphasise their economic and political importance to the US.

“We understand the concerns of the US,” Mr Zafrul told the BBC. “That’s why we need to show that actually we, Asean, especially Malaysia, can be that bridge.”

It’s a role that South East Asia’s export-driven economies have played well – they have benefitted from both Chinese and US trade and investment. But Trump’s paused levies could derail that.

Take Malaysia, for instance. In recent years, chip manufacturers from the US and elsewhere have invested there, as Washington blocks the sale of advanced tech to China. Last year China imported $18bn worth of chips from Malaysia. These chips are used in Chinese-made electronics, such as iPhones, typically bound for the US.

Trump’s proposed tariffs on Malaysia – 24% – could cut off the multi-billion dollar US market. But that’s not all.

“If this continues, then companies will have to rethink their investment commitments,” Mr Zafrul says. “This will have an impact not just on Malaysia’s economy, but on the global economy.”

Then there is Indonesia, which could face 32% tariffs, and is home to vast nickel reserves and has its sights set on the global electric vehicle supply chain.

Cambodia, a Chinese ally, faces the steepest levies: 49%. One of the poorest countries in the region, it has thrived as a trans-shipment hub for Chinese businesses seeking to skirt US tariffs. Chinese businesses currently own or operate 90% of the clothes factories, which mainly export to the US.

Trump may have hit pause on these tariffs but “the damage is done,” says Doris Liew, an economist at Malaysia’s Institute for Democracy and Economic Affairs.

“This serves as a wake-up call for the region, not only to reduce reliance on the US, but also to re-balance overdependence on any single trade and export partner.”

In these uncertain times , Xi Jinping is trying to send a steadfast message: Let’s join hands and resist “bullying” from the US.

That is no easy task because South East Asia also has trade tensions with Beijing.

In Indonesia, business owner Isma Savitri is worried that Trump’s 145% tariffs on China means more competition from Chinese rivals who can no longer export to the US.

“Small businesses like us feel squeezed,” says the owner of sleepwear brand Helopopy. “We are struggling to survive against an onslaught of ultra-cheap Chinese products.”

One of Helopopy’s popular pyjamas sells for $7.10 (119,000 Indonesian rupiah). Isma says she has seen similar designs from China going for around half that price.

“South East Asia, being close by, with open trade regimes and fast-growing markets, naturally became the dumping ground,” says Nguyen Khac Giang, visiting fellow at the ISEAS Yusof-Ishak Institute in Singapore. “Politically, many countries are reluctant to confront Beijing, which adds another layer of vulnerability.”

While consumers have welcomed competitively-priced Chinese products – from clothes to shoes to phones – thousands of local businesses have not been able to match such low prices.

More than 100 factories in Thailand have closed every month for the last two years, according to an estimate from a Thai think tank. During the same period in Indonesia, around 250,000 textile workers were laid off after some 60 garment manufacturers shut, local trade associations say – including Sritex, once the region’s largest textile maker.

“When we see the news, there are lots of imported products flooding the domestic market, which messes up our own market,” Mujiati, a worker who was laid off from Sritex in February after 30 years, tells the BBC.

“Maybe it just wasn’t our luck,” says the 50-year-old, who is still hunting for work. “Who can we complain to? There’s no-one.”

South East Asian governments responded with a wave of protectionism, as local businesses demanded to be shielded from the impact of Chinese imports.

Last year Indonesia considered 200% tariffs on a range of Chinese goods and blocked e-commerce site Temu, popular among Chinese merchants. Thailand tightened inspections of imports and imposed additional tax on goods worth less than 1,500 Thai baht ($45; £34).

This year Vietnam has twice imposed temporary anti-dumping duties on Chinese steel products. And after Trump’s latest tariffs announcement, Vietnam is reportedly set to crack down on Chinese goods being trans-shipped via its territory to the US.

Allaying these fears would have been on Xi’s agenda this week.

China is concerned that channelling its US-bound exports to the rest of the world would “end up really alienating and aggravating” its trading partners, David Rennie, the former Beijing bureau chief for the Economist newspaper, told BBC’s Newshour.

“If a tidal wave of Chinese exports ends up swamping those markets and damaging employment and jobs … that’s a massive diplomatic and geopolitical headache for the Chinese leadership.”

China has not always had an easy relationship with this region. Barring Laos, Cambodia and a war-torn Myanmar, the others are wary of Beijing’s ambitions. Territorial disputes in the South China have soured ties with the Philippines. This is also an issue with others such as Vietnam and Malaysia, but trade has been a balancing factor.

But that might change now, experts say.

“South East Asia had to think about whether they really wanted to offend China. Now this complicates things,” says Chong Ja-Ian, associate professor at the National University of Singapore.

China’s loss could be South East Asia’s gain.

Hao Le, in Vietnam, says he has seen a surge in enquiries from American customers scouting for new electronics suppliers, outside of China: “In the past, US buyers would take months to switch suppliers. Today, such decisions are made within days.”

Malaysia, with sprawling rubber plantations and the world’s largest medical rubber glove maker, has nearly half the world’s market for rubber gloves. But it is poised to grab a bigger share from its main competitor, China.

The region still faces a 10% baseline tariff, like most of the world. And that is bad news, says Oon Kim Hung, president of the Malaysian Rubber Glove Manufacturers Association.

But even if the paused tariffs kick in, he says, customers will find paying an additional 24% on Malaysian gloves vastly preferable to the 145% levy they will have to cough up for Chinese-made gloves.

“We’re not exactly jumping with joy, but this may well benefit our manufacturers, as well as those in Thailand, Vietnam and Cambodia.”

Police in Pakistan have made dozens of arrests following a string of protests targeting KFC branches across the country which led to one man being killed.

Protesters, angry at the war in Gaza, have been urging a boycott of the chain, claiming it’s a symbol of the United States and its ally Israel.

At least 20 attempted attacks on KFC outlets have been recorded across the country in the past week, Pakistan’s Minister of State for the Interior Talal Chaudhry told the BBC.

Videos on social media show mobs armed with iron rods entering KFC stores and threatening to burn them down before police arrive to arrest protesters. In Karachi, two stores were set on fire.

A video on social media shows a man yelling, “They are buying bullets with the money you make.”

Condemning the violence, Chaudhry said that “most of the vendors involved are Pakistani” and “the profits go to Pakistanis”.

A police officer confirmed to BBC News that the man who was killed, 45-year-old Asif Nawaz, was a staff member at KFC who was shot during one of the protests in the city of Sheikhupura, on the outskirts of Lahore, on 14 April.

Sheikhupura Regional Police Officer Athar Ismail said Nawaz was working in the kitchen at the time and was hit in the shoulder by a bullet that was fired from a pistol more than 100ft away. He told BBC News that the main culprit is still at large, but that police have made 40 arrests so far.

A bullet fired from that distance is not usually fatal, but a post-mortem found that after hitting his shoulder, the bullet travelled towards his chest.

Mr Ismail told BBC News there was no evidence so far that suggested Mr Nawaz was the intended target and the shooting may have been accidental.

Across Pakistan, influential figures have condemned the war in Gaza.

The Islamist party, Tehreek-e-Labbaik Pakistan (TLP) has called for protests against Israel and the US, but has denied any involvement in the attacks on KFC.

Pakistan’s most influential Sunni scholar, Mufti Taqi Usmani, has encouraged a boycott of products perceived to be linked to the war.

But both have urged protesters to avoid resorting to violence.

Usmani said in remarks made at the National Palestine Conference on Thursday that while it was essential to boycott products and companies from or linked to Israel, Islam “is not a religion that encourages harming others” and said it is prohibited to “throw stones or put anyone’s life at risk”.

“So, continue your protest and boycott, but do so in a peaceful manner. There should not be any element of violence or non-peaceful behavior,” he said.

TLP spokesman Rehan Mohsin Khan said the group “has urged Muslims to boycott Israeli products, but it has not given any call for protest outside KFC”.

There have been several cases of Western brands facing attacks, boycotts and protests in Pakistan and other Muslim countries since Israel’s war on Gaza began.

Last year, McDonald’s confirmed it would buy back all of its Israeli restaurants because a boycott over its perceived support for Israel caused a sales slump.

In 2023, Starbucks called for peace and blamed “misrepresentation” of its views after a series of protests and boycott campaigns in part tied to the Israel-Gaza war.

KFC and its parent company Yum Brands have not yet responded to the BBC’s request for comment.

Ukraine started today with, for once, the diplomatic wind in its sails.

It had finally agreed a mineral deal “framework” with Washington. An agreement that would see the US invest in Ukraine’s recovery, in return for a share of the country’s future profits from its natural resources, energy infrastructure and its oil and gas.

There had also been a first round of peace talks between American, European and Ukrainian officials in Paris, which had been hailed as “positive”.

That was until the both US President Donald Trump and his Secretary of State Marco Rubio threatened to pull out of brokering a ceasefire until progress appeared quickly.

It had been hoped by Ukraine that America’s growing impatience with Russia would translate into further sanctions for Moscow. Instead, the threat of the US washing its hands of the ongoing peace efforts suits the Kremlin more than Kyiv.

The consensus is that the collective weight of Ukraine and its European allies would still be insufficient to counter Russian aggression in the long term. Despite continuing in its quest to conquer and occupy as much of Ukraine as possible, Moscow claims it is still striving for peace.

What it has done is launch some of the deadliest missile strikes on civilians in recent days. In Kharkiv in the north-east, more than 100 people were injured and one person was killed after three struck a residential part of the city.

But these attacks have not brought the slightest condemnation from the White House, which has continued to use more of a stick with Kyiv, by pausing military aid, and a carrot with Moscow, by improving relations, to get both sides to mirror its appetite for peace.

Kyiv agreed to a full ceasefire after the US paused its military aid and intelligence sharing. Moscow has not bent from its continued maximalist demands of more Ukrainian territory and the toppling of President Volodymyr Zelensky. It’s hard to see how this threat will bring a breakthrough.

On the calm, open waters of the Black Sea, Mykhailo commands his US-made naval patrol ship. As we stand in the bridge, I ask him whether he feels he’s fighting for Europe, as well as his country.

“If Russia occupies all of Ukraine, who knows?” he replies. “In ten or fifteen years’ time, Russia will go to Poland, Lithuania, Estonia, any of the Baltic countries, that is quite clear.”

US military aid for Ukraine is gradually going to run out. No more packages are going to be put before Congress or unlocked by presidential draw-down powers.

Should Washington turn its back on these peace efforts, it would leave Ukraine reliant on its European allies to counter Russia’s continued invasion. The consensus is that that collective weight would be insufficient in the long term.

On this stretch of Ukrainian-controlled coastline Kyiv has a success story. Through launching Western and domestically-produced drones, Russia’s fleet has been forced back, and a major shipping lane has been restored.

But the problem for defending forces, as President Zelensky admits, is the battlefield realities being lost on a wider audience.

Despite the US and Ukraine stepping closer to this mineral deal, the Trump administration’s threat leaves it looking more like a business venture.

It also poses greater questions on whether Washington cares who controls Ukraine in the long term, as long as US commercial interests are protected.

For the last few weeks, many foreign students living in the US have watched as a sequence of events has repeated itself on their social media feeds: plain-clothes agents appearing unannounced and hauling students off in unmarked cars to detention centres.

Those taken into custody in a string of high-profile student detentions captured on video have not faced any criminal charges and instead appear to have been targeted for involvement in pro-Palestinian protests on college campuses.

The Trump administration has said repeatedly that visas are a “privilege” and can be revoked at any time for a wide variety of reasons.

But the crackdown appears to be far wider than initially thought, with more than 1,000 international students or recent graduates at colleges across the US now having had their visas revoked or legal statuses changed, according to a tracker from Inside Higher Ed, an online news site covering the sector.

For many, the precise reasons are unknown, and universities have often only learned of the changes when checking a government-run database that logs the visa status of international students.

The combination of targeted detentions and reports of wide-scale visa revocations have left campuses on edge, from the biggest public universities to elite Ivy League institutions, students and faculty told the BBC.

“I could be next,” said one student visa-holder attending Georgetown University, who has written articles about Israel and the war in Gaza.

He’s begun carrying around a card in his pocket that lists his constitutional rights, in case he is ever stopped by law enforcement.

Another student in Texas said he’s afraid to leave his apartment, even to buy groceries.

And at some colleges, departments are being hit as researchers abroad refuse to return to the US.

Most students the BBC spoke to requested anonymity out of fear that having their names in the media could make them a target.

The BBC has contacted the Department of Education for comment.

The reasons for visa cancellations vary. In some cases, criminal records appear to be a factor. Other instances have reportedly included minor legal infractions like driving over the speed limit. But “a lot” of those targeted have been involved in pro-Palestinian protests, Secretary of State Marco Rubio himself has said.

• Marco Rubio says US revoked at least 300 foreign students’ visas
• Why has Trump revoked hundreds of international student visas?
• Trump signs order to dismantle US education department

It is part of a wider White House push to crack down on protesters whom officials say created an unsafe environment for Jewish students on many campuses. They also accuse demonstrators of having expressed support for Hamas, an officially designated terrorist group.

“Every time I find one of these lunatics, I take away their visas,” Rubio told reporters in late March. “We do it every day.”

Civil liberties groups have protested the detentions and moves to deport student demonstrators as a violation of constitutional rights. And the students themselves reject associations with Hamas, saying that they are being targeted for political speech about the war in Gaza and US support for Israel.

At Georgetown, signs that read “protect our students” have been taped to the doors of bathroom stalls, adding a sense of gloom to the cherry blossom trees and tulips that typically mark the arrival of spring on campus.

A postdoctoral fellow from the university, Badar Khan Suri, was grabbed by federal agents outside his Virginia home in March. The Department of Homeland Security accused the conflict resolution researcher of “promoting antisemitism on social media” and having links to a “known or suspected terrorist”.

• The Indian scholar arrested in US over father-in-law’s Hamas link
• US court blocks deportation of Georgetown University researcher

This was an apparent reference to the Palestinian father of his US-born wife, a former adviser to killed Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh.

Mr Suri’s lawyers say he has only met his father-in-law a handful of times and is being targeted due to his wife’s identity.

His detention followed that of Columbia University student protest organiser Mahmoud Khalil, a permanent resident arrested at home in New York but now awaiting deportation from a facility in Louisiana.

Tufts University graduate student Rumeysa Ozturk, who co-authored a student newspaper op-ed about Gaza and was detained in Massachusetts, is also being held in Louisiana.

Last Monday, Mohsen Mahdawi, another Columbia student protester, was detained in Vermont as he attended an interview to obtain US citizenship. Like Mr Khalil, he holds a green card, rather than a student visa.

“Based on the detentions that we’re seeing, I think there is a possibility anyone who has been outspoken about Palestine can be detained,” said the Georgetown student, who knew Mr Suri.

The White House says it is going after those who have been involved in activities that “run counter” to US national interests. In Mr Khalil’s case, officials have cited a 1952 law that empowers the government to order someone deported if their presence in the country could pose unfavourable consequences for US foreign policy.

In a post on X, the Columbia Jewish Alumni Association celebrated Mr Khalil’s arrest, calling him the “ringleader of chaos” at the university.

Polling suggests that immigration is an issue where President Trump enjoys some of his highest approval ratings, with recent Reuters and AP-NORC surveys suggesting about half of US adults approve of action in that area, several points higher than his overall rating.

Universities are also being targeted at an institutional level. This week, the White House’s task force on combating antisemitism froze over $2bn in funding for Harvard University, after the university refused to agree to a list of demands that it said would amount to “surrendering its independence”.

• Harvard just stood up to Trump. How long can it last?
• Trump administration threatens Harvard with foreign student ban

Trump officials have said that if Harvard doesn’t comply with a request for information on certain student visaholders, it will stop granting visas to international students who want to study there.

Georgetown professor Nader Hashemi said he believes the government’s main goal is “silencing dissent” by intimidating would-be protesters.

The Georgetown student says he has asked his parents not to fly from India to the US to see him graduate with a master’s degree in just a few weeks. He is still unsure if he will even attend the ceremony.

In addition to checking his email daily to see if he is among the hundreds that have had their visas revoked recently, he has also prepared for the possibility of sudden arrest.

“I have cleared my chats across messaging apps, and I have learned how to quickly lock my phone in SOS mode,” he said.

Georgetown professors have even begun offering spare rooms to students who worry about being visited by immigration agents at their residences, said Prof Hashemi.

“This is part of the trauma that I think students are facing,” he said.

At Tufts University, outside of Boston, Massachusetts, students are waiting to see what happens to Ms Ozturk, who was detained outside her home.

Video shows her confused and shaking in fear as she is intercepted by agents while headed to a Ramadan dinner celebration. Last year, she had co-authored an op-ed supporting the boycott, divest and sanction (BDS) movement against Israel.

Tufts PhD student Anteri Mejr told the BBC that the actions have had a “chilling effect”, and that international students she knows who have left the country to visit home or attend conferences are now afraid to return.

“There are students working remotely because they’re afraid they can’t get back in the country,” he said.

At the University of Texas, rumours about Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids on campus have some students terrified.

“I’m scared to be out. I’m scared to come to school. I’m scared to go grocery shopping,” a master’s student there said.

“I’m afraid that if I’m walking, I will be approached by agents in incognito clothes and plain disguise,” he continued.

Despite being a green card holder and having not played a role in pro-Palestinian protests on campus, he says he is still in “crippling anxiety” because he has written things that are critical of the president.

“How far does this administration dig through, like, an immigrant’s history?” he asked. “What if I did say something and I’m not aware.”

Stock markets around the world have been relatively settled this week after a period of chaos, sparked by US trade tariffs.

But investors are still closely watching a part of the market which rarely moves dramatically – the US bond market.

Governments sell bonds – essentially an IOU – to raise money for public spending and in return they pay interest.

Recently, in an extremely rare move the rate the US government had to pay on its bonds rose sharply, while the price of bonds themselves fell.

The volatility suggests investors were losing confidence in the world’s biggest economy.

You may think it’s too esoteric to bother you, but here’s why it matters and how it may change President Trump’s mind on tariffs.

When a government wants to borrow money, it usually does so by selling bonds to investors on financial markets.

A bond is essentially an IOU – in return for an investor buying the bond and lending money, governments pay interest. In the US, bonds are known as “Treasuries”.

Such payments are made over a number of pre-agreed years before a full and final payment is made when the bond “matures” – in other words, expires.

Investors who buy bonds are mainly made up of financial institutions, ranging from pension funds to central banks like the Bank of England.

Investors buy government bonds because they are seen as a safe place to invest their money. There is little risk a government will not repay the money, especially an economic superpower like the US.

So when the economy is turbulent and investors want to take money out of volatile stocks and shares markets, they usually place that cash in US bonds.

But recently that hasn’t happened.

Initially, following the so-called “Liberation Day” tariffs announcement on 2 April when shares fell, investors did appear to flock to US bonds.

However, when the first of these tariffs kicked in on 5 April and Trump doubled down on his policies that weekend, investors began dumping government bonds, sending the interest rate the US government would have to pay to borrow money up sharply.

The so-called yield for US government borrowing over 10 years shot up from 3.9% to 4.5%, while the 30-year yield spiked at almost 5%. Movements of 0.2% in either direction are considered a big deal.

Why the dramatic sell-off? In short, the uncertainty over the impact of tariffs on the US economy led to investors no longer seeing government bonds as such a safe bet, so demanded bigger returns to buy them.

The higher the perceived risk, the higher the yield investors want to compensate for taking it.

If the US government is spending more on debt interest repayments, it can affect budgets and public spending as it becomes more costly for the government to sustain itself.

But it can also have a direct impact on households and even more so on businesses.

John Canavan, lead analyst at Oxford Economics, says when investors charge higher rates to lend the government money, other rates for lending that have more risk attached, such as mortgages, credit cards and car loans, also tend to rise.

Businesses, especially small ones, are likely to be hardest hit by any immediate change in borrowing rates, as most homeowners in the US have fixed-rate deals of between 15 and 30 years. If businesses can’t get access to credit, that can halt economic growth and lead to job losses over time.

Mr Canavan adds that banks can become more cautious in lending money, which could impact the US economy.

First-time buyers and those wishing to move home could also face higher costs, he says, which could impact the housing market in the longer term. It’s common in the US for small business owners starting out to use the equity in their home as collateral.

Following the introduction of tariffs, Trump urged his nation to “hang tough”, but it appears the potential threat to jobs and the US economy stopped the president in his tracks.

Following the ructions in the bond markets, he introduced a 90-day pause for the higher tariffs on every country except China. The 10% blanket tariff, however, on all countries remains.

It proved a pressure point for Trump – and now the world knows it.

“Although President Donald Trump was able to resist the stock market sell-off, once the bond market began to weaken too, it was only a matter of time before he folded,” says Paul Ashworth, chief North America economist at Capital Economics.

According to US media reports, it was Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, inundated with calls from business leaders, who played a key part in swaying Trump.

The bond market reaction has led to comparisons with former UK Prime Minister Liz Truss’s infamous mini-Budget of September 2022. The unfunded tax cuts announced then spooked investors, who dumped UK government bonds, resulting in the Bank of England stepping in to buy bonds to save pension funds from collapse.

Some analysts suggested that America’s central bank, the US Federal Reserve, might have been forced to step in if the sell-off had worsened.

While bond yields have settled, some might argue the damage has already been done as they remain higher than before the blanket tariffs kicked in.

“Arguably the most worrying aspect of the [recent] turmoil… is an emerging risk premium in US Treasury bonds and the dollar, akin to what the UK experienced in 2022,” according to Jonas Goltermann, deputy chief markets economist at Capital Economics.

But unless you’re a first-time buyer or selling your home, Americans are unlikely to be immediately hit by higher mortgage costs, unlike Brits who were securing new shorter-term fixed deals.

Since 2010, foreign ownership of US bonds has almost doubled, rising by $3 trillion, according to Deutsche Bank.

Japan holds the most US Treasuries, but China, the US’s arch enemy in this global trade war, is the second biggest holder of US government debt globally.

Questions were raised about whether it sparked the debt sell-off in response to being hit with huge tariffs.

However, this is unlikely as any fire sale “would impoverish China more than it would hurt the US”, according to Capital Economics.

Ryan Gosling is to star in a new Star Wars film, which is set to be released in two years’ time.

The new Disney project is titled Star Wars: Starfighter, and will be directed by Deadpool & Wolverine director Shawn Levy.

“The reality is that this script is just so good. It has such a great story with great and original characters,” said Barbie actor Gosling at a Star Wars Celebration in Tokyo.

“It’s filled with so much heart and adventure, and there just really is not a more perfect filmmaker for this particular story than Shawn.”

Gosling’s lifelong passion for the franchise was on display at the event, which showed his childhood Star Wars bedsheets on screen.

“You can see from the picture, I guess I was probably dreaming about Star Wars before I even saw the film,” he said.

“And it’s probably framed my idea of what a movie even was,” he said.

Set to be released on 7 May 2027, the film is a standalone story and won’t follow the main plotline of the Skywalker family and recent sequels starring Daisy Ridley.

Not many details about the storyline have been revealed yet.

According to the Star Wars website, it is “set approximately five years after the events of Star Wars: The Rise Of Skywalker” with Gosling playing a new character.

The new space adventure is “not a prequel, not sequel, it’s a new adventure. It’s set in a period of time that we haven’t seen explored yet”, added Levy.

The next Star Wars film release is set to be The Mandalorian And Grogu, a sequel to The Mandalorian starring Pedro Pascal and directed by Jon Favreau.

Gosling was nominated at the Oscars for his portrayal of Ken in 2023’s Barbie blockbuster, which also starred Margot Robbie.

The Canadian actor, known for roles in La La Land and The Notebook, also starred as a stuntman in last year’s The Fall Guy.

The dark chocolate version of Toblerone’s most popular bar has been discontinued after nearly six decades on confectionery shelves.

Food manufacturer Mondelēz International confirmed in a statement that its 360g dark chocolate bar would no longer be sold in the UK.

The company said it understood the “difficult decision” may be “disappointing for some consumers”.

It attributed the discontinuation to “changing tastes” and growing its business, adding it “continuously adapt[s]” its range and “continue[s] to invest in Toblerone”.

The original Toblerone bar was first invented in 1908, with a dark chocolate version – containing 50% cocoa – released in 1969.

Mondelēz did not indicate if its dark chocolate Toblerone was being discontinued elsewhere besides the UK, or if other sizes will also be discontinued. The BBC has approached the company for further comment.

The brand name Toblerone was created using the founder’s surname, “Tobler” and the Italian word for a type of nougat made with honey and almonds – “torrone” – which the chocolate contains.

The Swiss chocolate bar’s distinctive triangular shape is thought to have been inspired by the Matterhorn in the Alps – a silhouette of which appears on the packaging – though its true origins remain unclear.

A number of different versions have been released since it was first created, including a white chocolate version and a fruit and nut version.

The decision comes as the UK heads into the Easter bank holiday weekend, when chocolate sales are expected to be elevated.

But the industry has suffered from rising cocoa prices in recent years, reaching a record high in December, driven by a sharp fall in cocoa production.

The price of chocolate rose by 13.6% in the year to March, according to Office for National Statistics figures.

Last month, an investigation by Which? found that Easter egg prices in particular had risen by as much as 50% compared with the previous year, while chocolate sold in supermarkets in general had risen by 16.5% in the same period.

Claire Burnet, co-founder of Dorset-based premium chocolate company Chococo, said that the rising prices were “driven primarily by poor harvests from the two biggest cocoa producing countries in the world that account for 60% of global cocoa production – Ghana and the Ivory Coast.”

She told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme on Friday that there had been a “perfect storm” of “ageing farmers, ageing trees, declining yields, increasing disease and then you overlay climate change issues on top of that”.

Crops in West Africa have been particularly affected by unusually dry weather in recent years.