Donald Trump is proposing huge cuts to social programmes like health and education while planning substantial spending increases on defense 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-defense 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-defense 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.

The Trump administration is considering cuts worth $163bn to departments including health and education as well as environmental schemes while increasing spending on defense, according to a White House budget blueprint.

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 Donald Trump’s frequent vows to end the US’s involvement in “forever wars” in the Middle East and elsewhere.

The budget draft was circulated as reports emerged of a huge military parade planned to mark the 250th anniversary of the founding of the US army as well as Trump’s birthday.

Here are the key stories at a glance:

Catching up? Here’s what happened on 1 May 2025.

A federal judge on Friday permanently struck down Donald Trump’s executive order that targeted the firm Perkins Coie, which once worked with his 2016 presidential election rival Hillary Clinton, after declaring in an extraordinary ruling that the order was unconstitutional and unlawful.

The decision from the US district judge Beryl Howell, which criticized virtually every aspect of the order in a 102-page opinion, marks a major victory for Perkins Coie and could be used as a model by other judges weighing cases brought by other law firms in similar orders.

“No American president has ever before issued executive orders like the one at issue,” she wrote, adding: “In purpose and effect, this action draws from a playbook as old as Shakespeare, who penned the phrase: ‘The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.’”

Howell found in particular that the executive order violated the first, fifth and sixth amendments and permanently barred its implementation. She also raised alarm at other law firms that opted to strike deals with the Trump administration rather than face the possibility of being targeted themselves.

Perkins Coie was the first law firm to end up in the crosshairs of Trump’s executive orders aimed at law firms that terminated any government contracts and barred federal employees from engaging with its attorneys or allowing them access to federal buildings, including courthouses.

The administration said at the time that Perkins Coie was a national security risk principally because it had hired Fusions GPS on behalf of the Clinton presidential campaign in 2016, which produced the “dossier” that pushed discredited claims about Trump’s connections to Russia.

Howell rejected that contention outright in her decision, citing Trump’s own attacks against Perkins Coie and the stunning breadth of everyone from the attorneys to the assistants at the firm facing restrictions as evidence that the executive order was retaliatory.

The provision in the executive order that barred its lawyers from entering federal government buildings and engaging with government employees in particular was not speculative, Howell said, in part because the government had cancelled meetings within days of it being issued.

The attempt by the administration to argue that it was limited to only when such access would threaten national security or in the national interest of the US was unconvincing, Howell said, since the executive order itself said working with Perkins Coie was not in the national interest.

“That is unconstitutional retaliation and viewpoint discrimination, plain and simple,” she wrote.

Howell also rebuked Trump over the requirement in the executive order for any private companies that had government contracts to disclose whether they had ever worked with Perkins Coie, regardless of whether it was related to their government contract work.

The requirement, Howell suggested, was at odds with the first amendment protection to freely use any lawyer, since the need to disclose any possible work with Perkins Coie could mean firms that contracted with the government would be dissuaded from using them at all.

And the order was unlawfully broad, Howell said, since it required disclosure “whether the contract is for crucial classified military equipment costing millions of dollars per item delivered or for paper clips costing pennies, and no matter whether the disclosure of association with plaintiff had anything to do with a government contract”.

The Trump administration is almost certain to appeal to the US court of appeals for the DC circuit. The ruling comes weeks after Howell previously issued a temporary restraining order that blocked Trump’s order from taking effect after a hearing last month in federal district court in Washington.

That temporary injunction followed an emergency lawsuit filed by Perkins Coie on the advice of Williams and Connolly, another elite firm in the nation’s capital known for taking cases against government overreach.

Perkins Coie had initially reached out to the firm Quinn Emanuel, which has previously represented people in Trump’s orbit, including Elon Musk, the Trump Organization itself, and the New York mayor, Eric Adams, whose corruption charges were dropped by the justice department last month.

But Quinn Emanuel declined to take Perkins Coie as a client, as its top partners decided not to become involved in a politically sensitive issue that could make themselves a target by association just as they have been on the rise as a power center in Washington DC.

While other law firms discussed whether to file amicus briefs or declarations supporting Perkins Coie, the firm was ultimately taken on by Williams and Connolly. They advised Perkins Coie to ask for an emergency hearing and temporary restraining order, both of which Howell granted.

• Russia launched a mass drone attack on Ukraine’s second-largest city of Kharkiv late on Friday, hitting a high-rise apartment block, triggering fires and injuring 46 people, officials said. There were strikes in 12 locations in four central districts of the city, the mayor, Ihor Terekhov, said on Telegram. Volodymyr Zelenskyy denounced the attacks, saying dozens of drones had been launched and issuing a fresh appeal to beef up Ukraine’s air defence capability. “There were no military targets, nor could there be any,” the Ukrainian president said on Telegram. “Russia strikes dwellings when Ukrainians are in their homes, when they are putting their children to bed.” Terekhov said a house had also been hit in the city, 30km from the country’s north-eastern border, and an 11-year-old child was among those hurt. The number of injured could rise, said the regional governor, Oleh Syniehubov.

• The US state department has approved the potential sale of F-16 training and sustainment as well as related equipment to Ukraine for $310m, the Pentagon said. Friday’s move comes just days after Ukraine and the US signed a much-discussed agreement to share proceeds from the sale of Ukrainian minerals and rare earths and fund investment in Ukraine’s reconstruction. Ukraine has previously received F-16 jets from US allies under a jet transfer authorised by former president Joe Biden’s administration, while Trump paused all Ukraine-related military aid shortly after taking office.

• Ukraine’s parliament will hold a vote on 8 May to ratify the minerals deal, a legislator said on Friday, while the prime minister, Denys Shmyhal, suggested the agreement would help Kyiv with air defences. “This agreement will allow us to better defend our country here and now – to better protect our skies thanks to American air defence systems,” Shmyhal said at the governmental meeting.

• Ukraine’s internal security agency accused Russian intelligence of orchestrating an attempt to assassinate a prominent Ukrainian blogger, accusing a 45-year-old woman of carrying out the failed hit. The attempt to kill internet personality Serhii Sternenko, who once led the local chapter of a rightwing group but is now better known in Ukraine for crowdfunding donations for military drones, took place on Thursday. The SBU security agency said on Telegram on Friday that the woman – whom it did not name – had fired several shots with a pistol, one of which hit Sternenko in the leg. The blogger said there was no danger to his life. The woman’s lawyer said in court that she did not contest the facts of the case. Russia’s FSB security service and its military intelligence agency did not immediately reply to Reuters requests for comment on the SBU’s allegations.

• Four people were injured in a Russian joint drone and artillery attack on localities east of Nikopol in south-eastern Dnipropetrovsk region, regional authorities said. In southern Ukraine’s Kherson region, a village resident died when a fallen drone exploded as he was trying to carry it away from a house.

• Russia’s defence ministry said on Friday its forces were continuing to create a “security strip” in border areas of northern Ukraine’s Sumy region after driving Ukrainian troops out of the Kursk region, just across the border in western Russia. Ukraine says its forces still have a foothold in Kursk but it is concerned about a possible Russian advance into Sumy. Two Majors, a pro-Russian war blogger, said Russia was developing an offensive from Zhuravka to Bilovody, two villages just over the border in Sumy. The reports could not be verified.

• People from the west African nation of Togo have been captured and detained by Ukrainian armed forces after taking part “in military operations alongside Russian armed forces”, Togolese authorities said Friday. The “majority of compatriots, in particular young students, had left Togo under alleged scholarships offered by structures claiming to be based in Russia”, the foreign ministry said in a statement. The Martin Luther King Movement, Togo’s leading human rights organisation, alerted authorities in March to the case of a Togolese student captured on the battlefield and imprisoned in Ukraine.

• US officials have finalised new economic sanctions against Russia, including banking and energy measures, to intensify pressure on Moscow to embrace Donald Trump’s efforts to end its war on Ukraine, according to three US officials and a source familiar with the issue. Reuters reports the targets include state-owned Russian energy company Gazprom and major entities involved in the natural resources and banking sectors, one official said, requesting anonymity. But it was not clear if the package would get Trump’s approval, the official said.

• Greek authorities have remanded in custody a man suspected of photographing supply convoys on behalf of Russia in the Greek port city of Alexandroupolis, a judicial source said. The 59-year-old Greek man of Georgian descent was arrested Tuesday and taken before an investigating magistrate for a hearing on Friday. A police source alleged to Agence France-Presse that the suspect was targeting military convoys to Ukraine, according to footage retrieved from his mobile phone. But during Friday’s hearing the suspect said he had “done nothing illegal”, according to a judicial source.

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, would 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 … I love my country. I always have done, despite what some people in that country have done. I miss the UK. 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 resolve 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 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, Harry 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 [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.

In a statement released on the Sussexes’ website, Harry said: “Ravec’s ability to make decisions outside of its own policies and the so-called political sensitivities of my case have prevailed over the need for fair and consistent decision-making. The court has decided to defer to this, revealing a sad truth: my hands are tied in seeking legal recourse against the establishment.

“This all comes from the same institutions that preyed upon my mother, that openly campaigned for the removal of our security, and that continue to incite hatred towards me, my wife and even our children, while at the same time protecting the very power that they should be holding accountable.”

He told the BBC 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.”

Israeli warplanes have carried out a series of airstrikes outside Damascus and across Syria, after warnings from Israeli officials that the country would intervene to protect the Syria’s minority Druze sect.

The airstrikes targeted a Syrian military site in the Damascus suburb of Harasta, as well as hitting unknown targets in Deraa province in south Syria and Hama province in north-west Syria. At least one civilian was killed and four people were injured as a result of the Israeli bombings late Friday night, according to Syrian state media.

The latest round of strikes come after Israel killed four civilians earlier on Friday in a bombing in southern Syria and struck the vicinity of Syria’s presidential palace.

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

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

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.

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

The head of the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Syria condemned the Israeli strikes in an interview with Al Jazeera on Friday.

”The Israeli attacks on Syria are absolutely unacceptable. There is nothing in international law that allows for pre-emptive bombing,” said Paulo Sérgio Pinheiro, the chair of the commission.

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.

Clashes broke out in Druze-majority areas outside Damascus on Tuesday after an audio clip circulated on social media of a man making derogatory comments about the prophet Muhammad. The clip, which was falsely 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 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.

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.

Israeli warplanes have carried out a series of airstrikes outside Damascus and across Syria, after warnings from Israeli officials that the country would intervene to protect the Syria’s minority Druze sect.

The airstrikes targeted a Syrian military site in the Damascus suburb of Harasta, as well as hitting unknown targets in Deraa province in south Syria and Hama province in north-west Syria. At least one civilian was killed and four people were injured as a result of the Israeli bombings late Friday night, according to Syrian state media.

The latest round of strikes come after Israel killed four civilians earlier on Friday in a bombing in southern Syria and struck the vicinity of Syria’s presidential palace.

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

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

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.

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

The head of the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Syria condemned the Israeli strikes in an interview with Al Jazeera on Friday.

”The Israeli attacks on Syria are absolutely unacceptable. There is nothing in international law that allows for pre-emptive bombing,” said Paulo Sérgio Pinheiro, the chair of the commission.

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.

Clashes broke out in Druze-majority areas outside Damascus on Tuesday after an audio clip circulated on social media of a man making derogatory comments about the prophet Muhammad. The clip, which was falsely 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 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.

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.

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.”

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.

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.