The US and Kyiv have signed an agreement to share profits and royalties from the future sale of Ukrainian minerals and rare earths, sealing a deal that Donald Trump has said will provide an economic incentive for the US to continue to invest in Ukraine’s defense and its reconstruction after he brokers a peace deal with Russia.

The minerals deal, which has been the subject of tense negotiations for months and nearly fell through hours before it was signed, will establish a US-Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund that the Trump administration has said will begin to repay an estimated $175bn in aid provided to Ukraine since the beginning of the war.

“This agreement signals clearly to Russia that the Trump administration is committed to a peace process centered on a free, sovereign, and prosperous Ukraine over the long term,” said Scott Bessent, the US treasury secretary, in a statement.

“President Trump envisioned this partnership between the American people and the Ukrainian people to show both sides’ commitment to lasting peace and prosperity in Ukraine. And to be clear, no state or person who financed or supplied the Russian war machine will be allowed to benefit from the reconstruction of Ukraine.”

Ukraine’s first deputy prime minister, Yulia Svyrydenko, confirmed in a social media post that she had signed the agreement on Wednesday. “Together with the United States, we are creating the fund that will attract global investment into our country,” she wrote. The deal still needs to be approved by Ukraine’s parliament.

Ukrainian officials have divulged details of the agreement which they portrayed as equitable and allowing Ukraine to maintain control over its natural resources.

The Ukrainian prime minister, Denys Shmyhal, said that the fund would be split 50-50 with between the US and Ukraine and give each side equal voting rights.

Ukraine would retain “full control over its mineral resources, infrastructure and natural resources,” he said, and would relate only to new investments, meaning that the deal would not provide for any debt obligations against Ukraine, a key concern for Kyiv. The deal would ensure revenue by establishing contracts on a “take-or-pay” basis, Shmyhal added.

Shmyhal on Wednesday described the deal as “truly a good, equal and beneficial international agreement on joint investments in the development and recovery of Ukraine”.

Critics of the deal had said the White House is seeking to take advantage of Ukraine by linking future aid to the embattled nation to a giveaway of the revenues from its resources. The final terms were far less onerous for Ukraine than those proposed initially by Bessent in February, which included a clause that the US would control 100% of the revenues from the fund.

It was unclear up until the last moment whether the US and Ukraine would manage to sign the deal, with Washington reportedly pressuring Ukraine to sign additional agreements, including on the structure of the investment fund, or to “go back home”. That followed months of strained negotiations during which the US regularly delivered last-minute ultimatums while cutting off aid and other support for Ukraine in its defence against Russia.

Ukraine’s prime minister earlier had said he expected the country to sign the minerals deal with the US in “the next 24 hours” but reports emerged that Washington was insisting Kyiv sign three deals in total.

The Financial Times said Bessent’s team had told Svyrydenko, who was reportedly en route to Washington DC, to “be ready to sign all agreements, or go back home”.

Bessent later said the US was ready to sign though Ukraine had made some last-minute changes.

Reuters reported that Ukraine believed the two supplementary agreements – reportedly on an investment fund and a technical document – required more work.

The idea behind the deal was originally proposed by Ukraine, looking for ways to offer economic opportunities that might entice Trump to back the country. But Kyiv was blindsided in January when Trump’s team delivered a document that would essentially involve handing over the country’s mineral wealth with little by way of return.

Since then, there have been various attempts to revise and revisit the terms of the deal, as well as a planned signing ceremony that was aborted after a disastrous meeting between Trump and Volodymyr Zelenskyy at the White House in February.

Earlier this month, it was revealed that the Ukrainian justice ministry had hired US law firm Hogan Lovells to advise on the negotiations over the deal, according to filings with the US Foreign Agents Registration Act registry.

In a post on Facebook, Ukraine’s first deputy prime minister Yulia Svyrydenko gave further details of the fund, which she said would “attract global investment”.

She confirmed that Ukraine would retain full ownership of resources “on our territory and in territorial waters belong to Ukraine”. “It is the Ukrainian state that determines where and what to extract,” she said.

There would be no changes to ownership of state-owned companies, she said, “they will continue to belong to Ukraine”. That included companies such as Ukrnafta, Ukraine’s largest oil producer, and nuclear energy producer Energoatom.

Income would come from new licences for critical materials and oil and gas projects, not from projects which had already begun, she said.

Income and contributions to the fund would not be taxed in the US or Ukraine, she said, “to make investments yield the greatest results”.

Razom for Ukraine, a US nonprofit that provides medical and humanitarian aid to Ukraine and advocates for US assistance, welcomed the deal, and encouraged the Trump administration to increase pressure on Vladimir Putin to end the invasion. “We encourage the Trump administration to build on the momentum of this economic agreement by forcing Putin to the table through sanctions, seizing Russia’s state assets to aid Ukraine, and giving Ukraine the tools it needs to defend itself,” Mykola Murskyj, director of advocacy for Razom, said in a statement.

• Kyiv and Washington have signed a deal that would share future revenues from Ukraine’s minerals, with the US to keep military aid flowing to the country, as well as US investment into its defence and reconstruction. Ukrainian prime minister Denys Shmyhal shared details of the deal, saying a new reconstruction and investment fund would be split 50-50 between Kyiv and the US, and give each side equal voting rights.

• The deal would relate only to new investments, Shmyhal said, meaning it would not provide for any debt obligations against Ukraine, a key concern for Kyiv. Ukraine would retain “full control over its mineral resources, infrastructure and natural resources,” Shmyhal added. The deal would ensure revenue by establishing contracts on a “take-or-pay” basis, Shmyhal said.

• Ukraine’s first deputy prime minister, Yulia Svyrydenko, said there would be no changes to ownership of state-owned companies, including Ukrnafta, Ukraine’s largest oil producer, and nuclear energy producer Energoatom. Income and contributions to the fund would not be taxed in the US or Ukraine, she said, “to make investments yield the greatest results”.

• Meanwhile, Vladimir Putin said some small groups of Ukrainian soldiers were still holed up in basements and hideouts in Russia’s western Kursk region. Speaking at an event in Moscow on Wednesday, the Russian president claimed radio intercepts suggested that the few Ukrainians left behind were asking commanders to evacuate them.

• The EU is preparing a “plan B” on how to keep economic sanctions against Russia should the US abandon Ukraine peace talks and seek rapprochement with Moscow, according to the bloc’s top diplomat, Kaja Kallas. “We see signs that they are contemplating whether they should leave Ukraine and not try to get a deal with the Russians because it’s hard,” Kallas told the Financial Times.

• The Kremlin claimed Putin was open to peace despite its continuing aggression on Ukraine, but stressed that the conflict is so complicated that the rapid progress that Washington wants is difficult to achieve, Reuters reported.

• Russia and North Korea have begun construction of a road bridge between the two countries as part of an effort to strengthen their strategic partnership, Russia’s prime minister, Mikhail Mishustin, said. It comes after South Korean lawmakers said about 600 North Korean troops have been killed fighting for Russia against Ukraine.

• Kyiv and Washington have signed a deal that would share future revenues from Ukraine’s minerals, with the US to keep military aid flowing to the country, as well as US investment into its defence and reconstruction. Ukrainian prime minister Denys Shmyhal shared details of the deal, saying a new reconstruction and investment fund would be split 50-50 between Kyiv and the US, and give each side equal voting rights.

• The deal would relate only to new investments, Shmyhal said, meaning it would not provide for any debt obligations against Ukraine, a key concern for Kyiv. Ukraine would retain “full control over its mineral resources, infrastructure and natural resources,” Shmyhal added. The deal would ensure revenue by establishing contracts on a “take-or-pay” basis, Shmyhal said.

• Ukraine’s first deputy prime minister, Yulia Svyrydenko, said there would be no changes to ownership of state-owned companies, including Ukrnafta, Ukraine’s largest oil producer, and nuclear energy producer Energoatom. Income and contributions to the fund would not be taxed in the US or Ukraine, she said, “to make investments yield the greatest results”.

• Meanwhile, Vladimir Putin said some small groups of Ukrainian soldiers were still holed up in basements and hideouts in Russia’s western Kursk region. Speaking at an event in Moscow on Wednesday, the Russian president claimed radio intercepts suggested that the few Ukrainians left behind were asking commanders to evacuate them.

• The EU is preparing a “plan B” on how to keep economic sanctions against Russia should the US abandon Ukraine peace talks and seek rapprochement with Moscow, according to the bloc’s top diplomat, Kaja Kallas. “We see signs that they are contemplating whether they should leave Ukraine and not try to get a deal with the Russians because it’s hard,” Kallas told the Financial Times.

• The Kremlin claimed Putin was open to peace despite its continuing aggression on Ukraine, but stressed that the conflict is so complicated that the rapid progress that Washington wants is difficult to achieve, Reuters reported.

• Russia and North Korea have begun construction of a road bridge between the two countries as part of an effort to strengthen their strategic partnership, Russia’s prime minister, Mikhail Mishustin, said. It comes after South Korean lawmakers said about 600 North Korean troops have been killed fighting for Russia against Ukraine.

Kristi Noem, the US homeland security secretary, said that if Kilmar Ábrego García was sent back to the US, the Donald Trump administration “would immediately deport him again”.

Noem repeated White House assertions about Ábrego García, a Salvadorian man who the Trump administration has admitted was mistakenly deported from Maryland last month, in a new interview with CBS.

“[Ábrego García] is not under our control. He is an El Salvador citizen. He is home there in his country. If he were to be brought back to the United States of America, we would immediately deport him again,” Noem said of the 29-year-old who entered the US illegally around 2011 after fleeing gang violence.

Ábrego García was subsequently afforded a federal protection order against deportation to El Salvador. Despite the order, on 15 March, Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials deported Ábrego García to El Salvador where he was held in the Center for Terrorism Confinement, a controversial mega-prison.

Though the Trump administration admitted that Ábrego García’s deportation was an “administrative error”, it has repeatedly cast him as an MS-13 gang member on television – a claim his wife, a US citizen, and his attorneys staunchly reject. Ábrego García has no criminal record in the US, according to court documents.

Since Ábrego García’s deportation, the Trump administration has refused to bring him back to the US – despite the supreme court unanimously ordering it to “facilitate” his release. Trump officials claim that US courts lack jurisdiction over the matter because Ábrego García is a Salvadorian national and no longer in the US.

Noem asserted the Trump administration’s claims to CBS, saying: “President Trump and his administration has adhered to the court and respects the court and its decision,” adding, “This individual is not under the United States of America’s jurisdiction and he is not one of our citizens. He is home in his home country. And that’s up to that country to decide what to do.”

Last week, a federal judge accused the White House of “bad faith” in the case, arguing that “defendants have sought refuge behind vague and unsubstantiated assertions of privilege, using them as a shield to obstruct discovery and evade compliance with this court’s orders”.

Yet, Noem maintains that the Trump administration spends “hours and hours” building cases against alleged gang members.

Upon being asked about the administration’s claims against individuals who have been deported without due process, the homeland security secretary said: “Obviously, we’re relying on the expertise of our investigators, our teams, double-checking, triple-checking, going through the paperwork, making sure that we have done everything absolutely correctly.”

Noem also accused federal judges who have issued court orders the Trump administration dislikes as “activist judges”.

“I’m sure that these judges will continue to challenge every single thing that this administration does. We have several activist judges across the country,” she said, despite some of the judges who have ruled against Trump’s immigration policies being nominated by Republicans.

Earlier this month, J Harvie Wilkinson, a Ronald Reagan-appointee and conservative appellate judge, called the Trump administration’s claims in Ábrego García’s case “shocking”, saying: “This should be shocking not only to judges, but to the intuitive sense of liberty that Americans far removed from courthouses still hold dear.”

Ukraine and the US have signed a deal pushed by President Donald Trump that will give the US preferential access to Ukrainian mineral resources and fund investment in Ukraine’s reconstruction.

The accord establishes a joint investment fund for Ukraine’s reconstruction as Trump tries to secure a peace settlement in Russia’s three-year-old war in Ukraine.

After fraught negotiations, which almost collapsed at the last minute, the agreement is central to Kyiv’s efforts to mend ties with Trump and the White House, which frayed after he took office in January.

Here are the key stories at a glance:

Catching up? Here’s what happened on 29 April 2025.

A fatal family lunch in regional Victoria is at the centre of a high-profile murder trial that is under way in the state’s supreme court.

Erin Patterson is accused of murdering her estranged husband Simon Patterson’s parents, Don and Gail Patterson, and Gail’s sister and Simon’s aunt, Heather Wilkinson, by feeding them a meal of beef wellington laced with death cap mushrooms in July 2023.

She is accused of attempting to murder Heather’s husband, Ian Wilkinson, who also attended the lunch at Erin’s home in Leongatha. Wilkinson recovered after spending weeks in hospital.

Patterson has pleaded not guilty to the murder and attempted murder charges. The trial began on 29 April in Morwell and is expected to run for up to six weeks.

Erin Patterson

The jury has heard Erin Patterson, 50, served the four guests individual beef wellingtons when they attended her home for a family lunch on 29 July 2023. Three later died from death cap mushroom poisoning. Patterson has denied deliberately poisoning them.

Patterson invited her estranged husband, Simon Patterson, and his relatives to her house to discuss “medical issues” she had and how to break the news to her and Simon’s two children, the court heard.

She invited the group to her lunch during a service at the Korumburra Baptist church, where Ian was the pastor, on 16 July 2023. The night before the lunch, Simon texted Patterson that he “felt uncomfortable” attending, but that he would be happy to discuss her health with her another time.

The court has heard Patterson told her lunch guests she had ovarian cancer. Both the defence and prosecution agree that she had not been diagnosed with the disease.

Simon Patterson

Simon Patterson is Erin’s estranged husband and the father of their two children. His parents, Don and Gail Patterson, and aunt, Heather Wilkinson, died after the lunch. His uncle, Ian Wilkinson, became ill but recovered after weeks in hospital.

Simon and Erin had an amicable relationship, despite their 2015 separation, until November 2022, the prosecution told the court.

Simon maintained hope that the couple would reconcile, the court heard.

Gail Patterson

Gail Patterson, 70, was Simon’s mother. Gail died the day before her husband, Don, six days after the lunch.

Gail lived with Don in Korumburra, which is a 14-minute drive from where the lunch was held in Leongatha. They had both worked as school teachers.

Don Patterson

Don Patterson, 70, was Simon’s father and Gail’s husband. He died seven days after the lunch was served.

In a memorial for his parents, Simon remembered Gail and Don as “very much a team”, adding: “The fact they died on consecutive days reflected the togetherness they had.”

Simon spoke about overseas trips with his father, including to the Mt Everest base camp. Younger climbers were struck by his father’s fitness when he was then in his 60s, he said.

Heather Wilkinson

Heather Wilkinson, 66, was Gail’s sister and Simon’s aunt. She died on 4 August 2023.

Heather was a former school teacher and was remembered by her son at her memorial service as a wonderful mother.

Ian Wilkinson

The Rev Ian Wilkinson, 70, survived the fatal mushroom lunch. Wilkinson was the pastor at the Korumburra Baptist church.

He was married to Heather for almost 45 years.

He spent weeks in hospital before being discharged in September 2023.

Martin Scorsese has made a documentary with the late Pope Francis that will feature conversations between the pontiff and Scorsese, including what the film-makers say was the pope’s final in-depth on-camera interview.

Aldeas – A New Story will detail the work of Scholas Occurrentes, a non-profit, international organisation founded by the pope in 2013 to promote what it termed “Culture of Encounter” among youth.

Part of that organisation’s work has included film-making, under the Aldeas initiative. The documentary will show young people in Indonesia, Gambia and Italy taking part in the program and making short films.

Aldeas Scholas Film and Scorsese’s Sikelia Productions, which announced the film on Wednesday, said the documentary would be “a testament to the enduring belief that creativity is not only a means of expression but a path to hope and transformation”.

Before his death, Pope Francis called Aldeas “an extremely poetic and very constructive project because it goes to the roots of what human life is, human sociability, human conflicts … the essence of a life’s journey”.

No release date was announced for the film.

Scorsese said: “Now, more than ever, we need to talk to each other, listen to one another cross-culturally. One of the best ways to accomplish this is by sharing the stories of who we are, reflected from our personal lives and experiences.

“It helps us understand and value how each of us sees the world. It was important to Pope Francis for people across the globe to exchange ideas with respect while also preserving their cultural identity, and cinema is the best medium to do that.”

Scorsese met numerous times with Pope Francis over the years, and their conversations sometimes informed work undertaken by the 82-year-old film-maker of The Last Temptation of Christ and Silence.

When Francis died on 21 April, Scorsese remembered him as “in every way, a remarkable human being”.

“He acknowledged his own failings,” he said. “He radiated wisdom. He radiated goodness. He had an ironclad commitment to the good.

“He knew in his soul that ignorance was a terrible plague on humanity. So he never stopped learning. And he never stopped enlightening. And, he embraced, preached and practiced forgiveness. Universal and constant forgiveness.”

He added: “The loss for me runs deep – I was lucky enough to know him, and I will miss his presence and his warmth. The loss for the world is immense. But he left a light behind, and it can never be extinguished.”

A conclave to elect a new pope is scheduled to begin on 7 May.

• Associated Press contributed to this report

One of the architects of Donald Trump’s 2024 victory claims he made an unpublicised visit to Australia to advise the Liberal party about “structural issues” related to Peter Dutton ahead of the federal election.

The veteran Republican strategist Chris LaCivita told undercover reporters posing as prospective clients for political consulting work he was working as a private consultant on the visit to Australia, not in an official capacity or as an adviser to the US president.

Footage of the undercover conversations was published on Thursday by the Europe-based organisations Correctiv and the Centre for Climate Reporting.

‘‘I was in Australia two weeks ago helping the Liberal party there, on some of their structural issues that they were having with Peter Dutton,” LaCivita said on 16 April in the first of two calls. Australia’s election campaign began on 28 March.

“Things somewhat seem to be moving in the right direction there… those efforts are strictly political in nature and don’t require me to engage with the United States government.”

LaCivita told the undercover reporters in a second call on 24 April he made the trip without publicity. He contrasts this to media reporting about his paid work with Albania’s opposition party.

“Never knew I was there,” he said, in reference to his claimed visit to Australia. “I try to maintain a degree of discretion … it just it gives us a degree of freedom of movement.”

A Coalition spokesman denied LaCivita had any connection to the Dutton campaign.

“Mr LaCivita is not advising, has never advised, and is not involved in any way with the Coalition campaign. Mr Dutton has not met with him.”

In a statement, LaCivita told Guardian Australia: “I did not and do not work for the Liberal Party of Australia. I provide consulting to a wide variety of business interests – some in Australia some in the US etc in terms of a political party – I have not.

“Also, I have never met Mr Dutton, but I hope to when he is elected prime minister.”

LaCivita was Trump’s co-campaign manager in his successful 2024 presidential run, along with the current White House chief of staff Susie Wiles.

Trump thanked LaCivita in his victory speech and LaCivita briefly took the microphone to thank the president, saying Trump was “a hell of a candidate, and he’s going to be a hell of a great 47th president”.

Visits and knowledge-sharing between like minded political parties and consultants are not uncommon in election campaigns.

Anthony Albanese has previously talked up ties with UK Labour. The ALP’s campaign boss Paul Erickson offered advice to strategists working to elect Sir Keir Starmer ahead of the UK’s 2024 election. Erickson was later invited to present at Labour’s annual party conference.

A US Marine veteran who received a Purple Heart for service in the first Gulf War, LaCivita helped craft the infamous Swift Boat Veterans for Truth campaign, considered a fatal blow for Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry in his 2004 race against George W Bush.

Dutton has distanced himself from associations with Trump during the campaign after initially pursuing policies that nodded to parts of the US president’s agenda – promising to sack 41,000 public servants, announcing a role for senator Jacinta Nampinjinpa Price in pursuing “government efficiency”, claiming students were being “indoctrinated” by the school curriculum and denouncing the ABC and Guardian Australia as “hate media”.

During the second leaders’ debate of the campaign, Dutton said: “We trust the US. I don’t know the president. I’ve not met him.”

Labor has tried to tie Dutton to Trump-style politics as polling showed voters were increasingly uncomfortable with the actions of the US president, particularly following the implementation of trade tariffs. The treasurer, Jim Chalmers, has labelled the opposition leader “Dogey Dutton”, referring to the so-called department of government efficiency (Doge) set up by Trump under the leadership of Elon Musk.

Labor is likely to point to claims about LaCivita’s visit as more evidence Dutton’s agenda is being guided by the unpopular Trump, but it also signals close ties between the Coalition and key members of the president’s inner circle, likely advantageous if Dutton wins Saturday’s election.

LaCivita’s credentials within Trump’s orbit are strong. Donald Trump Jr. called him “a supremely competent nuts-and-bolts guy,” in an interview with New York magazine.

“He doesn’t care about getting credit, he doesn’t care about stroking his own ego, he only cares about getting the job done and delivering for my father,” Trump Jr. said.

One of the architects of Donald Trump’s 2024 victory claims he made an unpublicised visit to Australia to advise the Liberal party about “structural issues” related to Peter Dutton ahead of the federal election.

The veteran Republican strategist Chris LaCivita told undercover reporters posing as prospective clients for political consulting work he was working as a private consultant on the visit to Australia, not in an official capacity or as an adviser to the US president.

Footage of the undercover conversations was published on Thursday by the Europe-based organisations Correctiv and the Centre for Climate Reporting.

‘‘I was in Australia two weeks ago helping the Liberal party there, on some of their structural issues that they were having with Peter Dutton,” LaCivita said on 16 April in the first of two calls. Australia’s election campaign began on 28 March.

“Things somewhat seem to be moving in the right direction there… those efforts are strictly political in nature and don’t require me to engage with the United States government.”

LaCivita told the undercover reporters in a second call on 24 April he made the trip without publicity. He contrasts this to media reporting about his paid work with Albania’s opposition party.

“Never knew I was there,” he said, in reference to his claimed visit to Australia. “I try to maintain a degree of discretion … it just it gives us a degree of freedom of movement.”

A Coalition spokesman denied LaCivita had any connection to the Dutton campaign.

“Mr LaCivita is not advising, has never advised, and is not involved in any way with the Coalition campaign. Mr Dutton has not met with him.”

In a statement, LaCivita told Guardian Australia: “I did not and do not work for the Liberal Party of Australia. I provide consulting to a wide variety of business interests – some in Australia some in the US etc in terms of a political party – I have not.

“Also, I have never met Mr Dutton, but I hope to when he is elected prime minister.”

LaCivita was Trump’s co-campaign manager in his successful 2024 presidential run, along with the current White House chief of staff Susie Wiles.

Trump thanked LaCivita in his victory speech and LaCivita briefly took the microphone to thank the president, saying Trump was “a hell of a candidate, and he’s going to be a hell of a great 47th president”.

Visits and knowledge-sharing between like minded political parties and consultants are not uncommon in election campaigns.

Anthony Albanese has previously talked up ties with UK Labour. The ALP’s campaign boss Paul Erickson offered advice to strategists working to elect Sir Keir Starmer ahead of the UK’s 2024 election. Erickson was later invited to present at Labour’s annual party conference.

A US Marine veteran who received a Purple Heart for service in the first Gulf War, LaCivita helped craft the infamous Swift Boat Veterans for Truth campaign, considered a fatal blow for Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry in his 2004 race against George W Bush.

Dutton has distanced himself from associations with Trump during the campaign after initially pursuing policies that nodded to parts of the US president’s agenda – promising to sack 41,000 public servants, announcing a role for senator Jacinta Nampinjinpa Price in pursuing “government efficiency”, claiming students were being “indoctrinated” by the school curriculum and denouncing the ABC and Guardian Australia as “hate media”.

During the second leaders’ debate of the campaign, Dutton said: “We trust the US. I don’t know the president. I’ve not met him.”

Labor has tried to tie Dutton to Trump-style politics as polling showed voters were increasingly uncomfortable with the actions of the US president, particularly following the implementation of trade tariffs. The treasurer, Jim Chalmers, has labelled the opposition leader “Dogey Dutton”, referring to the so-called department of government efficiency (Doge) set up by Trump under the leadership of Elon Musk.

Labor is likely to point to claims about LaCivita’s visit as more evidence Dutton’s agenda is being guided by the unpopular Trump, but it also signals close ties between the Coalition and key members of the president’s inner circle, likely advantageous if Dutton wins Saturday’s election.

LaCivita’s credentials within Trump’s orbit are strong. Donald Trump Jr. called him “a supremely competent nuts-and-bolts guy,” in an interview with New York magazine.

“He doesn’t care about getting credit, he doesn’t care about stroking his own ego, he only cares about getting the job done and delivering for my father,” Trump Jr. said.

The US economy shrank in the first three months of the year, according to official data, triggering fears of an American recession and a global economic slowdown.

Donald Trump, who returned to the White House promising to “make America great again”, sought to blame Joe Biden for the figure.

However, economists said it was largely driven by an unprecedented surge in imports, as consumers and companies braced for the president to impose his controversial wave of tariffs.

“This is Biden’s Stock Market, not Trump’s,” Trump wrote on social media, adding that the contraction “has NOTHING TO DO WITH TARIFFS, only that he left us with bad numbers, but when the boom begins, it will be like no other. BE PATIENT!!!”

Democrats argued the figures were a damning verdict on the new administration’s handling of the economy. Senator Jeff Merkley said: “Trump has been in office for only 100 days, and costs, chaos and corruption are already on the rise. The economy is slowing, prices are going up, and middle-class families are feeling the pinch.”

Gross domestic product (GDP), a key measure of the US economy, contracted by 0.3% in the first quarter of the year, down from growth of 2.4% in the last quarter of 2024. The contraction – the first since the start of 2022 – puts the US on the brink of a technical recession, defined by two quarters of negative growth.

The drop in activity comes amid a huge fall in consumer sentiment, which in April dropped 32% to its lowest level since the 1990 recession.

US stocks dropped on Wednesday morning. By the end of the day, the S&P 500 and Dow Jones had eked out small gains while the Nasdaq had dropped marginally.

On the eve of Wednesday’s GDP report, Trump claimed at a rally in Michigan that he had built “the greatest economy in the history of our country” during his first presidency, which ended in 2021, adding: “We did great, and we’re doing better now.”

Responding promptly to data suggesting otherwise on Wednesday, Trump tried to argue his predecessor was responsible.

“I didn’t take over until January 20th,” he wrote on his Truth Social platform. “Tariffs will soon start kicking in, and companies are starting to move into the USA in record numbers. Our Country will boom, but we have to get rid of the Biden ‘Overhang.’”

Trump spent much of the first quarter threatening, and fleetingly implementing, sweeping tariffs on Canada and Mexico, and targeting China with higher duties on its exports.

Days into the second quarter, which was not covered by today’s GDP reading, he ordered even higher tariffs on goods from much of the world, before pulling back the tariffs on all countries but China. As it stands, Trump is charging a 10% universal tariff on imported goods from much of the world, along with a 145% tariff on imports from China.

Seemingly responding to deep fluctuations in the US stock market, Trump has shelved a wave of so-called “reciprocal tariffs” of up to 49% on specific countries, which he halted for 90 days.

He offered some relief to US automakers, who were facing a 25% tariff on all auto imports on Tuesday, signing an executive order that would allow them to receive a credit if they import auto parts but assemble the cars in the US.

Last week, stocks rallied on news that Trump said his tariffs of at least 145% against China – which already has exemptions for some electronics – will be reduced “substantially” as the White House negotiates a deal with Beijing, though he said that the tariff would not be eliminated completely. China has placed a 125% retaliatory tariff on American goods.

Some economists are pointing out that the decline in GDP over the last few months is largely due to the oversized amount of imports that American businesses purchased in anticipation of Trump’s tariffs. When calculating GDP, imports are subtracted to account for the amount of consumption that is not from domestic production.

While the International Monetary Fund has downgraded its forecasts for US growth this year because of tariffs, some economists said the plunge in imports the border taxes will cause from April could mean GDP rebounds in the second quarter, sparing Trump a recession for now.

Elon Musk also played a role in the first quarter contraction. A 5.1% fall in federal spending also complicated the data, as the billionaire presidential adviser’s so-called “department of government efficiency” (Doge) made huge cuts to the executive branch. And consumption slowed from 4% to 1.8%, amid severe weather and a drop in non-profit spending after election donations stopped.

New data released on Wednesday highlighted how new tariffs appear to be significantly slowing trade. In China, factory activity slowed in April, with Beijing blaming “sharp changes” in the global economy as US tariffs pounded exports. Exports from the Chinese e-commerce companies Temu and Shein to the US have plunged 65%, while exports to the EU rose by 28%. Meanwhile, the British sports carmaker Aston Martin said that it would limit exports to the US in the midst of Trump’s tariffs.

Also on Wednesday, the payroll firm ADP said that payrolls in the private sector went up by just 62,000 in April, the smallest gain since July – an ominous sign ahead of Friday’s release of official employment data for April, often used by economists to gauge the health of the labor market.

While the White House has said in recent weeks that Trump’s tariffs are meant to be a negotiating tactic, leaders around the world have said they will retaliate if Trump continues to try to bully them into negotiations.

“If one chooses to remain silent, compromise and cower, it will only make the bully want to push his luck more,” said the Chinese foreign minister, Wang Yi, on Monday.

Trump has been sensitive to criticism of his tariffs and the impact they are having on the economy. At one point over the last month, Trump threatened to remove Jerome Powell from his role as chair of the US Federal Reserve after Powell said that Trump’s tariffs could lead to permanent price hikes.

After markets fell, Trump eventually backed down, telling reporters that he had “no intention” of firing Powell.

South Africa’s president, Cyril Ramaphosa, is setting up an inquiry into whether past ANC governments interfered with the investigation and prosecution of apartheid-era crimes, amid criticism from the families of victims.

A group of 25 relatives and survivors of apartheid-era deaths and violence sued the government in January, claiming that interference from “the highest levels of government” blocked investigations into cases referred to the National Prosecuting Authority by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC).

On Wednesday, the presidency said in a statement: “Allegations of improper influence in delaying or hindering the investigation and prosecution of apartheid-era crimes have persisted from previous administrations.

“Through this commission, President Ramaphosa is determined that the true facts be established and the matter brought to finality … President Ramaphosa appreciates the anguish and frustration of the families of victims, who have fought for so many years for justice.”

The families suing the government include those of four men known as the Cradock Four, who were beaten, strangled with telephone wire, stabbed and shot to death in one of the most notorious killings of South Africa’s apartheid era.

In 1999, the country’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) denied six security officers amnesty for their role in the killings of Fort Calata, Sparrow Mkonto, Matthew Goniwe and Sicelo Mhlauli. The officers were never prosecuted and are all now dead.

The families criticised Ramaphosa’s decision that an inquiry should assess their claims for “constitutional damages” – their high court case asked for 167m rand (£7.3m) to fund further investigations and litigation, as well as memorials and public education – and said that their rights were violated.

They said in a statement that an inquiry would have no authority over these areas and would only be able to offer advice. “This fundamental shortcoming was pointed out to the president’s legal team, as well as the fact that it will likely result in the issues remaining unresolved for years. This will perpetuate the pain and trauma that the families and survivors have experienced for many years.”

South Africa’s governments have been led by the African National Congress party of Nelson Mandela since the end of apartheid over 30 years ago.

In March, Thabo Mbeki, who was president from 1999 to 2008, and the former justice minister Brigitte Mabandla applied to intervene in the families’ high court case. Mbeki has repeatedly denied interfering in decisions to prosecute apartheid-era cases.

Israel’s urgent security needs override its obligations to provide aid to Palestinians in Gaza, a US state department lawyer has told the international court of justice (ICJ).

Joshua Simmons spoke as the United Nations’ top court hears a case on Israel’s ban on cooperation with Unwra, the UN’s main agency for Palestinians.

He said that Israel had no duty under the Geneva convention to cooperate specifically with Unrwa, due to its concerns about the organisation’s links to Hamas – an allegation that has been fiercely contested.

Simmons addressed the ICJ in The Hague on the third day of the hearing and the 60th day of Israel’s complete ban on any aid, food or water entering Gaza. The ban applies to all agencies, but in October the Knesset voted to end all cooperation with Unrwa specifically, bringing its operations to a halt.

Last week, Donald Trump said he had personally urged Benjamin Netanyahu to allow aid into Gaza, but Israel has said the ban would continue until all hostages held by Hamas are released. Trump said he told Israel’s prime minister: “We have got to be good to Gaza.”

In December, the UN general assembly asked the ICJ to give an advisory opinion on Israel’s obligations as an occupying power to provide humanitarian aid, and whether the ban on cooperation and contact with Unrwa breaches its privileges and immunities as a UN body.

Simmons insisted in his alloted half-hour presentation that the US did want to see aid enter Gaza, but denied there was any unqualified legal obligation for Israel to allow this, either as the occupying power or as a UN member state.

He argued that an “expansive” ruling by the ICJ setting out Israel’s obligations and any remedies would be damaging to the credibility of international law.

“Novel legal interpretations will not bring an end to the ongoing conflict. They will not bring the hostages home. They will not create a better tomorrow for Israelis, Palestinians and the region,” he said.

“To be clear, the United States supports the flow of humanitarian aid into Gaza, with the safeguards to ensure it is not looted or misused by terrorist groups. We encourage the international community to focus on advancing a ceasefire and on fresh thinking for a better future for Israelis and Palestinians alike.”

He said the only issues to be addressed were whether Israel was obliged under the law of occupation to cooperate with a third party such as Unrwa to provide aid, and whether Israel had been directed to supply aid by the UN security council.

Arguing that the court had heard little about Israel’s legitimate security fears regarding Unwra, he added: “You have heard concerns about Israel’s decision to cease engagement with Unrwa. You have heard little, however, about the serious, credible concerns about Hamas misusing Unrwa facilities and humanitarian assistance. You have also heard little of Israel’s security needs after the terrorist attacks on 7 October, 2023. These security needs persist today.”

He said the evidence provided ample grounds for Israel to be concerned, and argued that nothing in the Geneva convention placed unqualified obligations on an occupying power to provide aid.

“An occupying power has obligations related to maintaining public order and safety and protecting the civilian population. It also has the right, while an occupier, to pursue its military objectives and govern enemy territory,” he said. “The occupying power does not lose its right to ensure its own security.”

He added that Israel has no obligation to permit Unrwa specifically to provide humanitarian assistance. “Unrwa is not the only option,” he said. “In sum, there is no legal requirement that an occupying power permit a specific third state or international organisation to conduct activities in occupied territory that would compromise its security interests.”

He also questioned the right of the UN general assembly – representing all member states, as opposed to the 15-strong UN security council – to place any obligation on Israel to cooperate with Unrwa.

“The general assembly does not have the power to impose a perpetual obligation to cooperate with Unrwa,” he said. “There should be no finding either as to compliance with any obligations identified in this proceeding, or as to the legal consequences of any alleged breach.”

Israel, in its written submission to the court, argued that the ICJ does not have the necessary investigative tools to determine the competing claims, and that there is no full obligation on Israel to provide aid.

It claimed that the case “is part of an abusive and systematic campaign that regrettably weaponises international law, and international legal institutions, with the aim of depriving Israel of fundamental rights accorded to all sovereign states, including the right to defend itself.”

It added: “The obligations on a state under humanitarian international law are not unqualified and include the obligation of a state in acting to defend its existence, its territory and its people. Israel is fully committed to complying with international law, but that law is not a suicide pact.”

Israel submitted written but not oral evidence to the court by a 28 February deadline, before the total ban came into effect.

The ICJ’s newly elected president, Yuji Iwasawa, a Japanese judge and professor of international law, is sitting with 12 other judges in the five-day proceedings.

“Our flag will never be red!” rightwing Brazilians took to chanting during the heyday of the left-bashing former president Jair Bolsonaro.

But their football shirts soon might be, amid incendiary reports that the Brazilian Football Confederation (CBF) is considering introducing a crimson jersey for the national team ahead of the 2026 World Cup.

Those claims have sparked predictable outrage among hardcore rightwingers who consider red the anti-patriotic colour of Brazil’s leftwing president, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, his Workers’ party (PT) and the Landless Workers’ Movement (MST).

“Our team’s shirt will never be red – and neither will our country!” thundered Romeu Zema, a conservative governor hoping to claim the mantle of Bolsonaro, who faces jail for allegedly masterminding a failed rightwing coup after losing the 2022 election. In a social media video, Zema hurled a mock-up of the red shirt on to the ground in theatrical disgust.

Bolsonaro’s politician son, Flávio Bolsonaro, said the supposed plans needed “vehemently repudiating”, insisting: “Our flag isn’t red – and it never will be.”

But Bolsonaristas are not the only ones up in arms about the reported attempt to swap Brazil’s blue away shirt – in use since the country won the first of its five World Cup, in 1958 – for a red one.

Football purists of all political stripes have clobbered the “leaked” plans since they surfaced on Monday in a viral report by the football website Footy Headlines.

The idea has proved so controversial that the CBF was forced to deny it on Tuesday insisting online images of the red jersey were not official and that it remained committed to yellow and blue shirts. The kit for next year’s World Cup had yet to be designed in partnership with Brazil’s official kit supplier Nike, the CBF claimed.

Walter Casagrande, a Lula-voting former player and commentator who is associated with Brazil’s left and pro-democracy movement, called the scheme “idiocy”.

Sports writer Paulo Vinícius Coelho said the move showed “a complete lack of sense” and was almost certainly commercially driven.

Galvão Bueno, Brazil’s most famous TV commentator, called the idea “a crime” and a “gigantic insult” to the glorious history of a national team which has won more World Cups than any other country.

Some leftwing Brazilians were more receptive to the idea of a crimson kit. Over the past decade the country’s iconic yellow jersey has become a symbol of the far right and is regularly worn at pro-Bolsonaro rallies. Many progressives now refuse to wear it.

In a pro-red shirt manifesto, columnist Milly Lacombe declared that she would wear the jersey with pride and rejected the outbreak of “collective hysteria” over the mooted shirt. “Red is a strong colour that stands for revolution, change, transformation, blood, struggle, life, death, rebirth,” she wrote.

Juca Kfouri, a left-leaning football writer who is among those who shun the yellow shirt, also rejected the “bad taste” change, arguing that a red shirt would further fuel the toxic politics swirling around the national team’s attire and divide supporters.

“Red doesn’t have anything to do with Brazil,” Kfouri said, although he noted that Brazil took its name from a redwood tree called pau-brasil (brazilwood in English) and, in the early 19th century, had red in its first flag.

Kfouri suspected the red shirt story was “a trial balloon” devised to see how the money-making ruse went down with fans. “Just like politicians sometimes leak a policy, wait to see how the social networks react and, depending on that reaction, give up or move ahead,” he said.

For the CBF, the hoo-ha was also a helpful diversion as it sought to shift attention away from its apparent failure to recruit the Real Madrid manager, Carlo Ancelotti, as Brazil’s next manager and a compromising exposé in a Brazilian magazine. “It distracts from the things that really matter,” Kfouri said.