Donald Trump is proposing huge cuts to social programmes like health and education while planning substantial spending increases on defence and the Department of Homeland Security, in a White House budget blueprint that starkly illustrates his preoccupation with projecting military strength and deterring migration.

Cuts of $163bn on discretionary non-defence spending would also see financial outlays slashed for environmental and renewable energy schemes, as well as for the FBI, an agency Trump has claimed was weaponised against him during Joe Biden’s presidency. Spending reductions are also being projected for the Drug Enforcement Administration and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

In contrast to the squeeze on discretionary social programmes, the administration is planning a 13% rise – to more than $1tn – in the Pentagon budget, a commitment at odds with Trump’s frequent vows to end the US’s involvement in “forever wars” in the Middle East and elsewhere.

The figures for the White House’s so-called “skinny budget” for 2026 represent a 22.6% cut in spending from that projected in the current fiscal year, which ends on 30 September.

They include big cuts to the National Institutes of Health – which undertakes extensive research on cures for diseases such as cancer – as well as for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, but provide funding of $500m for the Make America healthy again initiative spearheaded by Trump’s health secretary, Robert F Kennedy Jr.

By contrast, the Department of Homeland Security – which oversees border security – would see its spending boosted by 65% in a graphic illustration of Trump’s intense focus on stemming the flow of migrants into the US.

Non-defence discretionary spending refers to federal money that is reauthorised each year and generally covers areas like public health, transport and education. The latter sector faces cuts of $12bn under Trump’s plan.

But it does not cover the highly sensitive areas of Medicare, Medicaid and social security, which provide healthcare and support for retirees and the poor and which the president has vowed to leave untouched. That has drawn widespread scepticism from Democrats, who accuse the Republican of plotting cuts to the programmes to pay for an extension of Trump’s sweeping 2017 tax cuts.

The spending clampdown is consistent with the professed goals of Elon Musk’s unofficial “department of government efficiency” team, also known as Doge, which has infiltrated multiple federal agencies – including the Social Security Administration – in a supposed quest for “waste, fraud and abuse”. Doge’s aggressive onslaught has included the almost total shuttering of USAID, the federal agency for foreign assistance. The budget projections assume large-scale cuts to foreign aid.

Russell Vought, director of the White House office of management and budget and a proponent of large-scale cuts to the federal workforce, said the plan was intended to tackle “wasteful spending and bloated bureaucracy”.

“At this critical moment, we need a historic budget – one that ends the funding of our decline, puts Americans first, and delivers unprecedented support to our military and homeland security,” he said.

Donald Trump has signed an executive order that seeks to cut public funding for National Public Radio and the Public Broadcasting Service, accusing them of leftwing bias.

The order, signed late on Thursday, directs the board of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which sends funds to NPR and PBS, to “cease federal funding” for the two outlets.

“Government funding of news media in this environment is not only outdated and unnecessary but corrosive to the appearance of journalistic independence,” the order says.

“At the very least, Americans have the right to expect that if their tax dollars fund public broadcasting at all, they fund only fair, accurate, unbiased, and nonpartisan news coverage.”

Public media are expected to fight the executive order. In a statement on Friday, PBS said it was “exploring all options”.

“The president’s blatantly unlawful executive order, issued in the middle of the night, threatens our ability to serve the American public with educational programming, as we have for the past 50-plus years,” said Paula Kerger, president and CEO of PBS. “We are currently exploring all options to allow PBS to continue to serve our member stations and all Americans.”

A fact sheet accompanying the order mentions as justification the supposed voter registrations of NPR employees and coverage of trans issues, diversity, Covid-19’s origins and Hunter Biden’s laptop.

Trump’s move is a long time coming for the US president who has made attacking the media, which he dubs the “enemy of the people”, a cornerstone of his political rise. On 1 April, he wrote on Truth Social, in all capital letters: “Republicans must defund and totally disassociate themselves from NPR & PBS, the radical left ‘monsters’ that so badly hurt our country!”

NPR and PBS are considered the closest entities the US has to national public broadcasters such as the BBC in Britain, CBC in Canada and ABC in Australia, albeit with various organizational and financial differences.

The idea of defunding public media has long been on the conservative wishlist. Project 2025, the rightwing manifesto led by the Heritage Foundation, notes that “every Republican President since Richard Nixon” sought to peel away taxpayer funding from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, though none have been successful yet. The manifesto suggests the president simply refuse to sign a spending bill if it includes any funding for public broadcasting.

The CEOs of PBS, Paula Kerger, and of NPR, Katherine Maher, were called in March to testify before a House oversight and government reform subcommittee hearing called “Anti-American Airwaves: Holding the Heads of NPR and PBS Accountable”, in order to defend the outlets’ programming and confront accusations of bias.

Republicans have frequently pointed to old tweets from Maher, before she held the NPR role, in which she called Trump “racist” and “fascist”, which she has said she regrets.

More than 40 million Americans listen to NPR public radio each week, and 36 million watch a local television station from the PBS network each month, according to their estimates.

NPR provides news and music through a national outlet and member stations throughout the country. National NPR has said about 1% of its budget comes from the federal government directly, with some additional funds coming indirectly, though for member stations in local communities, that number is higher, about 8-10%, according to NPR. The bulk of funding for NPR comes from membership fees paid by NPR member stations to use national programming, underwriting and private donations.

Maher said in an April interview with NPR that rural stations would see the biggest impact. “You could see some of those stations really having to cut back services or potentially going away altogether,” she said.

“Eliminating funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting would have a devastating impact on American communities across the nation that rely on public radio for trusted local and national news, culture, lifesaving emergency alerts and public safety information,” NPR said in a statement on Friday.

PBS provides educational programming, including children’s shows such as Sesame Street, and news and documentary shows. A fact sheet from PBS says on average federal funds make up 15% of their revenue, but a funding cut would be especially acute for smaller and rural stations.

It is not clear if the funding cut would happen immediately. The CPB’s budget is already approved by Congress through 2027, and in a statement to the New York Times on Friday, CPB’s president, Patricia Harrison, said the agency was not subject to the president’s authority. “Congress directly authorized and funded CPB to be a private non-profit corporation wholly independent of the federal government,” she said.

Detailed army plans for a potential military parade on Donald Trump’s birthday in June call for more than 6,600 soldiers, at least 150 vehicles, 50 helicopters, seven bands and possibly a couple of thousand civilians, the Associated Press has learned.

At the same time, Fox News reported that the parade was a definite go-ahead and would happen on 14 June, the 250th birthday of the United States army as well as Trump’s own birthday, when he will become 79.

In addition to active-duty soldiers, the parade will include re-enactors, equipment and more from a variety of historical US conflicts from the revolutionary war to the civil war and the two world wars and the more recent conflicts in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, Fox reported.

“The president is planning an historic celebration of the army’s 250th birthday that will honor generations of selfless Americans who have risked everything for our freedom,” Vince Haley, the White House domestic policy council director, told the outlet.

The planning documents obtained by the AP are dated 29 and 30 April and have not been publicly released. They represent the army’s most recent blueprint for its long-planned anniversary festival on the National Mall and the newly added element – a large military parade that Trump has long wanted but is still being discussed.

While the slides do not include any price estimates, it would probably cost tens of millions of dollars to put on a parade of that size. Costs would include the movement of military vehicles, equipment, aircraft and troops from across the country to Washington and the need to feed and house thousands of service members.

High costs halted Trump’s push for a parade in his first term, and the tanks and other heavy vehicles that are part of the army’s latest plans have raised concerns from city officials about damage to roads.

Asked about plans for a parade, an army spokesperson, Steve Warren, said on Thursday that no final decisions have been made.

Col Dave Butler, another army spokesman, added that the army was excited about the plans for its anniversary.

“We want to make it into an event that the entire nation can celebrate with us,” said Butler. “We want Americans to know their army and their soldiers. A parade might become part of that, and we think that will be an excellent addition to what we already have planned.”

Others familiar with the documents, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the plans have not been finalized, said they represent the army’s plans as it prepares for any White House approval of the parade. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

There has been no formal approval yet. Changes to the plans have been made in recent weeks and more are likely.

In a Truth Social post on Thursday night that did not mention the 14 June plans, Trump wrote, “We are going to start celebrating our victories again!” He vowed to rename 8 May, now known as Victory in Europe Day, as “Victory Day for World War II”, and to change 11 November, Veterans Day, to “Victory Day for World War I”.

Some equipment and troops were already going to be included in the army’s birthday celebration, which has been in the works for more than a year. The festival was set to involve an array of activities and displays on the National Mall, including a fitness competition, climbing wall, armored vehicles, Humvees, helicopters and other equipment.

A parade, however, would increase the equipment and troops involved. According to the plans, as many as 6,300 of the service members would be marching in the parade, while the remainder would be responsible for other tasks and support.

The plans say the parade would showcase the army’s 250 years of service and foresee bringing in soldiers from at least 11 corps and divisions nationwide. Those could include a Stryker battalion with two companies of Stryker vehicles, a tank battalion and two companies of tanks, an infantry battalion with Bradley vehicles, Paladin artillery vehicles, howitzers and infantry vehicles.

There would be seven army bands and a parachute jump by the Golden Knights. And documents suggest that civilian participants would include historical vehicles and aircraft and two bands, along with people from veterans groups, military colleges and re-enactor organizations.

In his first term, Trump proposed having a parade after seeing one in France on Bastille Day in 2017. Trump said that after watching the two-hour procession along the famed Champs-Élysées that he wanted an even grander one on Pennsylvania Avenue.

That plan was ultimately dumped due to the huge costs – with one estimate of a $92m price tag – and other logistical issues. Among those were objections from city officials who said including tanks and other heavy armored vehicles would tear up the roads.

A ship carrying humanitarian aid and activists to Gaza has been bombed by drones and disabled while in international waters off Malta as it headed towards the Palestinian territory, its organisers have said.

“At 00:23 Maltese time, the Conscience, a Freedom Flotilla Coalition ship came under direct attack in international waters,” the group said in a statement.

“Armed drones attacked the front of an unarmed civilian vessel twice, causing a fire and a substantial breach in the hull,” it added, blaming Israel.

The strike appeared to target the boat’s generator early on Friday, leaving the boat without power and at risk of sinking, the activists said. Images posted to social media by the Freedom Flotilla Coalition showed a fierce blaze onboard the ship and two explosions.

There was no confirmation or further evidence of the claim that drones caused the blasts, but images of the Conscience provided by Cypriot authorities showed significant damage.

Twelve crew members and four civilians were “confirmed safe”, the Maltese government said in a statement on Friday. “The vessel had 12 crew members onboard and four civilian passengers; no casualties were reported,” the statement said, adding that a nearby tug had been directed to aid the vessel.

The group said activists from 21 countries were onboard on a “mission to challenge Israel’s illegal and deadly siege of Gaza and to deliver desperately needed, life-saving aid”.

The statement read: “Israeli ambassadors must be summoned and answer to violations of international law, including the ongoing blockade and the bombing of our civilian vessel in international waters.”

Israel has not commented on the allegation.

According to the monitoring website MarineTraffic, the Conscience left the Tunisian port of Bizerte on Tuesday and arrived in the area where it reported being attacked on Thursday morning. The ship was heading to a point near Malta where it was to pick up activists, including the climate-change campaigner Greta Thunberg, from a smaller vessel.

Thunberg confirmed to Reuters she was in Malta and had been supposed to board the ship.

“I was part of the group who was supposed to board that boat today to continue the voyage towards Gaza, which is one of many attempts to open up a humanitarian corridor and to do our part to keep trying to break Israel’s illegal siege on Gaza,” she said. “This attack caused an explosion and major damage to the vessel, which made it impossible to continue the mission.”

The group said it had been organising a non-violent action under a media blackout in order to avoid any potential sabotage.

A previous sailing launched by the coalition from southern Turkey in 2010 ended in bloodshed when Israeli forces stormed the Mavi Marmara vessel, killing 10 people and wounding 28.

Turkey’s foreign ministry said Turkish nationals were on board the Conscience at the time of the incident.

“We condemn in the strongest terms this attack on a civilian ship,” it said, noting that there were “allegations that the ship was targeted by Israeli drones”.

“All necessary efforts will be made to reveal the details of the attack as soon as possible and to bring the perpetrators to justice,” it said.

Israel imposed a tight blockade on Gaza two months ago, allowing no food, fuel, medicine or other item into the territory, and resumed intense military operations in Gaza in mid-March after a fragile ceasefire collapsed.

Humanitarian organisations in Gaza have distributed the last of their stocks of flour and other foodstuffs. Officials in the devastated Palestinian territory said on Friday that the kitchens that serve basic meals to those with no other option would be forced to close within a week to 10 days.

On Friday, the International Committee of the Red Cross said it would not have access to food, medicine and life-saving supplies needed for many of its Gaza programmes unless aid deliveries resumed immediately.

“Aid must be allowed to enter Gaza. Hostages must be released. Civilians must be protected,” it said. “Without immediate action, Gaza will descend further into chaos that humanitarian efforts will not be able to mitigate.”

Medical workers in Gaza’s remaining health facilities said they were now prioritising cases to make sure available medical stocks were reserved for the most serious. Medicine for chronic diseases such as cancer, diabetes and high blood pressure is virtually unobtainable, officials said.

“I don’t know how people are managing. They have lost everything. The displacement continues every day and more people are searching for shelter and whatever they need to survive,” said Amjad Shawa, the director of the Palestinian NGOs Network in Gaza.

A UN team has been sent to the devastated Palestinian territory to assess levels of malnutrition and the risk of famine.

Israeli officials justify the blockade with claims that Hamas routinely steals aid, distributing it to its fighters or selling it. Aid officials in Gaza deny any widespread theft of aid in recent months.

Media in Israel have reported a plan to use private contractors to distribute food from centralised hubs protected by the Israeli military to Palestinians who have been vetted. Humanitarian officials in Gaza say the plan is unworkable and potentially illegal.

The war in Gaza was triggered by Hamas’s attack on southern Israel in October 2023, which resulted in the deaths of about 1,200 people, mostly civilians. The health ministry in Hamas-run Gaza said on Thursday that at least 2,326 people had been killed since Israel resumed strikes, bringing the overall death toll since the war broke out to 52,418, also mostly civilians.

Syria’s new rulers have angrily denounced raids launched by Israel’s air force against unidentified targets near the presidential palace in Damascus, warning of a “dangerous escalation”.

Israeli officials said the attacks were intended to send a message to the Syrian government after days of bloody clashes near Damascus between pro-government militia forces and fighters from the Druze minority sect.

Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s prime minister, and the defence minister, Israel Katz, said in a joint statement that the attack early on Friday, the second this week in Syria, was intended to deter the country’s new leadership from any hostile move against the Druze.

“This is a clear message to the Syrian regime. We will not allow the deployment of forces south of Damascus or any threat to the Druze community,” the statement said.

The Israeli army confirmed in a statement that fighter jets struck near to the area of the palace of the president, Ahmed al-Sharaa, in Damascus but gave no further details.

On Friday, an Israeli fighter jet killed four civilians in another strike on Kanaker, a town south-west of the Druze-majority province Sweida. The strike came after repeated statements by a spokesperson for the Israeli military that it was deployed in southern Syria to prevent the entry of “enemy forces” into Druze villages.

Israel has said it will protect the Druze religious minority in Syria, a declaration that most Druze leaders have rebuffed.

The government in Damascus took power after ousting Bashar al-Assad in December last year and is dominated by the militant group Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, which has its roots in the al-Qaida jihadist network. Though Syria’s new rulers have promised inclusive rule in the multi-confessional, multi-ethnic country, they face pressures from extremists within their own ranks.

Syria’s presidency called the strike “a dangerous escalation against state institutions and its sovereignty” and accused Israel of destabilising the country.

The clashes broke out on Tuesday after an audio clip circulated on social media of a man making derogatory comments about the prophet Muhammad. The clip, which was attributed to a Druze cleric, angered many Sunni Muslims, but may have been fabricated.

On Thursday, one of the three Syrian Druze spiritual leaders, Sheikh Hikmat al-Hijri, accused Syria’s government, which is mostly made up of radical Islamist groups led by Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, of what he called an “unjustified genocidal attack” on the minority community.

Hijri released a statement calling for international protection for the Druze in southern Syria, asking international forces to “intervene immediately”. The two other Syrian Druze religious leaders chose to negotiate with Damascus directly and rejected calls for international intervention in Syria.

A UK-based monitoring group, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, said 56 people in Sahnaya and the Druze-majority Damascus suburb of Jaramana were killed, including local armed fighters and security forces.

The Druze religious sect began as a 10th-century offshoot of Ismailism, a branch of Shia Islam. More than half of the roughly 1 million Druze worldwide live in Syria, largely in the southern Sweida province and some suburbs of Damascus.

Most of the other Druze live in Lebanon and Israel, including in the Golan Heights, which Israel captured from Syria in the 1967 war and annexed in 1981.

The Syrian government has denied that any of its security forces were involved in the clashes with the Druze, which followed a wave of massacres in March when security forces and allied groups killed more than 1,700 civilians, mostly from Bashar al-Assad’s Alawite community, according to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights.

Asaad al-Shaibani, the Syrian foreign minister, called for “national unity” on Thursday, as “the solid foundation for any process of stability or revival”.

“Any call for external intervention, under any pretext or slogan, only leads to further deterioration and division,” he wrote on X.

Since the fall of Assad’s regime in December, Israel has launched repeated airstrikes on Syria, destroying military hardware and stockpiles, in what it says is defence of the Druze. Israel has also sent troops to what was a demilitarised zone in the Golan Heights, on Syria’s south-west border with Israel, seizing key strategic terrain where Syrian troops were once deployed.

Analysts in Israel say the strategy aims to undermine the new Syrian government while also protecting and so co-opting a potential proxy ally within the country. The strategy is controversial, however, with some officials arguing that a stable Syria would better serve Israel’s interests.

The Syrian president, Sharaa, told a visiting US congressman last week that Damascus wanted to normalise ties with Israel.

Protesters from the Druze community in Israel temporarily blocked roads on Thursday night and called for the Israeli government to protect the Druze community in Syria.

Underlining the regional dimension of the conflicts involving Israel, Qatar, a main backer of Syria’s new rulers, called Friday’s Israeli airstrike “blatant aggression against the sovereignty” of the country, while warning alarms sounded across much of northern Israel on Friday before air defence systems intercepted a missile that military officials said had been launched from Yemen by Iran-backed Houthi rebels.

The Houthis have repeatedly targeted Israel since the outbreak of the war in Gaza 18 months ago.

The Duke of Sussex has said it is “impossible” for him to bring his wife and children back to the UK after losing his legal challenge over personal security, and revealed he would “love” a reconciliation with his family.

In an emotional interview with the BBC, Prince Harry said his father, King Charles, will not speak to him “because of the security stuff”, but said he wanted reconciliation as life was “precious” and he did not know how long his father, who has been diagnosed with cancer, had left to live.

Speaking in California, where he now lives, Harry, 40, said: “For the time being, it’s impossible for me to take my family back to the UK safely.”

He added: “I can’t see a world in which I would be bringing my wife and children back to the UK at this point, and the things that they’re going to miss, is, well, everything. I love my country. I always have done, despite what some people in that country have done.

“I miss the UK. I miss parts of the UK, of course I do. And it’s really quite sad I won’t be able to show my children my homeland.”

Harry had sought to overturn changes to his security provision while in the UK, which were made after he and the Duchess of Sussex stepped away from royal duties in 2020.

He was offered “bespoke” security, which he felt was “inferior” and claimed the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (known as Ravec), which authorises security measures, had breached its own terms of reference by not conducting a risk management board (RMB) before making the decision.

He insisted his father could help solve the issue, though he had not asked him to intervene. “I can only come to the UK safely if I am invited, and there is a lot of control and ability in my father’s hands.

“Ultimately, this whole thing could be resolved through him, not by intervening, but by stepping aside and allowing the experts to do what is necessary and to carry out an RMB,” he said.

It is understood it would have been constitutionally improper for the king to intervene while the matter was being considered by the government and reviewed by the courts.

Although the royal household provides representation and input into the Ravec decision, Friday’s judgment laid out that the chair of the Ravec committee was the decision maker on the provision of security. Royal private offices and private secretaries should be consulted as to the practicalities of the protection measures agreed, the ruling said.

Harry also appealed to the prime minister, Keir Starmer, saying: “This all was initiated under a previous government. There is now a new government. I have had it described to me by people who know about the facts that this is a good old-fashioned establishment stitch-up. And that’s what it feels like.”

Asked whether the prime minister should “step in”, he replied: “Yes, I would ask the prime minister to step in.

“I would ask Yvette Cooper, the home secretary, to look at this very, very carefully and I would ask her to review Ravec and its members, because if it is an expert body, then what is the royal household’s role there, if it is not to influence and decide what they want for the members of their household?”

The prime minister would be “quite reluctant” to become involved in decisions about Harry’s security, a senior Cabinet minister said on Friday night.

Pat McFadden told Sky News: “I think he would be quite reluctant to make a judgment about someone’s personal security needs. We have experts who do that for a reason, and I’m not sure it’s a good idea for any politician to be saying that that person requires this level or that level of security.”

On his family rift, he said: “There have been so many disagreements, differences between me and some of my family. This current situation, that has been ongoing now for five years with regard to human life and safety as the sticking point. It is the only thing that’s left.

“Of course some members of my family will never forgive me for writing a book, of course they will never forgive me for lots of things, but … I would love reconciliation with my family.

“There’s no point in continuing to fight any more. Life is precious. I don’t know how much longer my father has. He won’t speak to me because of this security stuff. But it would be nice to reconcile.”

He added: “If they want that, it’s entirely up to them.”

Harry said he could never leave the royal family, though he had left the “institution” because “I had to”.

He continued: “Whether I have an official role or not is irrelevant to the threats, risk and impact on the reputation of the UK if something was to happen.

“What really worries me more than anything else about today’s decision, depending on what happens next, [is that] it set a new precedent that security can be used to control members of the family, and effectively, what it does is imprison other members of the family from being able to choose a different life.”

He claimed that, through the court disclosure process, he had “discovered that some people want history to repeat itself, which is pretty dark”. Asked who he meant, Harry declined to answer.

He said he was “devastated” by the court’s decision, adding: “Not so much devastated with the loss [as] about the people behind the decision feeling as though this is OK. Is it a win for them? I’m sure there are some people out there, probably most likely the people that wish me harm, [who] consider this a huge win.”

He indicated that he would not be seeking a further legal challenge, saying Friday’s ruling had “proven that there was no way to win this through the courts”.

A spokesperson for Buckingham Palace said: “All of these issues have been examined repeatedly and meticulously by the courts, with the same conclusion reached on each occasion.”

The Duke of Sussex has lost a legal challenge over the level of taxpayer-funded security he is entitled to while in the UK, allowing the government to proceed with a “bespoke”, and cheaper, level of protection for his family.

Three senior judges at the court of appeal rejected Prince Harry’s claim that he had been “singled out” for “inferior treatment” and that his safety and life were “at stake” after a change in security arrangements that occurred when he stepped down as a working royal and moved abroad.

He had challenged the dismissal of his high court claim against the Home Office over the decision of the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures, known as Ravec, that he should receive a different degree of protection when in the country.

Sir Geoffrey Vos, the master of the rolls, said: “I concluded, having studied the detailed documents, I could not say the duke’s sense of grievance translated into a legal argument for a challenge to Ravec’s decision.”

The ruling will be a personal blow to Harry who said he was “overwhelmed” by the case when he flew back for the two-day hearing last month. Speaking to a Daily Telegraph reporter outside the hearing, he suggested he considered the appeal more important than his other legal battle against tabloids, saying “this one always mattered the most”.

Barristers for Harry, 40, told the appeal court that Ravec did not follow its own “terms of reference” when deciding his security.

Shaheed Fatima KC said his safety, security and life were “at stake”, and that the “human dimension” of the case should not be forgotten.

“We do say that his presence here, and throughout this appeal, is a potent illustration, were one needed, of how much this appeal means to him and his family,” said Fatima.

The Home Office, which is legally responsible for Ravec’s decisions, opposed the appeal. Sir James Eadie KC, for the Home Office, said Ravec was faced with a “unique set of circumstances”.

A Buckingham Palace spokesperson said: “All of these issues have been examined repeatedly and meticulously by the courts, with the same conclusion reached on each occasion.”

In a ruling on Friday, Vos, Lord Justice Bean and Lord Justice Edis dismissed Harry’s appeal.

Reading a summary of the decision, Vos said:”The Duke was in effect stepping in and out of the cohort of protection provided by Ravec.

“Outside the UK, he was outside the cohort, but when in the UK, his security would be considered as appropriate.”

He continued: “It was impossible to say that this reasoning was illogical or inappropriate, indeed it seemed sensible.”

A high court judge ruled last year that Ravec’s decision, taken in early 2020 after Harry and Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex, stepped down as senior working royals, was lawful. Harry’s legal team argued the judge had erred in his judgment.

Ravec’s final decision, shared on 28 February 2020, stated that Metropolitan police protection would no longer be appropriate after the Sussexes’ departure, and that they should receive a different degree of protection when in the UK.

The Sussexes would instead receive a “bespoke” security service, whereby they would be required to give 30 days’ notice of any plans to travel to the UK, with each visit being assessed for threat levels and whether protection is needed.

Critics of Harry have said he raised his own profile as a possible terrorist target in 2023 after disclosing in his memoir Spare that he had killed 25 Taliban fighters.

Harry could appeal, but would need permission to do so, according to the legal commentator Joshua Rozenberg.

“There wasn’t an application for permission just now from the court of appeal. There might be one in writing. If permission is refused, then Prince Harry’s lawyers could go and ask the supreme court for permission,” Rozenberg told Sky News.

“But what the supreme court will look at is whether this is a case of general public interest, general public importance. It seems to me it’s one of very, very specific importance to Prince Harry.”

A Home Office spokesperson said: “The UK government’s protective security system is rigorous and proportionate.”

Britain’s anti-immigrant and Trump-aligned Reform UK party has made sweeping gains in English local elections, challenging the traditional political dominance of the country’s two main parties, Labour and the Conservatives.

Nigel Farage, the Reform leader, claimed his party had overtaken the Tories as the UK’s main opposition after Reform won control of at least six county councils, one mayoralty, and narrowly defeated the governing Labour party in a parliamentary byelection in what had been considered a safe seat.

With votes still being counted on Friday from the 1 May elections, the combined vote for Labour and the Conservatives appeared to have fallen well below 50%, the first time that has happened in modern political history.

In some counties in the Midlands and the north of England, Reform won more than 60% of the vote, capitalising on disillusionment with the Labour government, and with the Tories as an opposition as well as their record running the country from 2010 to 2024. Reform campaigned principally on anti-immigrant sentiment, which Farage had long sought to cultivate. The Liberal Democrats also made more modest inroads in some councils, mostly at the expense of the Conservatives.

Across the country, Reform won a 30% share of the vote, leaving Labour second with 20%, Liberal Democrats on 17% and the Conservatives relegated to fourth with 15% of the votes

The one parliamentary byelection being fought on Thursday was Runcorn and Helsby, near Liverpool in England’s north-west, where the sitting Labour MP had been convicted of punching a constituent. It had been a solid Labour seat that the party won with 53% of the vote at the general elections, but it lost by six votes to Reform on Thursday, in a rebuke to the prime minister, Keir Starmer.

Starmer admitted the results were “disappointing” and said he would draw lessons from the setback, adding: “We need to go faster on the change that people want to see.”

Starmer has sought to compete with Reform by announcing stricter policies to contain illegal immigration, but many in his party have complained he has steered too far to the right and alienated Labour’s traditional supporters by introducing austerity measures such as cutting winter fuel payments for elderly people.

Political analysts said Reform had performed particularly well in areas with a lot of pensioners and few university graduates.

The Conservative leader, Kemi Badenoch, said the result showed that the country was “fed up” with the Labour government but “still not yet ready to trust us”.

Speaking at a rally in Durham, where Reform won 65 of the 98 council seats, Farage claimed the vote “marks the end of two-party politics as we have known it for over a century in this country”. He said it was the “beginning of the end of the Conservative party”.

Farage, who has hailed Donald Trump as his “inspiration”, said that in the county councils where Reform was now in charge, the party would try to block government efforts to house asylum-seekers in local hotels.

Asked if councils had the power to do that, he replied: “We’ll give it a go.”

The United States has designated a powerful Haitian gang alliance, whose members have taken control of almost all the capital city as a “transnational terrorist group”.

The criminal coalition known as Viv Ansanm (Live Together), and another faction, the Gran Grif gang, which in October took responsibility for a shocking massacre of at least 115 people in the agricultural town of Pont-Sondé, were both covered by the move on Friday.

“They are a direct threat to US national security interests in our region,” the US secretary of state, Marco Rubio, said in a statement, adding that providing material support or resources to the gangs could lead to “criminal charges and inadmissibility or removal from the United States”.

The conflict in Haiti has been met with little international response, while neighboring countries, including the US, have continued to deport migrants back to the Caribbean country despite United Nations pleas not to due to humanitarian concerns.

More than 1 million people have been displaced by the conflict, and tens of thousands more in recent weeks, as the violence has spread to central Haiti, forcing more health facilities to shut their doors and pushing more people into severe food insecurity.

Frozen US funding for security efforts and the dismantling of the US Agency for International Development, as well as other cuts, also complicate the situation.

The latest designations come after the US in February designated Venezuela’s Tren de Aragua gang, alongside a number of other organized crime groups across Latin America, including Mexico’s Sinaloa cartel, as global terrorist organizations.

It was unclear what, if any, impact the terrorist designation would have regarding Haiti.

Those who do business in Haiti also could be affected by the new designation. Gangs control the areas surrounding a key fuel depot and the country’s biggest and most important port, as well as the main roads that lead in and out of the capital, where they charge tolls.

“It could function as a de facto embargo,” said Jake Johnston, the international research director at the Washington-based Center for Economic and Policy Research.

“The gangs exercise tremendous control over the commerce of the country,” he said. “Doing any kind of business with Haiti or in Haiti is going to carry much greater risk.”

Armed groups in Haiti have made significant gains in the first part of 2025, as an underresourced, UN-backed security mission has stalled, and along with police has been unable to hold off advances of the heavily armed and well-funded gangs.

The UN has called for tougher measures to prevent guns being trafficked to the Haitian gangs, especially from the US, which it said was the major source of illegal firearms in Haiti via ports in Florida.

Haiti has not held an election since 2016 and the man elected president then, Jovenel Moïse, was assassinated in 2021.

The United States has designated a powerful Haitian gang alliance, whose members have taken control of almost all the capital city as a “transnational terrorist group”.

The criminal coalition known as Viv Ansanm (Live Together), and another faction, the Gran Grif gang, which in October took responsibility for a shocking massacre of at least 115 people in the agricultural town of Pont-Sondé, were both covered by the move on Friday.

“They are a direct threat to US national security interests in our region,” the US secretary of state, Marco Rubio, said in a statement, adding that providing material support or resources to the gangs could lead to “criminal charges and inadmissibility or removal from the United States”.

The conflict in Haiti has been met with little international response, while neighboring countries, including the US, have continued to deport migrants back to the Caribbean country despite United Nations pleas not to due to humanitarian concerns.

More than 1 million people have been displaced by the conflict, and tens of thousands more in recent weeks, as the violence has spread to central Haiti, forcing more health facilities to shut their doors and pushing more people into severe food insecurity.

Frozen US funding for security efforts and the dismantling of the US Agency for International Development, as well as other cuts, also complicate the situation.

The latest designations come after the US in February designated Venezuela’s Tren de Aragua gang, alongside a number of other organized crime groups across Latin America, including Mexico’s Sinaloa cartel, as global terrorist organizations.

It was unclear what, if any, impact the terrorist designation would have regarding Haiti.

Those who do business in Haiti also could be affected by the new designation. Gangs control the areas surrounding a key fuel depot and the country’s biggest and most important port, as well as the main roads that lead in and out of the capital, where they charge tolls.

“It could function as a de facto embargo,” said Jake Johnston, the international research director at the Washington-based Center for Economic and Policy Research.

“The gangs exercise tremendous control over the commerce of the country,” he said. “Doing any kind of business with Haiti or in Haiti is going to carry much greater risk.”

Armed groups in Haiti have made significant gains in the first part of 2025, as an underresourced, UN-backed security mission has stalled, and along with police has been unable to hold off advances of the heavily armed and well-funded gangs.

The UN has called for tougher measures to prevent guns being trafficked to the Haitian gangs, especially from the US, which it said was the major source of illegal firearms in Haiti via ports in Florida.

Haiti has not held an election since 2016 and the man elected president then, Jovenel Moïse, was assassinated in 2021.

Markets on both sides of the Atlantic rose on Friday after hiring in the US slowed less than expected in April, offering a glimmer of hope that the world’s largest economy was in a better-than-feared position to withstand the fallout from Donald Trump’s tariffs.

On Wall Street the S&P 500 was up 1.5% and the Dow Jones rose 1.3% by early afternoon on Friday, while European markets closed sharply higher after official figures showed the US workforce grew by 177,000 last month.

It was a slowdown compared with March – when 185,000 jobs were added – but was better than the 130,000 expected by economists.

In the UK, the FTSE 100 closed 1.2% up at 8,596, marking its longest-ever winning streak and the 15th day in a row of gains. Germany’s Dax rose 2.5% and France’s Cac by 2.3%, building on earlier gains after reports that Beijing was considering trade negotiations with Washington, raising hopes of easing tensions.

The FTSE has now recovered almost all of the losses from early last month, when Donald Trump’s announcement of sweeping tariffs sent global markets plummeting over fears of a trade war.

Susannah Streeter, the head of money and markets at Hargreaves Lansdown, said: “The FTSE has surged higher, racing into a record winning streak, as fresh optimism pulses through markets.”

She said the jobs report “added to hopes that the world’s largest economy is in a more resilient position to withstand the fallout from Trump’s tariffs. Expectations for a further easing in the standoff between the US and China have been high with a feelgood factor dominating Friday trade”.

As the White House pressed ahead with sweeping tariffs on overseas imports, claiming this would revitalise the US economy, employers across the country continued to add jobs at a steady pace in April and the unemployment rate was unchanged at 4.2%.

However, while April’s hiring was stronger than predicted, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) shaved 58,000 off its previous tallies for February and March’s gains. April’s largest hiring gains were in healthcare, and transportation and warehousing.

Federal government employment declined by 9,000 in April as the Elon Musk-led “department of government efficiency” continued to cut government workers. Federal employment has fallen by 26,000 since January. The BLS noted that the number undercounted how many jobs had been lost as they did not include people on paid leave or those receiving severance payments.

A woman who alleges Harvey Weinstein forced oral sex on her broke down under intensely personal cross-examination during her fourth day on the witness stand in the criminal retrial of the disgraced movie mogul.

The judge paused proceedings early on Friday afternoon to give Miriam Haley a chance to compose herself after an angry and tearful exchange with Weinstein’s defense as she was questioned on her account of his alleged assault.

Haley alleges that Weinstein assaulted her in July 2006 after inviting her to his apartment to, as she put it, “just stop by and say hi” but that he then backed her into a bedroom and pushed her on to a bed, holding her down as he ignored her pleas of: “No, no – it’s not going to happen.”

As she was being challenged on her account while on the stand on Friday, by the defense lawyer Jennifer Bonjean, Haley raised her voice.

“He was the one who raped me, not the other way around,” Haley told jurors about Weinstein.

Bonjean shot back: “That is for the jury to decide.”

Haley, 48, responded: “No, it’s not for the jury to decide,” her voice growing louder as tears began streaming down her face and adding: “It’s my experience. And he did that to me.”

The judge, Curtis Farber, promptly halted questioning and sent jurors out of the courtroom for a short break. Haley left the stand and did not look at Weinstein as she left the courtroom through a side door. After a brief break, the trial resumed.

Weinstein is being retried on charges of rape, which he denies. An appeals court last year overturned his conviction at his original trial in New York in 2020.

Haley, who has also gone by the name Mimi Haleyi, is the first of three women who have accused Weinstein, 73, of sexually assaulting them and are expected to testify at the retrial.

Haley and two of her friends previously testified that she told them soon after the 2006 encounter that Weinstein had sexually assaulted her. She maintains she was never interested in any sexual or romantic relationship with Weinstein, despite his past overtures, but wanted his help getting jobs in show business.

Zeroing in on the alleged assault, Bonjean on Friday questioned why Haley would agree to go to Weinstein’s apartment after what the witness described as previous “bizarre” and “overwhelming” behavior, including his barging into her home weeks earlier as he sought to persuade her to go on a trip to Paris with him.

Haley said she didn’t have a reason to turn down Weinstein’s request to stop by his apartment and said she didn’t fear for her safety, even after his earlier outburst.

“It wasn’t a big deal,” she testified. “I go to people’s houses all the time.”

Haley broke down as Bonjean asked her about the clothing she wore to the apartment. She wasn’t certain what clothing she was wearing but maintained that Weinstein was the one who took them off. The witness has said that Weinstein also removed her tampon before forcibly performing oral sex on her.

Before Haley broke down, Bonjean underscored through questioning that before the alleged assault, Haley agreed to take a flight at Weinstein’s expense from New York to Los Angeles to attend a movie premiere. The trip was the day after the alleged assault.

“Did you just think he was just being generous?” Bonjean asked.

Haley said she had accepted partly because she wanted to “get back in his good books” after turning down the Paris invitation, and the Los Angeles trip seemed more appropriate because she would be traveling on her own and could also visit a friend there.

“You wanted to appease him, make him happy, make him like you?” Bonjean asked, suggesting the arrangement was a “win-win” for Haley.

“Well, that, too,” Haley told the court.

Haley testified on Thursday that a few weeks after the alleged assault, she agreed to meet Weinstein at a Manhattan hotel. She said she expected to talk in the lobby but was instead directed to his room, where she says she had unwanted, but not forced, sex with him.

Weinstein’s retrial includes charges related to Haley and another accuser from the original trial, Jessica Mann, who alleges a 2013 rape. He is also being tried, for the first time, for allegedly forcing oral sex on former model Kaja Sokola in 2006.

The three witnesses for the prosecution have given permission to the Associated Press be publicly identified.

King Charles has accepted an invitation to open Canada’s parliament on 27 May, in “an historic honour that matches the weight of our times”, the country’s prime minister, Mark Carney, said on Friday.

In his first news conference since an election dominated by Donald Trump’s threats to Canada’s sovereignty, the prime minister also confirmed he would meet the US president at the White House on Tuesday.

Trump has repeatedly suggested annexing Canada to the US and imposed tariffs on some Canadian goods, moves which Carney has described as a “betrayal”.

“As I’ve stressed repeatedly, our old relationship, based on steadily increasing integration, is over,” he said, adding he would “fight” to get the best deal for the country. “The questions now are how our nations will cooperate in the future.”

Carney’s Liberals are set to form a minority government after Monday’s election, and are projected to hold at least 168 seats, with recounts pending in at least two electoral districts. The Conservatives will form the official opposition with a projected 144 seats, while the Bloc Québecois won 23, the progressive New Democratic party seven and the Greens one. Carney praised the strength of the country’s democracy amid high turnout, telling reporters all party leaders “quickly and graciously” accepted the results.

The prime minister said he would call a byelection immediately after Conservatives decide which member of parliament will step aside to give leader Pierre Poilievre, who failed to win his own seat, the chance to run for a new seat.

“No games,” he said.

But Carney rejected the idea of signing a formal pact with the NDP in order to guarantee the survival of his minority government, as his predecessor Justin Trudeau did following his narrow electoral victory in 2021. Carney said the Liberals had received a strong mandate “and the most votes in Canadian history”, adding: “Canadians elected a new government to stand up to President Trump and build a strong economy.”

Carney told reporters he would announce a cabinet with gender parity on 12 May and parliament would return on 27 May in a move that “clearly underscores the sovereignty of our country”.

The visit of a monarch to give the speech from the throne marks the first in more than half a century. The last time a sovereign opened parliament was in 1957, when Queen Elizabeth II came to Ottawa.

The prime minister also acknowledged that a large portion of the voter base had concerns they felt the Liberals had so far failed to fully address.

Ahead of the election, the Conservatives had emphasized a “tough on crime” message and Carney said on Friday that his party would strengthen both the criminal code and bail laws “for those threatening the safety of Canadians”, making it more difficult for those accused of auto theft, home invasion and human trafficking to obtain bail. Carney also pledged to build more houses and to cut taxes on new builds in an attempt to make the real estate market more accessible.

“I’ve been clear since day one of my leadership campaign in January, I’m in politics to do big things, not to be something,” he said. “Now that Canadians have honoured me with a mandate to bring about big changes quickly, I will work relentlessly to fulfil that trust.”

Much of the press conference, however, focused on Carney’s upcoming meeting with Trump. The prime minister told reporters he would not negotiate in public amid questions over how he might approach a possible trade deal with the president, as well as the presence of tariffs on Canadian goods that violate current trade rules.

“Do not expect white smoke out of that meeting,” he said, a reference to the upcoming papal conclave.

The White House has cited the alleged flow of fentanyl from Canada for imposing tariffs, even though only minimal amounts of the drug have been seized at the northern border in recent months.

“There will be difficult discussions,” Carney said in French. “The fentanyl-related tariffs, we don’t understand why they’re still in place.”

When pressed on Trump’s musing on making Canada the 51st state, Carney said any such proposal would be rejected by Canada.

“It’s always important to distinguish want from reality,” he said.

Puerto Rico has voluntarily dismissed its 2024 climate lawsuit against big oil, a Friday legal filing shows, just two days after the US justice department sued two states over planned litigation against oil companies for their role in the climate crisis.

Puerto Rico’s lawsuit, filed in July, alleged that the oil and gas giants had misled the public about the climate dangers associated with their products. It came as part of a wave of litigation filed by dozens of US states, cities and municipalities in recent years.

Donald Trump’s administration has pledged to put an end to these cases, which he has called “frivolous” and claimed are unconstitutional. In court filings on Wednesday, his justice department claimed the Clean Air Act “displaces” states’ ability to regulate greenhouse gas outside their borders.

The agency specifically targeted Michigan, whose Democratic attorney general last year tapped private law firms to work on such a case, and Hawaii, whose Democratic governor filed its suit on Thursday. Officials from both states condemned the justice department’s filings.

Friday’s filing from Puerto Rico did not list a reason for the lawsuit’s dismissal. The Guardian has contacted the territory’s attorney general’s office for comment and asked whether it was related to the Trump administration’s moves on Wednesday.

Reached for comment, John Lamson, a spokesperson for the San Francisco-based law firm Sher Edling, which filed the 2024 suit on behalf of Puerto Rico said: “We serve under the direction and control, and at the pleasure, of our clients in all of our representations.”

Puerto Rico in November elected as governor the Republican Jenniffer González-Colón, a Trump ally. In February, González-Colón tapped Janet Parra-Mercado as the territory’s new attorney general.

Climate-accountability litigation has also faced recent attacks in the media. Last month, an oilfield services executive published an op-ed in Forbes saying the Puerto Rico lawsuit “may derail” efforts to improve grid reliability.

Groups tied to the far-right legal architect Leonard Leo have also campaigned against the lawsuits. And just days before the voluntary dismissal, the rightwing, pro-fossil fuel advocacy group American Energy Institute (AEI) sent a letter to González-Colón, Fox News reported, calling for an end to climate-focused “coordinated lawfare”.

“Their goal is to bankrupt energy companies or to leverage the threat of tort damages to force outcomes that would be disastrous for Puerto Rico and the rest of the nation,” AEI’s CEO, Jason Isaac, wrote of the plaintiffs.

AEI has attacked climate-focused legal efforts and has been linked to Leo, the Guardian has reported.

In December, a California-based trade association of commercial fishers voluntarily dismissed a lawsuit accusing big oil of climate deception.

In two earlier lawsuits, 37 Puerto Rico municipalities and the capital city of San Juan accused fossil fuel companies of conspiring to deceive the public about the climate crisis, seeking to hold them accountable for the devastation wrought by Hurricane Maria.

A rare painting by LS Lowry bought for £10 has sold at auction for more than £800,000.

The painting, Going to the Mill, was bought by the literary editor of the Manchester Guardian, Arthur Wallace, for £10 in 1926 and has been in the same family ever since.

On Friday the artwork sold at auction at the Mall Galleries in central London for £805,200, including buyer’s premium.

Lowry, who was lauded for his portrayal of everyday industrial scenes in north-west England, painted the piece in 1925.

Going to the Mill is marked on the back as being £30, but Lowry let Wallace have it for £10. Adjusted for inflation, that is the equivalent of £521 in 2025, according to the Bank of England’s calculator.

The painting is believed to be one of the earliest sales made by the Stretford-born painter. Lowry also gave Wallace an additional work, The Manufacturing Town, which the family sold several years ago.

Wallace had edited a supplement for the Guardian to accompany a civic week organised by Manchester city council in October 1926, and featured three paintings by the then struggling artist.

As Wallace’s grandson Keith explains, Lowry was featured in an accompanying exhibition at a Manchester department store, and Wallace – who had fallen for his sooty panoramas of factory-bound crowds – offered to buy one.

“Lowry said with great daring: ‘Could we say £10?’ and Grandpa wrote a cheque. Then Lowry wrote back to him saying: ‘I think I’ve charged you too much. Can I give you another one as well?’ So Grandpa got two Lowrys for his £10.”

Going to the Mill, which has been in the Wallace family for the last century, was recently on long-term loan to Pallant House Gallery in Chichester.

Simon Hucker, a modern and contemporary art specialist at the Lyon & Turnbull auction house, said: “We’re absolutely delighted by the price achieved for this exceptional, early painting by Lowry, bought from him when he was a virtual unknown. There are few artists who become a household name in Britain and Lowry definitely falls into this category.

“This is a painting shows that Lowry at his conceptual best, no naive painter of ‘matchstick men’, as the old pop song went. Instead he is an artist of true dexterity who is making deliberate formal choices, abstracting the figure in order to express an idea about loneliness and isolation within the teeming city.

“Going to the Mill is the epitome of a 1920s Lowry, the period when he becomes a unique voice in British art. It is especially rare is for a painting such as this to have been in one collection for one year shy of a century and we are delighted to have played a small part in its history.”

In 2024 a Lowry painting titled Sunday Afternoon sold for almost £6.3m at auction.