Russia says Ukraine has launched an overnight drone attack targeting Moscow for the second night in a row.

All four of the capital’s major airports have been closed temporarily to ensure safety, Russia’s aviation watchdog Rosaviatsia said on Telegram.

Moscow’s mayor, Sergei Sobyanin, said on social media at least 19 Ukrainian drones had been destroyed before they reached the city “from different directions”. He said some of the debris had landed on one of the key highways into the city, but there were no casualties.

Ukraine has not yet commented. But the mayor of Kharkiv said Russia had also carried out drone strikes in the city overnight, as well as in the Kyiv area.

As well as in Moscow, the governors of other Russian cities, including Penza and Voronezh, also said they had been targeted by drones overnight into Tuesday.

Unconfirmed reports by Russian military bloggers suggested windows of an apartment in the south of Moscow were smashed.

It is the second night in a row that Russia has reported a drone attack by Ukraine – on Monday, Russia’s defence ministry said it had destroyed 26 Ukrainian drones overnight.

Since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine more than three years ago, Kyiv has launched several drone attacks on Moscow. Its biggest attack in March killed three people.

It comes after reports on Monday of fresh attempts by Ukraine to cross into Russia’s Kursk region.

Kyiv said it had hit a drone command unit in the Kursk region on Sunday near the Russian village of Tyotkino, according to the Ukrainian general staff.

In April, Moscow said it had regained control of the entire region, nine months after a Ukrainian forces launched a surprise invasion. Kyiv insists it still has soldiers operating across the border.

Also in Kursk, Russian officials reported an electrical substation in the town of Rylsk lost power on Monday after being damaged in an attack by Ukraine.

Two transformers at the substation in Rylsk had been damaged, according to acting governor of the Kursk region, Alexander Khinshtein, in a post on the Telegram messaging app.

He added two teenagers had been injured by shrapnel from the blast.

Multiple Russian military bloggers also reported that Ukrainian forces had attempted to cross into the village, posting images – as yet unverified by the BBC – of vehicles breaking through tank traps on the border.

On Monday, Ukrainian forces fired missiles over the border and crossed minefields in special vehicles, according to the bloggers.

“The enemy blew up bridges with rockets at night and launched an attack with armoured groups in the morning,” blogger RVvoenkor said according to Reuters news agency.

“The mine clearance vehicles began to make passages in the minefields, followed by armoured vehicles with troops. There is a heavy battle going on at the border.”

In a statement on Monday, Ukraine said: “Nine months after the start of the Kursk operation, Ukraine’s Defence Forces maintain a military presence on the territory of Russia’s Kursk region.”

While there has been no official response from Moscow, some military bloggers have also published maps showing opposing forces attempting to cross the border in two places towards Tyotkino – near where the drone command unit that was hit.

Meanwhile, in Sumy – around 12km across the border from Tyotkino in north-eastern Ukraine – local authorities urged people to evacuate from two settlements, Reuters reported.

Ukraine originally made its surprise incursion into Kursk in August 2024 to create a buffer zone and protect Sumy and surrounding areas, while also hoping to use it as a bargaining chip in future negotiations.

The only surviving guest of the deadly beef wellington lunch at the heart of a high-profile Australian court says he and his wife had been “very happy” to get an invitation to the gathering.

Ian Wilkinson was left seriously ill after the meal, which led to the deaths of his wife and two other relatives.

Erin Patterson – who is charged with the murder of three relatives and the attempted murder of another, has pleaded not guilty and her defence team says she “panicked” after unintentionally serving poison to family members she loved.

Three people died in hospital in the days after the meal.

The victims included Ms Patterson’s former in-laws, Don Patterson, 70, and Gail Patterson, 70, as well as Gail’s sister, Heather Wilkinson, 66.

Mr Wilkinson, a local pastor and Heather’s husband, survived after weeks of treatment in hospital.

He told the packed courtroom that Ms Patterson had plated “all of the food”, which included mashed potato, green beans, and beef wellington.

“Each person had an individual serve, it was very much like a pasty,” he said. “It was a pastry case and when we cut into it, there was steak and mushrooms. It was completely pastry encased.”

Mr Wilkinson also said that Gail and Heather picked up four grey plates with the food and set them on the table, while Ms Patterson ate from an “orangey tan” coloured plate.

“Erin picked up the odd plate and carried it to the table. She took it to her place at the table.”

He was shown a picture of the dining room table on an iPad and he marked where each of the five people at the lunch had been seated.

He said that both he and Heather “ate the entire meal”, while Don ate his meal along with half of the beef wellington that Gail did not finish.

“There was talk about husbands helping their wives out.”

Asked about his relationship with Ms Patterson he said: “I would say our relationship was friendly, amicable. It did not have much depth. We were more like acquaintances. We didn’t see a great deal of each other.”

“She just seemed like a normal person to me,” he added. “When we met things were friendly. We never had arguments or disputes. She just seemed like an ordinary person.”

“Heather would have seen Erin more than me, talked to her more than me but we did not consider that the relationship was close,” he said.

The invitation was made to Heather Wilkinson at church, a week or two earlier, Mr Wilkinson recalled.

“We were very happy to be invited. It seemed like maybe our relationship was going to improve,” he said.

“We were very happy to accept.”

The court was shown a copy of Mrs Wilkinson’s diary where she had written, “Erin for lunch” with a pencil.

Written in blue ink: “12:00” – which Mr Wilkinson said was the time they were to be picked up by Don and Gail Patterson. Another word “fruit” in the diary referred to a fruit platter they were taking to the lunch, he said.

Ms Patterson, wearing a light pink striped shirt sat emotionless as Mr Wilkinson began his evidence.

Last week, her lawyer said there was no intent to hurt anyone and the deaths were. the result of a tragic accident – though many of the facts are not in dispute and it is accepted that she lied several times to police.

On Monday the jury heard from members of a true crime Facebook group that Ms Patterson was part of.

One of the witnesses, Christine Hunt, was asked about Erin Patterson’s relationship with her estranged husband Simon.

She told the court that the words “controlling” and “coercive” had been used by Ms Patterson.

Another member of the same group. Daniela Barkley, told the court that Erin Patterson had been “excited” about buying a dehydrator, and the jury was shown several images shared with the group, which showed mushrooms drying on the metal racks of the appliance.

In a text message shown to the court, Ms Patterson said “I’ve been hiding powdered mushrooms in everything” – including recipes such as brownies so her children couldn’t tell they were eating them.

The court also heard that in July 2023, she’d asked the group for advice on cooking a beef Wellington, the dish that was served to the four guests at that deadly lunch later the same month.

This must be the most secretive election in the world.

When 133 Catholic cardinals are shut into the Sistine Chapel on Wednesday to choose a successor to Pope Francis, each one will have sworn an oath on the gospels to keep the details under wraps for life.

The same goes for every person inside the Vatican during the conclave: from the two doctors on hand for any emergency, to the dining-room staff who feed the cardinals. All vow to observe “absolute and perpetual secrecy”.

Just to be sure, the chapel and the two guesthouses will be swept for microphones and bugs.

“There are electronic jammers to make sure that phone and wi-fi signals are not getting in or out,” said John Allen, the editor of Crux news site.

“The Vatican takes the idea of isolation extremely seriously.”

The lockdown isn’t only about keeping the voting process secret.

It is also intended to stop “nefarious forces” from hacking information or disrupting proceedings, and to ensure those voting are not influenced by the outside world on what will perhaps be one of the biggest decisions of their lives.

Catholics will tell you the election is guided by God, not politics. But the hierarchy takes no chances.

On entering the conclave, everyone is obliged to surrender all electronic devices including phones, tablets and smart watches. The Vatican has its own police to enforce the rules.

“The logic is trust but verify,” John Allen said.

“There are no televisions, newspapers or radio at the guesthouse for the conclave – nothing,” said Monsignor Paolo de Nicolo, who was head of the Papal household for three decades.

“You can’t even open the windows because many rooms have windows to the exterior world.”

Everyone working behind the high Vatican walls for the conclave has been heavily vetted. Even so, they are barred from communicating with electors.

“The cardinals are completely incommunicado,” said Ines San Martin of the Pontifical Mission Societies in the US.

“There will just be walkie-talkies for some specific circumstances like, ‘we need a medic,’ or ‘Hey, the Pope has been elected, can someone let the bell-ringers in the Basilica know.'”

So what if someone breaks the rules?

“There is an oath, and those who do not observe it risk ex-communication,” Msgr De Nicolo says, meaning exclusion from the church. “No one dares to do this.”

It’s a different matter in the run-up to the conclave.

Officially, the cardinals are banned from commenting even now. But from the moment Pope Francis was buried, parts of the Italian press and many visitors turned cardinal-hunters, trying to suss out his most likely successor.

They’ve been scouring establishments around the Vatican, ready to speculate on any sightings and possible alliances.

“Wine and Rigatoni: the Cardinals’ Last Suppers”, was one headline in La Repubblica which described the “princes of the church” enjoying “good Roman lunches” before lockdown.

Reporters have then been grilling waiters on what they might have overheard.

“Nothing,” one of the servers at Roberto’s, a couple of streets back from St Peter’s, told me this week.

“They always go quiet whenever we get close.”

The other prime spot to catch a cardinal is beside the basilica itself, next to the curve of columns that embraces the main square. Each morning there’s a huddle of cameras and reporters on the lookout for the men in lace and scarlet robes.

There are now close to 250 cardinals in the city, called here from all over the world, although those aged 80 or over are not eligible to vote.

As they head into the Vatican for their daily congregations to discuss the election, each one is surrounded and bombarded with questions on progress.

They’ve given away little in response beyond the “need for unity” or assurances that the conclave will be short.

“The whole idea is for this to be a religious decision, not a political one,” Ines San Martin explains. “We say the Holy Spirit guides the conversation and the vote.”

But the Pope heads a huge, wealthy institution with significant moral authority and global sway on everything from conflict resolution to sexual politics.

So the man chosen – and his vision and priorities – matter far beyond the Vatican.

Certain Catholic monarchs had a veto on the election up until 1907. Today, voices from all quarters try to influence the debate – most obviously through the media.

At one point, Rome’s Il Messaggero chided a presumed front-runner, Italian Cardinal Parolin, for “a sort of self-candidacy”.

Then there was a video clip of Filipino Cardinal Tagle singing John Lennon’s Imagine, apparently released to dent his popularity. It went viral instead.

Meanwhile, a glossy book highlighting some potential contenders is doing the rounds, lauding conservatives like Cardinal Sarah of Guinea for condemning the “contemporary evils” of abortion and the “same-sex agenda”.

“There are groups in town who are trying to bang the drum on issues of interest to them,” John Allen says. “The cardinals are aware of this kind of thing, they read the papers. But they will do everything they can to block it out.”

“Are there lobbies going on? Yes, like in every election,” Ines San Martin agrees. “But it’s not as loud as I thought it would be.”

She argues that is partly because Pope Francis appointed so many new cardinals, including from new places.

“Fifty or sixty percent of them don’t even know one another. So even if you were an outside group, trying to have an agenda, it’s very hard even to pick your cardinals to begin with.”

By Wednesday morning, all the electors should be in place inside the Vatican – stripped of their phones and sealed off from the rest of the world.

John Allen believes personal preference will dominate over politics, ‘liberal’ or ‘conservative’ factions or the “rattle and hum of public debate”.

“I really think the cardinals’ discussions among themselves right now is key,” said Ines San Martin. “A lot have been speaking up for the first time. You never know just how inspiring one of them might be.”

France’s former interior minister has apologised for the first time for the 2022 fiasco at the Stade de France which saw Liverpool football supporters wrongly blamed for a riot.

Gérald Darmanin admitted that security arrangements for the Champions League final between Liverpool and Real Madrid were wrong, and that his first public remarks – blaming English fans – were a mistake.

“It was a failure because I had not foreseen. That was a mistake on my part. I was led astray by my preconceptions,” said Darmanin, now France’s justice minister.

“The scapegoat was easy to find, and I apologise now to Liverpool supporters. They were quite right to be hurt. It was a mistake and a failure.”

Police used tear gas on Liverpool supporters as they tried to enter the stadium in Paris. Some fans were also ambushed and mugged by gangs of French youths.

In a lengthy interview on the Legend YouTube channel, Darmanin said the night was “the biggest failure” of his career.

“What I did not appreciate that evening was that the real problem was not coming from English supporters, but from delinquents who were robbing fans.

• Liverpool fans’ claim ‘can be heard in England’

“Our security arrangements were not designed for that eventuality. We had riot police … with big boots and shields – not great for running. What you need against that kind of delinquency is officers in running shoes.

“We got our arrangements wrong. We were expecting a war of (football) hooligans, and what we got instead was muggers.”

In their first comments after the problems, Darmanin and police chief Didier Lallement said the dangerous crush at the stadium was largely caused by Liverpool fans in possession of fake tickets.

The claim was subsequently debunked in an independent report commissioned by UEFA.

In another section of the interview, Darmanin said that there was “no longer any safe place” in France – a comment that drew fire from the hard-right opposition.

“What a lot of French people can see is that (violence) has become general, it has metastasised. It’s no longer only in the places where you once looked for potential problems.

“Nowadays you can see that the tiniest country village has experience of cocaine or cannabis.”

National Rally MP Jean-Philippe Tanguy noted that Darmanin has been in government since President Emmanuel Macron’s first election in 2017.

Tungay said he was “treating the French like imbeciles, making all these so-called tough declarations when the record is so catastrophic”.

Darmanin, who is 42 and from the political right, did nothing in the interview to dispel speculation that he might be in the running to replace Macron in 2027.

“Do I think of the presidential election? The answer is yes,” he said.

“That does not mean that I am going to be a candidate, but it does mean I have ambitions for the country to do better than what I see now.”

Israel’s security cabinet has approved a plan to expand its military offensive against Hamas which includes the “capture” of Gaza and the holding of its territory, according to an Israeli official.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the cabinet had decided on a “forceful operation” to destroy Hamas and rescue its remaining hostages, and that Gaza’s 2.1 million population “will be moved, to protect it”.

He did not say how much territory would be seized by troops, but he stressed that “they will not enter and come out”.

The cabinet also approved, in principle, a plan to deliver aid through private companies, which would end a two-month blockade the UN says has caused severe food shortages.

The UN and other aid agencies have said the proposal would be a breach of basic humanitarian principles and that they will not co-operate.

A Hamas official said the group rejected Israel’s “pressure and blackmail”.

Asked about the Israeli plan to expand its offensive, President Donald Trump repeated a pledge to help get food to Palestinians there.

The UK meanwhile said it “does not support an expansion of Israel’s military operations in Gaza”. The EU earlier urged restraint, saying it was concerned about “further casualties and suffering for the Palestinian population”.

Israel’s security cabinet met on Sunday evening to discuss the Gaza offensive, which resumed when Israel ended a two-month ceasefire on 18 March.

An Israeli official who briefed the media on Monday morning said ministers voted unanimously to approve a plan proposed by the Israeli military’s Chief of Staff Lt Gen Eyal Zamir to “defeat Hamas in Gaza and return the hostages”.

“The plan will include, among other things, the capture of the Strip and holding the territories, moving the Gazan population south for its defence, denying Hamas the ability to distribute humanitarian supplies, and powerful attacks against Hamas,” the official said.

Israeli media reported that first stage would include the seizure of additional areas of Gaza and the expansion of the Israeli-designated “buffer zone” running along the territory’s borders. It would aim to give Israel additional leverage in negotiations with Hamas on a new ceasefire and hostage release deal.

Later, a senior Israeli security official said the plan would not be implemented until after US President Donald Trump’s visit to the region between 13 and 16 May, providing what he called “a window of opportunity” to Hamas to agree a new ceasefire and hostage release deal.

Trump will visit Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates and Qatar on his trip.

Far-right Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich meanwhile told a conference in Jerusalem on Monday that Israel was “going to finally occupy the Gaza Strip”, according to Reuters news agency.

Israel occupied Gaza in the 1967 Middle East war along with the West Bank. It unilaterally withdrew troops and settlers from Gaza in 2005, but the UN still regards Gaza as Israeli-occupied territory because it retained control of Gaza’s shared border, airspace and shoreline.

In a briefing later on Monday, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) said the expanded campaign would displace most Palestinians in Gaza as air strikes and other military operations continued.

However, critics say military action has failed to secure the return of the 59 remaining hostages – up to 24 of whom are believed to be alive – and have urged the government to strike a deal with Hamas.

The Hostages and Missing Families Forum, which represents hostages’ relatives, said the plan was an admission by the government that it was “choosing territories over the hostages” and that this was “against the will of over 70% of the people” in Israel.

Hamas official Mahmoud Mardawi reiterated that the group wanted a comprehensive deal, including “a complete ceasefire, full withdrawal from Gaza, reconstruction of the Gaza Strip, and the release of all prisoners from both sides”.

Palestinians in north Gaza told the BBC that they were strongly opposed to being forcibly displaced to the south once again, with several saying they would rather die amid the ruins of their homes.

“In October 2023, I evacuated with my children, daughters, and grandchildren – about 60 people in total,” 76-year-old Gaza City resident Ahmed Shehata said.

“We lived through unbearable conditions in what Israel claimed was a ‘safe zone’ in the south. This time, we will not leave, even if Israel brings down the tents over our heads.”

Osama Tawfiq, a 48-year-old father of five, said: “Israeli threats won’t scare us. We are staying in Gaza.”

The Israeli official said the security cabinet also approved by a large majority “the possibility of humanitarian [aid] distribution – if necessary – that would prevent Hamas from taking control of supplies and would destroy its governmental capabilities”.

The security official said deliveries would resume once the expanded offensive began, and that the military would establish a “sterile area” in the southern Rafah area that Palestinians would be able to enter pending inspection.

On Sunday, the Humanitarian Country Team (HCT), a forum that includes UN agencies, said Israeli officials were seeking to “shut down the existing aid distribution system” and “have us agree to deliver supplies through Israeli hubs under conditions set by the Israeli military, once the government agrees to re-open crossings”.

The HCT warned that the plan would mean large parts of Gaza, including less mobile and most vulnerable people, would continue to go without supplies.

“It contravenes fundamental humanitarian principles and appears designed to reinforce control over life-sustaining items as a pressure tactic – as part of a military strategy,” it said.

“It is dangerous, driving civilians into militarized zones to collect rations, threatening lives, including those of humanitarian workers, while further entrenching forced displacement.”

Israel cut off all deliveries of humanitarian aid and other supplies to Gaza aid on 2 March, two weeks before resuming its offensive.

According to the UN, the population is facing a renewed risk of hunger and malnutrition because warehouses are empty, bakeries have shut, and community kitchens are days away from running out of supplies.

The blockade has also cut off essential medicines, vaccines and medical equipment needed by Gaza’s overwhelmed healthcare system.

The UN says Israel is obliged under international law to ensure supplies for Gaza’s population, almost all of whom have been displaced. Israel says it is complying with international law and there is no shortage of aid.

The Israeli military launched a campaign to destroy Hamas in response to an unprecedented cross-border attack on 7 October 2023, in which about 1,200 people were killed and 251 others were taken hostage.

At least 52,567 people have been killed in Gaza since then, including 2,459 since the Israeli offensive resumed, according to the territory’s Hamas-run health ministry.

I ran from the White House briefing room, past the portico entrance of the West Wing to our camera position on the lawn, and flung on an ear piece connecting me to the studio.

A moment later the presenter asked me about the comments we had just heard live from US President Donald Trump.

I said we were seeing a fundamental shift in a United States’ policy position after decades of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

It was February this year, and Trump had just held talks with Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu – the first foreign leader since Trump’s inauguration to be invited to the White House. The US president vowed that his country would take control of the Gaza Strip, having earlier pledged the territory would also be “cleaned out” and emptied of its Palestinian population.

Trump was grabbing the world’s attention with a proposal that hardened his administration’s support for Israel and also upended international norms, flying in the face of international law. It marked an apex of the current Republican Party’s relationship with Israel – sometimes described as support “at all costs”.

The alliance between the two countries had been thrust into the international spotlight after the Hamas attacks on Israel on 7 October 2023 and Israel’s offensive in Gaza that followed.

During that war, the administration of President Joe Biden sent some $18bn (£13.5bn) worth of weapons to Israel, maintaining unprecedented levels of US backing. The period was marked by intensifying protests in the US, with many of those protesting being traditional Democrat leaning voters. The fallout became the focus of a bitter culture war centring on American attitudes towards Israel and the Palestinians. I covered demonstrations in which protesters repeatedly labelled Biden “Genocide Joe” – an accusation he always rejected.

At the time Donald Trump branded the protesters “radical-left lunatics” and the Trump administration is now targeting for deportation hundreds of foreign students who it accuses of antisemitism or support for Hamas, a move being vigorously challenged in the courts.

But as a Democrat who could otherwise have expected the vote of many of those upset over his support for Israel that support was politically costly for Biden in a way not experienced by previous presidents or, indeed, Trump.

One of Biden’s key decision makers over relations with Israel still wrestles with the decisions they took.

“My first reaction is just, I understand that this has evoked incredibly passionate feelings for Arab Americans, for non-Arab Americans, Jewish Americans,” says Jake Sullivan, Biden’s former national security adviser.

“There were two competing considerations: one was wanting to curb Israel’s excesses, both with respect to civilian casualties and the flow of humanitarian assistance. The other was […] wanting to make sure that we were not cutting Israel off from the capabilities it needed to confront its enemies on multiple different fronts.”

He added: “The United States stood behind Israel materially, morally, and in every other way in those days following October 7th.”

But opinion polls suggest support for Israel among the American public is dwindling.

A Gallup survey taken in March this year found only 46% of Americans expressed support for Israel (the lowest level in 25 years of Gallup’s annual tracking) while 33% now said they sympathised with the Palestinians – the highest ever reading of that measure. Other polls have found similar results.

Surveys – with all their limitations – suggest the swing is largely among Democrats and the young, although not exclusively. Between 2022 and 2025, the Pew Research Center found that the proportion of Republicans who said they had unfavourable views of Israel rose from 27% to 37% (younger Republicans, aged under 49, drove most of that change).

The US has long been Israel’s most powerful ally – ever since May 1948, when America was the first country to recognise the nascent State of Israel. But while US support for Israel is extremely likely to continue long-term, these swings in sentiment raise questions over the practical extent and policy limits of the US’s ironclad backing and whether the shifting sands of public opinion will eventually feed through to Washington, with real-world policy impacts.

To many, the close relationship between the US and Israel seems like a permanent, unshakeable part of the geopolitical infrastructure. But it wasn’t always guaranteed – and at the very beginning largely came down to one man.

In early 1948, US President Harry S Truman had to decide on his approach to Palestine. The country was in the grip of sectarian bloodshed between Jews and Arab Palestinians after three decades of colonial rule by Britain, which had announced its intention to pull out. Truman was deeply moved by the plight of Jewish survivors of the Holocaust stranded in displaced persons camps in Europe.

In New York City, a young Francine Klagsbrun, who would later become an academic and historian of Israeli prime minister Golda Meir, watched her parents praying for a Jewish homeland.

“I grew up in a very Jewish home and a very Zionist home also,” she explains. “So my older brother and I would go out and collect money to try to get England to open the doors. My brother would go on the subway trains, all the doors open on the train and he’d shout ‘open, open, open the doors to Palestine’,” she recalls.

Truman’s administration was deeply divided over whether to back a Jewish state. The CIA and the Department of State cautioned against recognising a Jewish state. They feared a bloody conflict with Arab countries that might draw in the US, risking Cold War escalation with the Soviets.

Two days before Britain was due to pull out of Palestine, an explosive row took place in the Oval Office. Truman’s domestic advisor Clark Clifford argued in favour of recognising a Jewish state. On the other side of the debate was Secretary of State George Marshall, a World War Two general whom Truman viewed as “the greatest living American”.

The man Truman admired so much was vigorously opposed to the president immediately recognising a Jewish state because of his fears about a regional war – and even went as far as telling Truman he would not vote for him in the coming presidential election if he backed recognition.

But despite the moment of extraordinary tension, Truman immediately recognised the State of Israel when it was declared two days later by David Ben-Gurion, the country’s first prime minister.

The historian Rashid Khalidi, a New York-born Palestinian whose family members were expelled from Jerusalem by the British in the 1930s, says the US and Israel were fused together in part by shared cultural connections. From 1948 onwards, he says, the Palestinians had a critical diplomatic disadvantage in the US, with their claim to national self-determination sidelined in an unequal contest.

“On the one side, you had the Zionist movement led by people whom are European and American by origin… The Arabs had nothing similar,” he says. “[The Arabs] weren’t familiar with the societies, the cultures, the political leaderships of the countries that decided the fate of Palestine. How could you speak to American public opinion if you had no idea what America is like?” says Khalidi.

Popular culture played its role too – notably the 1958 novel and subsequent blockbuster film Exodus by the author Leon Uris. It retold the story of Israel’s establishment to mass audiences of the 1960s, the movie version creating a heavily Americanised portrayal of pioneers in a new land.

Ehud Olmert, who at the time was a political activist but would later become Israeli prime minister, points to the war of 1967 as the moment when America’s support for Israel became the profound alliance that it is today.

That was the war in which Israel, after weeks of escalating fears of invasion by its neighbours, defeated the Arab countries in six days, effectively tripling the size of its territory, and launching its military occupation over (at that time) more than a million stateless Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza.

“For the first time, the United States understood the importance and the significance of Israel as a major military and political power in the Middle East, and since then everything has changed in the basic relations within our two countries,” he says.

Over the years, Israel became the biggest recipient of US foreign military aid on Earth. Strong American diplomatic support, particularly at the United Nations, has been a key element of the alliance; while successive US presidents have also sought to broker peace between Israel and its Arab neighbours.

But in recent years it has been far from a straightforward relationship.

When I spoke to Jake Sullivan, I put to him the issue of Arab Americans in the state of Michigan who boycotted Biden and his successor candidate Kamala Harris over the extent of their support for Israel during the Gaza conflict, voting instead for Trump. He rejected the idea that Biden lost the state because of this support.

But that backing still prompted a marked backlash within a section of the American public.

A Pew Research Center survey taken in March this year found that 53% of Americans expressed an unfavourable opinion of Israel, an 11 point increase since the last time the survey was taken in 2022.

Currently, these shifts in public opinion haven’t yet prompted a major change in US foreign policy. Whilst some ordinary US voters are turning away from Israel, on Capitol Hill elected politicians from both parties are still mostly keen to talk up the importance of a strong alliance with Israel.

Some think that a sustained, long-term shift in public opinion might eventually lead to reduced real-world support for the country – with weaker diplomatic ties and reduced military aid. This issue is felt particularly sharply by some inside Israel. Several months before 7 October, the former Israeli general and head of the Military Intelligence Directorate, Tamir Hayman, warned of cracks forming between his country and the United States, in part because of what he described as the slow movement of American Jews away from Zionism.

Israel’s political shift in favour of the national-religious right has played a key part in this. From early 2023, Israel was gripped by an unprecedented wave of protests among Jewish Israelis against Netanyahu’s judicial reforms, with many arguing he was moving the country towards theocracy – a claim he always rejected. Some in the US who had always felt a deep sense of connection with Israel were watching with growing concern.

In March this year, the Institute for National Security Studies, a leading Tel Aviv-based think tank led by Hayman, published a paper arguing that US public opinion had entered the “danger zone”, as far as support for Israel was concerned. “The dangers of diminished US support, particularly as it reflects long-term and deeply rooted trends, cannot be overstated,” wrote the paper’s author, Theodore Sasson. “Israel needs the support of the global superpower for the foreseeable future,”.

That support at the policy level has only strengthened over the decades, but it is important to note that historic American opinion polling shows public opinion has ebbed and flowed before.

Today, Dennis Ross, who helped negotiate the Oslo accords with President Bill Clinton, says American opinion on Israel has become increasingly tied to sharp political divisions in the US.

“Trump is viewed very negatively by most Democrats – the latest polls show over 90 percent,” Ross says. “There’s potential for Trumpian support for Israel to feed a dynamic here that, at least among Democrats, increases criticism of Israel.”

But he expects that Washington’s support for Israel – in the form of military aid and diplomatic ties – will continue. And he thinks if Israeli voters eject their prime minister and replace him with a more centrist government, one that may reverse some of the disquiet in the US. A general election must be held in Israel before late October next year.

Under such a new Israeli government, Ross argues, “there won’t be the same impulse towards creating de-facto annexation of the West Bank. There’ll be much more outreach to the Democratic Party and the Democratic Party officials.”

Those who see a fraying relationship are paying particularly close attention to the views of younger Americans – a group that has shown the most marked shift in opinion since 7 October. As the ‘TikTok generation’, many young Americans get their news about the war from social media and the high civilian death toll from Israel’s offensive in Gaza appears to have driven the declining support among young Democrats and liberals in America. Last year, 33 percent of Americans under 30 said their sympathies lie entirely or mostly with the Palestinian people, versus 14 percent who said the same about Israelis, according to a Pew Research poll published last month. Older Americans were more likely to sympathise with the Israelis.

Karin Von Hippel, chair of the Arden Defence and Security Practice and a former official in the US State Department, agrees there is a demographic divide among Americans on the topic of Israel – one that even extends to Congress.

“Younger Congress men and women are less knee jerk, reactively supporting Israel,” she says. “And I think younger Americans, including Jewish Americans, are less supportive of Israel than their parents were.”

But she is sceptical of the idea that this might lead to a serious change at the policy level. Despite changing opinions among the party’s base, she says, many of the most prominent Democrats who might run for President in 2028 are “classically supportive of Israel”. She names Gretchen Whitmer, the governor of Michigan, and Pete Buttigieg, the former Transportation Secretary, as examples. And what about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the Instagram-famous congresswoman who is a long-standing supporter of Palestinian rights? Hippel responds bluntly: “I don’t think an Ocasio-Cortez type can win right now.”

In the weeks after February’s Trump-Netanyahu press conference at the White House, I asked Jake Sullivan where he thought the US-Israel relationship was going. He argued that both countries were dealing with internal threats to their democratic institutions that would define their character and their relationship.

“I think it’s almost less of a foreign policy question than it is a domestic policy question in these two countries – whither America and whither Israel?” he says. “The answer to those two questions will tell you where does the US-Israel relationship go five, ten, fifteen years from now.”

Sir David Attenborough is launching what he says is one of the most important films of his career as he enters his hundredth year.

He believes his new, cinema-length film Ocean could play a decisive role in saving biodiversity and protecting the planet from climate change.

Sir David, who will be 99 on Thursday, says: “After almost 100 years on the planet, I now understand the most important place on land is not on Earth but at sea.”

The ocean is the planet’s support system and humanity’s greatest ally against climate catastrophe, the film argues. It shows how the world’s oceans are at a crossroads.

A blue carpet will be rolled out at the film’s premiere tonight at the Royal Festival Hall.

A host of celebrities are expected to attend including Chris Martin and Coldplay, Benedict Cumberbatch, astronaut Tim Peake, Geri Halliwell-Horner and Simon LeBon.

Toby Nowlan, who produced Ocean, says this new production is not a typical Attenborough film. “This is not about seeing brand new natural history behaviours. It is the greatest message he’s ever told,” he says.

The film documents how the state of the world’s oceans and our understanding of how they function have changed in the course of Sir David’s lifetime.

Sir David remembers his first scuba dive on the Great Barrier Reef way back in 1957: “I was so taken aback by the spectacle before me I forgot – momentarily – to breathe.”

Since then, there has been a catastrophic decline in life in the world’s oceans. “We are almost out of time,” he warns.

Ocean contains some of the most graphic footage of the damage that bottom trawling – a common fishing practice around the world – can do to the seabed. It is a vivid example of how industrial fishing can drain the life from the world’s oceans, Sir David claims.

The new footage shows how the chain that the trawlers drag behind them scours the seafloor, forcing the creatures it disturbs into the net behind. The trawlers are often after a single species: more than three-quarters of what they catch may be discarded.

“It’s hard to imagine a more wasteful way to catch fish,” comments Sir David.

The process also releases vast amounts of carbon dioxide which contributes to the warming of our planet, yet bottom trawling is not just legal but is actively encouraged by many governments.

Sir David says the state of the ocean has almost made him lose hope for the future of life on the planet. What has kept him from despair is what he calls the “most remarkable discovery of all” – that the ocean can “recover faster than we had ever imagined”.

Sir David says the story of the world’s whales has been a source of huge optimism for him.

It is estimated that 2.9 million whales were killed by the whaling industry in the 20th Century alone. Scientists have said it is the largest cull of any animal in history when measured in terms of total biomass. It pushed almost all whale species to the edge of extinction.

Just one per cent of Blue Whales were left, recalls Sir David: “I remember thinking that was it. There was no coming back, we had lost the great whales.”

But in 1986 lawmakers bowed to public pressure and banned commercial whaling worldwide. The whale population has rapidly recovered since then.

One of the film’s directors, Keith Scholey, has worked with Sir David for 44 years. “When I first met David, I was in shorts,” he jokes. That was in 1981, two years after Sir David had resigned as the BBC’s director of programmes – one of the most senior jobs at the Corporation. “He’d done one career, and he was off on his next.”

Despite now nearing his 99th birthday Sir David is still remarkably energetic, says Scholey. “Every time you work with David, you learn something new,” he says. “It’s really good fun. But also, David keeps you on your mettle, because he is so on his mettle and so, you know, it’s always a very creative process.”

Sir David’s key message in the Ocean film is that all is not lost. Countries have promised to protect a third of the world’s oceans. He hopes his new film will spur leaders to take firm action on this promise at a UN conference next month.

He believes that could be transformational.

“The ocean can bounce back to life,” Sir David says. “If left alone it may not just recover but thrive beyond anything anyone alive has ever seen.”

A healthier ocean ecosystem would also be able to trap more carbon dioxide, helping protect the world from climate change, according to scientists.

“In front of us is a chance to protect our climate, our food, our home,” Sir David says.

As he celebrates his 99th birthday this week he is still fighting to protect the natural world he has worked his lifetime to show to us in all its glory.

Ocean will be in cinemas across the country from Thursday.

Sign up for our Future Earth newsletter to keep up with the latest climate and environment stories with the BBC’s Justin Rowlatt. Outside the UK? Sign up to our international newsletter here.

US President Donald Trump has doubled down on his proposal to reopen and expand Alcatraz, the once-notorious prison island in the icy waters of San Francisco Bay.

Alcatraz – popularly known as “the Rock” – has not been used as a prison for decades. It is now a historic landmark visited by millions of tourists each year.

The US president says he believes the prison could be used once again to house dangerous inmates, and to serve as a symbol of law and order in the US.

But experts say that refurbishing the dilapidated remains of the once-formidable prison is “not realistic at all”. Here’s what we know about the plan.

Located on an island about 1.25 miles (2km) offshore from San Francisco, Alcatraz originally was built as a naval defence fort, but was rebuilt in the early 20th century as a military prison.

In 1934, it was formally converted into a federal prison – Alcatraz Federal Penitentiary – housing notorious inmates including gangster Al Capone, Mickey Cohen and George “Machine Gun” Kelly, among others.

The prison was among one of the most notorious in the US at the time, and was considered inescapable because of the strong currents and frigid temperatures of San Francisco Bay.

• Trump orders reopening of notorious Alcatraz prison
• The men who broke out of Alcatraz with a spoon
• Alcatraz 1962 escapees had small chance of success

The facility also was made famous by the 1979 American biographical prison movie, Escape from Alcatraz, which recounted a 1962 prisoner escape, starring Clint Eastwood as ringleader Frank Morris.

It was also the site of the 1996 film The Rock, starring Sean Connery and Nicolas Cage, about a former SAS captain and FBI chemist who rescue hostages from Alcatraz Island.

According to the Federal Bureau of Prisons, BOP, it was nearly three times more costly to operate than other federal institutions and was ultimately closed by Attorney General Robert Kennedy in 1963.

The island and prison are now a museum operated by the National Park Service. More than 1.4m people visit each year.

“Alcatraz is a place where the past meets the present,” Christine Lehnertz, president and CEO of the Golden Gate National Parks Conservancy, said in a statement sent to the BBC.

“It challenges us to listen, to learn, and to carry forward the stories that still shape our world today,” she added.

Donald Trump is not the first president to mull re-opening the facility as a detention centre.

In 1981, Alcatraz was one of 14 sites considered by the Reagan administration to hold up to 20,000 refugees who had fled from Cuba to Florida in the famous “Mariel Boatlift”.

The site eventually was rejected due to its value as a historical tourist site and its complete lack of adequate facilities.

In a Truth Social post on 4 May, Trump first said he had directed his government to re-open and expand the island prison, saying that “for too long America has been plagued by vicious, violent, and repeat criminal offenders”.

Speaking to reporters at the White House the following day, Trump said that, in his view, Alcatraz “represents something very strong, very powerful” – law and order.

“We need law and order in this country,” he said. “So we’re going to look at it. Some of the people up here are going to be working very hard on that.”

While he said he finds the idea “interesting”, Trump also acknowledged that the prison is currently a “big hulk” that is “rusting and rotting”.

“It sort of represents something that is both horrible and beautiful and strong and miserable,” he said.

Trump’s border czar, Tom Homan, also told reporters that Alcatraz could be “an option” for “significant public safety threats and national security threats”.

“It should be on the table,” he added.

Soon after Trump’s comments made news around the world, justice department spokesman Chad Gilmartin said in a statement that BOP “is working towards rebuilding and opening Alcatraz to serve as a symbol of law and order”.

But prison experts and historians have expressed serious doubts whether the plan is feasible.

“To be frank, at first I thought it was a joke,” Hugh Hurwitz, who served as acting director of the BOP between May 2018 and August 2019, told the BBC. “It’s not realistic to think you can repair it. You’d have to tear it up and start over.”

Mr Hurwitz pointed to a number of issues with the facility, including buildings that are “literally falling apart”, and cells in which “a six-foot person can’t stand up”.

“There’s no security upgrades. No cameras. No fencing,” he added. “You can’t run a prison.”

“I have two words: water and sewage,” said Jolene Babyak, an author and Alcatraz historian who lived there as a child during her father’s two stints as prison administrator.

“In its heyday, all the sewage for 500 or more people was just dumped in the bay,” she said. “Nowadays it has to be boated off. It’s just not realistic at all. But it captures everyone’s imagination.”

When the facility closed in 1963, the BOP said it was nearly three times more expensive to operate Alcatraz than any other federal prison – the per-capita cost being $10 and $13 per inmate, compared to between $3 and $5 at other facilities. This was in part because it required food and supplies to be dropped off by boat.

In today’s federal prisons, the per capita cost for inmates is between $120 and $164 – meaning that costs could rise to over $500 per person in a facility like Alcatraz.

Alcatraz could hold only about 340 prisoners at its peak.

“It was mind bogglingly expensive to keep a convict there,” said John Martini, a historian who spent several years on Alcatraz as a ranger with the National Park Service. “Things have not changed. But the place has gone downhill.”

“It’s basically a shell. Even the concrete has major problems. The Park Service has put millions into structurally stabilising it,” he added. “They would need water, electricity, heat, and sanitation. None of those functions.”

“This [Trump’s comments] are just another twist in the odd history of Alcatraz,” Mr Martini added.

Air traffic controllers at Newark Liberty International Airport briefly lost communications with planes under their control, “unable to see, hear, or talk to them” last week, officials say.

The 28 April incident led to multiple employees going on trauma leave, contributing to hundreds of delayed flights. More than 150 flights were cancelled on Monday alone, according to tracking website FlightAware.

The airport, one of New York’s busiest hubs, has been grappling with staff shortages for more than a week.

US Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said on Monday that contact with air traffic was lost for “30 seconds”, but it did not mean that the planes were going to crash.

“The primary communication line went down, the backup line didn’t fire, and so for 30 seconds we lost contact with air traffic,” Duffy told Fox News

“Now were planes going to crash? No. They have communication devices. … But it’s a sign that we have a frail system in place, and it has to be fixed.”

The Federal Aviation Administration also acknowledged in a statement that “our antiquated air traffic control system is affecting our work force”.

Confirming the controllers were on leave following the incident, the FAA said it could “not quickly replace them”.

“We continue to train controllers who will eventually be assigned to this busy airspace,” the statement said.

Air traffic control operations at the airport have come under sustained criticism recently.

Last week, United Airlines announced it was cancelling 35 flights per day from its Newark schedule because the airport “cannot handle the number of planes that are scheduled to operate there”.

“In the past few days, on more than one occasion, technology that FAA air traffic controllers rely on to manage the airplanes coming in and out of Newark airport failed – resulting in dozens of diverted flights, hundreds of delayed and cancelled flights,” United CEO Scott Kirby said.

He also said the issues were “compounded” because over 20% of FAA controllers “walked off the job”.

The National Air Traffic Controllers Association said the employees took leave under provisions for workers who experience a traumatic event at work.

The union would not say how many controllers had taken leave, or how long they lost contact with planes.

The incident comes as the US Department of Transportation last week unveiled a package designed to boost the numbers of FAA air traffic controllers. The department said it was on track to hire at least 2,000 controllers this year.

In February, the Trump administration began firing hundreds of FAA employees, weeks after a fatal mid-air plane collision in Washington DC.

Transport secretary Duffy said he planned to unveil a plan on Thursday to seek billions of dollars from Congress to reform infrastructure and staffing.

“We’re going to build a brand new air traffic control system, from new telecom to new radars to new infrastructure,” he told Fox News.

Romanian Prime Minister Marcel Ciolacu has resigned and his Social Democrat party is to leave the government after a right-wing nationalist candidate won the first round of the presidential election.

George Simion, a eurosceptic who has promised to put Romania first, won 40.9% of Sunday’s vote and is expected to win a run-off vote on 18 May.

He will face liberal Bucharest Mayor Nicușor Dan, who narrowly defeated the Social Democrat (PSD) candidate.

Sunday’s result plunged Romania – an EU state on Nato’s eastern flank – into further political turmoil. Ciolacu told colleagues that as their coalition had failed to meet its objective and “has no legitimacy”, they should pull out of the government.

Ciolacu, 57, had only come to power in a pro-EU coalition after elections in 2024, although George Simion’s far-right party along with two other groupings had attracted a third of the vote.

The parties in that coalition had been holding emergency meetings on Monday to decide on their next steps.

Simion’s victory on Sunday was largely driven by popular frustration at the annulment of presidential elections late last year. His likely success on 18 May is awaited nervously in European capitals, as well as in Kyiv.

He has said he wants an EU of strong, sovereign nations and his party has opposed supply weapons to Ukraine.

Ciolacu is now expected to submit his resignation to interim president Ilie Bolojan, who will then appoint a caretaker prime minister.

Bolojan himself took on the role of interim president last February because of the scandal surrounding the annulment of the presidential vote.

“Romania faces up to 45 days of political instability following Marcel Ciolacu’s resignation,” warned Elena Calistru of independent Romanian monitoring group Funky Citizens.

“This creates a dangerous power vacuum precisely when Romania needs steady leadership most.”

Ciolacu’s party was part of a three-party coalition and the prime minister told his colleagues they had come together with the aim of having a joint presidential candidate and a parliamentary majority.

“One of these two objectives has failed,” he explained. “I’ve seen the vote from yesterday, and that tells us the current coalition no longer has legitimacy in this form.”

“In any case, the new president would have replaced me – that’s what I’ve seen and heard from the media. A new coalition will form to govern.”

Catalin Predoiu, the leader of his liberal coalition partner PNL said they were now looking for a prime minister “capable of addressing the current challenges”.

Meanwhile, the Social Democrat mayor of of Buzau, to the north-east of Bucharest, was highly critical of his party leaders: “We’ve embarrassed ourselves, and that’s partly because of poor decisions taken over time by the leadership.”

George Simion, 38, has cast himself as an admirer of US President Donald Trump. He became presidential frontrunner earlier this year when far-right pro-Russian candidate Calin Georgescu was barred from running

Georgescu had won last November’s first round, which was annulled by the courts after allegations of Russian interference on social media and campaign fraud.

Simion cast his vote on Sunday alongside Georgescu, having told voters the election was “about every Romanian who has been lied to, ignored, humiliated, and still has the strength to believe and defend our identity and rights”.

He has called for restoring Romania’s old borders and has been banned from entering Moldova and Ukraine.

Political analyst Radu Albu-Comanescu told Romania public radio that Sunday’s result was “a radical manifestation of hostility towards the current political establishment”.

Simion did particularly well with Romania’s diaspora voters, polling more than 73% in Spain and almost 65% in the UK among a broadly blue-collar electorate.

Public resentment at Romanian financial support for Ukrainian refugees has been a central plank in Simion’s campaign, though he denies he is pro-Russian.

“Russia is the biggest danger towards Romania, Poland and the Baltic states, the problem is this war is not going anywhere,” he told the BBC.

Elena Calistru said Romania was witnessing a remarkable political reset as both Simion and Nicușor Dan had positioned themselves as anti-establishment candidates with wildly different solutions.

“The outcome will reveal whether anti-establishment sentiment necessarily translates to anti-European positioning, or if Romania can channel its desire for change into constructive democratic renewal,” she told the BBC.

Nothing has convinced Sabine Zetteler of the value of using AI.

“I read a really great phrase recently that said something along the lines of ‘why would I bother to read something someone couldn’t be bothered to write’ and that is such a powerful statement and one that aligns absolutely with my views.”

Ms Zetteler runs her own London-based communications agency, with around 10 staff, some full-time some part-time.

“What’s the point of sending something we didn’t write, reading a newspaper written by bots, listening to a song created by AI, or me making a bit more money by sacking my administrator who has four kids?

“Where’s the joy, love or aspirational betterment even just for me as a founder in that? It means nothing to me,” she says.

Ms Zetteler is among those resisting the AI invasion, which really got going with the launch of ChatGPT at the end of 2022.

Since then the service, and its many rivals have become wildly popular. ChatGPT is racking up over five billion visits a month, according to software firm Semrush.

But training AI systems like ChatGPT requires huge amounts of energy and, once trained, keeping them running is also energy intensive.

While it’s difficult to quantify the electricity used by AI, a report by Goldman Sachs estimated that a ChatGPT query uses nearly 10 times as much electricity as a Google search query.

That makes some people uncomfortable.

For Florence Achery, owner of Yoga Retreats & More, the environmental impact is one reason why she vows to stay away from AI.

“My initial reaction was that AI is soulless and is a contradiction with my business, which is all about human connection,” says Achery, based in London.

“However, I found out that the environmental impact was awful with all the energy consumption required to run the data centres. I don’t think that people are aware of that.”

While Ms Zetteler admits she respects AI for all the social-good it can achieve, she says she’s concerned about the wider impact on society.

“I’m happy that AI exists for blind people if they can have articles translated by AI and anything that is truly beneficial. But in general, I don’t think it will benefit us long-term.”

Is she worried it might have a knock-on effect on her business, especially if rival companies are using AI?

“Like everything, I could save money by sending our agency to Milan on EasyJet flights rather than the train.

“Already my profit margins look unsuccessful if that’s how you measure success, but how about if you measure success by how much you’re contributing to society and how well you sleep?”

Sierra Hansen, who lives in Seattle and works in public affairs, also refuses to use AI. For her, she’s concerned that the use of AI is harming our ability to problem solve.

“Our brain is the thing that helps organise what our days look like, not going to AI Copilot and asking it to tell it how to manage my schedule.

“Our job as a human is to apply critical thinking skills, and if you are feeding simple tasks into ChatGPT then you’re not solving on your own. It’s doing the thinking for you. If I want to listen to music, I don’t need AI to create the perfect punk rock album for me.”

But not everyone has the luxury of opting out of AI.

Jackie Adams (not her real name), who works in digital marketing, resisted AI initially on environmental grounds, and because she thought using it was lazy.

“I heard about the energy needed to power data centres and the amount land they take up, and it didn’t sit right with me. I didn’t understand why we needed it,” she says.

However, about a year ago her three colleagues at the marketing firm she works for started adopting AI, for tasks such as copywriting and idea generation.

Six months ago Ms Adams had to follow them, after being told she had to cut her budget.

“Then it was out my control,” she says. She feels that continuing to resist would have hurt her career.

“I started playing with it a bit more after reading job descriptions asking for AI experience. I recently realised that if I don’t implement it into my ways of working, I’m going to get left behind.”

Now, she says, she doesn’t view tapping into AI as laziness anymore.

“It can elevate my work and make some things better,” adding that she uses it to refine copywriting work and for editing photos.

The moment to opt out of AI has already passed, says James Brusseau, a philosophy professor specialising in AI ethics at Pace University in New York.

“If you want to know why a decision is made, we will need humans. If we don’t care about that, then we will probably use AI,” he says.

“So, we will have human judges for criminal cases, and human doctors to make decisions about who should get the transplant. But, weather forecasting will be gone soon, and anesthesiology too,” says Prof Brusseau.

Ms Adam has accepted using AI at work, but she still feels despondent about AI’s growing influence.

“Even when you do a Google search it includes an AI overview, while some emails have a topline summary, So now it almost feels like we have no control. How do I turn all that off? It’s snowballing.”

US President Donald Trump has said he will hit movies made in foreign countries with 100% tariffs, as he ramps up trade disputes with nations around the world.

Trump said in a post on Truth Social that he was authorising the US Department of Commerce and Trade Representative to start the process to impose the levy because America’s movie industry was dying “a very fast death”.

He later said he would consult Hollywood executives to see if “they’re happy” with his proposal, after the news sent shockwaves through the industry.

So what might this mean for both the US film industry and the global movie business, including the UK?

Announcing the new tariffs, Trump declared that Hollywood was “dying”. So is it?

It’s true that the industry has been through a really rough time in recent years.

The pandemic saw production close down and the impact is ongoing.

Hollywood studios spent $11.3 billion on productions in the second quarter of 2024, a 20% drop from the same period in 2022, as studios continued to cut costs in an attempt to recover from Covid losses.

Any shoots of recovery were then severely stifled by the 2023 actors and writers strikes.

Then the wildfires struck earlier this year.

And for several years now, more and more people – not just youngsters – have been turning to YouTube and other streaming platforms for content.

The US remains a major film production hub and according to Variety, 2025 has seen a rebound in box office numbers since last year, with overall domestic revenues up 15.8% on 2024 so far.

• Is YouTube making Hollywood irrelevant?

The latest Marvel superhero film, Thunderbolts*, topped the North American box office this weekend, raking in an estimated $76 million, marking a promising start to the summer season.

But Hollywood is definitely still up against it.

The president says he wants to “immediately begin the process of instituting a 100% tariff on any and all movies coming into our country that are produced in foreign lands. We want movies made in America again!”

This has led to questions about whether the tariffs would also apply to American film companies producing films abroad.

Several recent major movies produced by US studios were shot outside America, including Deadpool & Wolverine, Wicked and Gladiator II. Hit franchises like Mission Impossible also shoot overseas.

We also don’t yet know if the tariffs will be applied retrospectively.

Trump later told reporters that “other nations have been stealing the movies and movie-making capabilities from the United States”, which may suggest he was only referring to non-US films.

White House spokesman Kush Desai told the BBC that “no final decisions on foreign film tariffs have been made”, and added that the administration is “exploring all options”.

We will have to wait for more detail.

Many countries offer tax breaks to encourage film production such as New Zealand, Australia and the UK and that’s something Trump wants to take on.

But it’s not the only reason a US film company might wish to film abroad.

Some choose to do so for the specific location, exotic and exciting backdrops for example. Who could forget Tom Cruise’s ascent of the Burj Khalifa, Dubai, in Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol?

What could it mean for the next James Bond movie, a franchise now owned by US giant Amazon, but based on an iconic British character who works for MI6, based in London?

And it’s not just other countries that offer incentives – other US states are luring film production away from Hollywood.

Georgia, Illinois and Kentucky are among the many other US states which California are now competing with.

Gavin Newsom, California’s governor, who Trump described as “grossly incompetent” when speaking about the movie tariffs on Monday, is currently pushing for his plan to more than double the state’s film and TV tax incentives to $750 million annually.

While Newsom has made no comment yet on Trump’s proposal, his senior communications advisor told Deadline: “We believe he has no authority to impose tariffs under the International Economic Emergency Powers Act, since tariffs are not listed as a remedy under that law.”

There are more questions than answers at this stage.

The World Trade Organization (WTO) has a moratorium on tariffs for digital goods until 2026. Presumably films count as digital goods.

And what would they base the tariffs on? Box office revenue or production costs? Is streaming content included? That would have a huge impact on US companies like Netflix. What about post-production ie editing?

Tim Richards, Vue Entertainment CEO and founder, told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: “A big part of this is what constitutes US film – is it where the money comes from, the script, the director, the talent, where it was shot?”

And how do you even classify a foreign film when so many are co-productions and are often shot in several countries?

Trump appeared to be talking about film and not TV but it’s not 100% clear at this stage. Would tariffs apply to films made for streaming or just cinema releases? We’ll have to wait for more detail. And of course, Trump may rollback on the proposals as he has done with some other tariffs.

Obviously, putting a 100% tariff on foreign films means a huge cost increase for those production companies who want to sell to the US market.

Commenting on Trump’s announcement, the UK government’s Culture Media and Sport Committee chair Dame Caroline Dinenage MP said: “Last month the Culture, Media and Sport Committee warned against complacency on our status as the Hollywood of Europe. President Trump’s announcement has made that warning all too real.

“Making it more difficult to make films in the UK is not in the interests of American businesses. Their investment in facilities and talent in the UK, based on US-owned IP, is showing fantastic returns on both sides of the Atlantic. Ministers must urgently prioritise this as part of the trade negotiations currently under way.”

Head of media and entertainment trade union Bectu in the UK, Philippa Childs, said in a statement: “These tariffs, coming after Covid and the recent slowdown, could deal a knock-out blow to an industry that is only just recovering and will be really worrying news for tens of thousands of skilled freelancers who make films in the UK.”

Kirsty Bell, chief executive of production company Goldfinch, questioned how the tariffs would work, pointing out that blockbusters like Barbie, which was distributed by US film studio Warner Bros Pictures, “was actually shot virtually entirely in the UK”.

“If those US films don’t get partly produced or produced in the UK, freelancers are going to be jobless. I’m telling you now, they really are going to be jobless,” she told PA.

The governments of Australia and New Zealand have also spoken out in support of their countries’ film industries.

“Nobody should be under any doubt that we will be standing up unequivocally for the rights of the Australian screen industry,” Australia’s home affairs minister Tony Burke said.

New Zealand’s Prime Minister Christopher Luxon told a news conference that his government was awaiting further details of the proposed tariffs.

“But we’ll be obviously a great advocate, great champion of that sector and that industry,” he added.

And with the Cannes film festival just around the corner, uncertainty hangs in the air with many US film producers looking to sell foreign distribution rights.

Tariffs could incentivise US film companies to make more films on home soil but the risk is that if it’s more expensive than to do so abroad, some films just won’t get made.

More incentives or rebates could help offset this but we just don’t know at this stage if that’s under discussion on a national scale.

NPR Radio film critic Eric Deggans warned that the tariffs, should they be introduced, could further harm the industry.

Other countries may respond by placing tariffs on American films, he told the BBC, making it “harder for these films to make profits overseas”.

“It may create a situation where the tariffs in America are causing more harm than good,” he added.

Last year was the deadliest for Russian forces since the start of the full-scale war in Ukraine: at least 45,287 people were killed.

This is almost three times more than in the first year of the invasion and significantly exceeds the losses of 2023, when the longest and deadliest battle of the war was taking place in Bakhmut.

At the start of the war, losses happened in waves during battles for key locations, but 2024 saw a month-on-month increase in the death toll as the front line slowly edged forward, enabling us to estimate that Russia lost at least 27 lives for every square kilometre of Ukrainian territory captured.

The BBC Russian Service, in collaboration with independent media outlet Mediazona and a team of volunteers, has processed open source data from Russian cemeteries, military memorials and obituaries.

So far, we have identified the names of 106,745 Russian soldiers killed during the full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

The true number is clearly much higher. Military experts estimate our number may cover between 45% and 65% of deaths, which would mean 164,223 to 237,211 people.

20 February 2024 was the deadliest day for Russian forces that year.

Among the casualties were Aldar Bairov, Igor Babych and Okhunjon Rustamov, who were with the 36th Motorised Rifle Brigade when four Ukrainian long-range HIMARS missiles hit a training ground near the city of Volnovakha in occupied Donetsk.

They had been ordered to line up for a medal ceremony. Sixty-five servicemen were killed, including their commander Col Musaev. Dozens more were wounded.

Bairov, 22 and from Buryatia in eastern Siberia, had studied to be a food sanitation specialist but was drafted for mandatory military service and then signed a contract to become a professional soldier.

In February 2022 he went to fight in Ukraine and was part of the battle for Borodyanka during his brigade’s advance towards Kyiv in March 2022. The town was almost completely destroyed. Ukrainian sources say Russian soldiers were involved in the execution of civilians.

Okhunjon Rustamov, 31 and from Chita in Siberia, had worked as a welder after serving a mandatory term in special forces. He was mobilised during a partial draft in October 2022.

Unlike Rustamov, Igor Babych, 32, had volunteered to go to war. He had worked with adults and children diagnosed with cerebral palsy, helping them with physical therapy until April 2023.

In total 201 Russian soldiers died on that day, according to our data.

A few hours after the strike on the training ground, then-Russian Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu met Vladimir Putin to bring him news of military success from the front line.

There was no mention of the training ground attack, nor was there any word from the Ministry of Defence in its daily reports.

A relative of Okhunjon Rustamov said she had already buried three close family members over the course of the war. “In December 2022, my husband died. On 10 February 2024, my godfather. And on 20 February my half-brother. From one funeral to the next.”

In our analysis, we prioritised exact dates of death for soldiers. If that wasn’t available, we used the date of the funeral or the date the death was reported.

In the first two years of the war, 2022 and 2023, Russian losses followed a wave-like pattern: heavy fighting with high casualties alternated with periods of relative calm.

In 2023, for example, most casualties occurred between January and March, when Russian forces attempted to capture the cities of Vuhledar and Bakhmut in Donetsk Oblast.

In the first year of the full-scale invasion, according to our calculations, Russia lost at least 17,890 soldiers. This number does not include losses from Russia’s two proxy forces in occupied eastern Ukraine.

In 2023, the number rose to 37,633.

In 2024, there was no period showing a significant fall in casualties. Bloody battles for Avdiivka and Robotyne were followed by intensified assaults towards Pokrovsk and Toretsk.

In August 2024, Russian conscripts were killed when Ukrainian forces stormed over the border into the Kursk region. From August 6 to 13 alone, an estimated 1,226 Russian soldiers died.

However, the heaviest overall losses occurred during a slow Russian advance in the east between September and November 2024, according to leading US military analyst Michael Kofman.

“Tactics emphasised repeated attacks with dispersed assault groups, using small infantry fire teams, which increased overall casualties relative to terrain gained,” he explained.

After almost two years of intense fighting, Russian forces seized the logistical hub of Vuhledar in Donetsk on 1 October 2024.

According to estimates by the American Institute for the Study of War (ISW), from September to November 2024, Russian forces captured 2,356 square kilometres of Ukraine.

Even then, Ukrainian forces at the front did not collapse.

The cost of this advance was at least 11,678 Russian military deaths.

Actual losses figures are likely higher. We have only accounted for soldiers and officers whose names appeared in publicly available obituaries and whose dates of death or funeral fell within this period.

Overall in 2024, according to ISW, Russia captured 4,168 square kilometres of land.

If we assume that our figure of 45,287 confirmed deaths in 2024 is about 40% of the full number, then the total number would be closer to 112,000 fatalities last year.

This means that for each square kilometre captured, 27 Russian soldiers were killed, and this does not include the wounded.

Russia has found ways of replenishing its depleted forces.

“Russian recruitment also increased in the second half of 2024 and exceeded Russian casualties, allowing Moscow to generate additional formations,” says Michael Kofman.

One-time payments to soldiers signing new contracts were increased in three Russian regions. Combat salaries for volunteer soldiers are five to seven times higher than the average wage in most regions.

We also class as volunteers those who signed up to avoid criminal prosecution, which was allowed by law in 2024.

Volunteers have become the fastest-growing category of casualties in our calculations, making up a quarter of those we have identified.

In 2023-2024, thousands of volunteers who signed contracts with the Ministry of Defence were sent to the front lines only 10–14 days later. Such minimal training will have dramatically reduced their chances of survival, experts say.

One Russian republic, Bashkortostan, has seen the highest numbers of casualties, with 4,836 confirmed deaths. Most were from rural areas and 38% had gone to fight with no military experience.

The one-time payment for signing a Russian army contract in Ufa is 34 times the region’s average salary of 67,575 rubles (£600).

Calculating deaths from open source data will always be incomplete.

This is because the bodies of a significant number of soldiers killed in the past months may still be on the battlefield and retrieving them presents a risk to serving soldiers.

The true death toll for Russian forces increases significantly, if you include those who fought against Ukraine as part of the self-proclaimed Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics.

An assessment of obituaries and reports of searches for fighters who have lost contact suggests between 21,000 and 23,500 people may have been killed by September 2024.

That would bring the total number of fatalities to 185,000 to 260,700 military personnel.

Four generations of the Royal Family appeared on Buckingham Palace’s balcony to watch the Red Arrows flypast, marking 80 years since the end of World War Two in Europe.

The King and senior royals watched on as a war-time Lancaster bomber led the 23-strong formation, including Typhoons and the Red Arrows, before waving to crowds.

Following Queen Elizabeth II’s death in 2022, this year is the first landmark Victory in Europe (VE Day) commemoration without any of the royals who stood on the balcony that day 80 years ago.

It marked the first of four days of celebrations taking place across the country.

At noon, the ceremony began with a recitation of Sir Winston Churchill’s famous VE Day speech by actor Timothy Spall.

The King and Queen were then joined by the Prince and Princess of Wales, and their children Prince George, Princess Charlotte and Prince Louis, to watch a military procession through the capital on Monday.

The military procession, including Nato allies and more than 1,300 members of the UK armed forces, made its way from Parliament Square to Buckingham Palace.

The King stood and saluted as the procession reached the Queen Victoria Memorial.

Later, the King and Queen were joined for the VE Day flypast on the Buckingham Palace balcony by Prince William and Catherine and their children, along with the Princess Royal, her husband Vice Adm Sir Tim Laurence, the Duke and Duchess of Edinburgh and the Duke of Kent – a first cousin of the late queen.

A Lancaster bomber – the most successful RAF heavy bomber of World War Two – led the VE Day flypast, accompanied by aircraft including fighters jets, transport aircraft and the Red Arrows.

The flyover narrowly avoided heavy rainfall as the weather began to change as crowds dispersed.

After the display, Prince George joined his parents and the King at a veterans’ tea party at Buckingham Palace, where he and Prince William spoke with 101-year-old Alfred Littlefield who served during D-Day.

Samantha Davidson, 57, from Deanmead, Hampshire, said: “The prince said George is very interested in finding out about the veterans.

“George even asked my grandfather how old he was during his service.”

Veterans and senior politicians enjoyed a selection of finger sandwiches, soup and homemade scotch eggs.

The Royal Family is hoping “nothing will detract or distract” from the commemorations, following the Duke of Sussex’s candid interview with the BBC on Friday, in which he discussed his estrangement from his father and desire for reconciliation.

A VE Day street party was hosted by the prime minister at Downing Street.

Sir Keir Starmer was joined by his wife Lady Starmer as they walked out of No 10 holding a plate of cakes, which he then handed out to some of the guests.

VE Day was declared on 8 May 1945, after Britain and its allies formally accepted Nazi Germany’s surrender after almost six years of war.

At 15:00, the then-Prime Minister Winston Churchill announced World War Two in Europe had come to an end.

Spontaneous celebrations erupted across the country, and the late queen and her sister Princess Margaret joined a group of friends to experience the excitement in London.

On Monday morning, the excitement began early for Maria and Chris Naynor and their three grandchildren, who left their home in Reading at 05:30 BST to get a prime spot along the Mall – armed with cream tea and gin and tonics.

Chris’s father served in the armed forces and was wounded in Dunkirk, and his mother was out celebrating on the streets of London on VE Day in 1945.

Maria said it was critical to remember “all the people who gave their lives for freedom” and teach children about it.

To mark the historic event, the Cenotaph in Whitehall has been draped in a large Union flag – the first time the war memorial has been draped in Union Flags since it was unveiled by King George V more than a century ago, in 1920.

Watching from the Mall, Grace Gothard, from Mitcham, made her Union Flag dress draped with the Ghanian flag while Satvinder Cubb, from Chingford made a frock made from two “Lest we forget” scarves.

Satvinder said they wanted to be in the capital to remember all the people “who fought for us”, as the last generation of World War Two veterans were growing older.

She described the message of VE Day as bringing together people from different countries and different age groups to say “why don’t we unite together? Why can’t there be peace?”

Street parties were held across the UK, with some councils such as Portsmouth waiving fees to close roads for the celebrations.

On Tuesday, the Queen will view an installation of 30,000 ceramic poppies at the Tower of London. The Palace of Westminster, the Shard and Lowther Castle in Penrith are among buildings which will be illuminated from 21:00 BST.

On Wednesday, the Parliament Choir will host a VE Day concert in Westminster Hall.

A service at Westminster Abbey will begin with a national two-minute silence of remembrance on Thursday. Churches and cathedrals across the country will also ring their bells at 18:30 BST.

Events will conclude with a concert at Horse Guards Parade, with stars of stage and screen telling the story of victory and the legacy of the Second World War.

Pubs and bars in England and Wales which usually close at 23:00 BST will be able to keep serving for an extra two hours to celebrate on Thursday.

• SIMPLE GUIDE: Red Arrows, royals and street parties: What to look out for
• LIVE: Follow all the latest from VE Day commemorations
• BBC FOOD: How to throw a VE Day street party
• ANALYSIS: Europe marks VE Day with Trump on its mind
• EXPLORE: More on VE Day

The trial of Sean “Diddy” Combs, one of the most successful rappers and music moguls in the US, began with jury selection in New York on Monday.

If the jury is selected this week, lawyers on both sides will be expected to offer their opening statements on Monday to the seated jurors.

The charges against Mr Combs include racketeering conspiracy, sex trafficking, and transportation to engage in prostitution. If convicted, he could face life in prison.

The rapper also faces dozens of civil lawsuits from individuals who accuse him of using his power to drug, assault, rape, intimidate and silence people.

Mr Combs has pleaded not guilty to the criminal charges and rejected the individual lawsuits as attempts “for a quick payday”.

Mr Combs – who has also gone by the names Puffy, Puff Daddy, P Diddy, Love, and Brother Love – emerged in the hip-hop scene in the 1990s.

His early music career success included helping launch the careers of Mary J Blige and Christopher Wallace – aka Biggie Smalls, or The Notorious B.I.G.

His music label Bad Boy Records became one of the most important labels in rap and expanded to include Faith Evans, Ma$e, 112, Mariah Carey and Jennifer Lopez.

Mr Combs also had a prolific business career outside of music, including a deal with British drinks company Diageo to promote the French vodka brand Cîroc.

In 2023, he released his fifth record The Love Album: Off The Grid and earned his first solo nomination at the Grammy awards. He also was named a Global Icon at the MTV Awards.

In the federal criminal case, Mr Combs is charged with racketeering conspiracy, two charges of sex trafficking and two charges of transportation to engage in prostitution.

Many of the most severe allegations relate to the racketeering conspiracy charge.

It includes accusations of kidnapping, drugging, and coercing women into sexual activities, sometimes using firearms or threats of violence.

In a raid on his Los Angeles mansion, police found supplies that they said were intended for use in orgies known as “freak offs”, including drugs and more than 1,000 bottles of baby oil.

Separately, Mr Combs faces a number of lawsuits accusing him of rape and assault.

Tony Buzbee, a Texas lawyer handling some of these cases, said that more than 100 women and men from across the US have either filed lawsuits against the rap mogul or will do so.

In December 2023, a woman known in court papers as Jane Doe alleged that she was “gang raped” by Mr Combs and others in 2003, when she was 17. She said she was given “copious amounts of drugs and alcohol” before the attack.

Mr Combs’ legal team dismissed the flurry of lawsuits as “clear attempts to garner publicity.”

• ‘He thought of himself as a king’: The parties that led to Diddy’s downfall
• Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs: Who is the US rapper accused of sex trafficking?

His current legal issues began when he was sued by his ex-girlfriend Casandra Ventura, also known as Cassie, in late 2023. She accused him of violently abusing and raping her.

That lawsuit was settled for an undisclosed amount a day after it was filed, with Mr Combs maintaining his innocence.

Since then, dozens of people have filed lawsuits accusing Mr Combs of sexual assault, with accusations dating back to 1991. He denies all claims.

His controversial history with Ms Ventura resurfaced in 2024, when CCTV footage leaked by CNN showed Mr Combs kicking his former girlfriend as she lay on a hotel hallway floor in 2016.

He apologised for his behaviour, saying: “I take full responsibility for my actions in that video. I was disgusted then when I did it. I’m disgusted now.”

• Diddy’s violence left me broken, says Cassie
• ‘Studio sex’ and ‘hitman threats’: Insiders speak out about Diddy’s 90s music empire

Mr Combs has consistently denied the allegations made against him in the civil lawsuits, describing them as “sickening” and suggesting they were made by “individuals looking for a quick payday”.

In a statement to the BBC about the federal criminal charges, his lawyer said: “Mr Combs and his legal team have full confidence in the facts and the integrity of the judicial process.

“In court, the truth will prevail: that Mr Combs never sexually assaulted or trafficked anyone – man or woman, adult or minor.”

Diddy’s lawyers later filed a motion to dismiss one part of the federal indictment in which he is accused of transportation to engage in prostitution. His team argued he was being unfairly targeted due to his race.

In a hearing in New York a week before the trial, his attorneys told the court that the rapper led the “lifestyle” of a “swinger” and was not a criminal.

They said he thought it was “appropriate” to have multiple sex partners, including sex workers.

At the same hearing, prosecutors revealed that Mr Combs had rejected a plea deal.

Mr Combs has been held at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn, New York, since his arrest on 16 September 2024.

His lawyers have argued for his release, citing the jail’s “horrific” conditions.

Critics describe the prison as overcrowded and understaffed, with a culture of violence.

A New York federal judge denied the bail request, describing Mr Combs as a “serious flight risk”.

Prosecutors have alleged that Mr Combs has been breaking prison rules by contacting potential witnesses.

They accuse him of “relentless efforts” to “corruptly influence witness testimony”.

• ‘Chaos reigns’ – the notorious jail holding Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs

A judge has granted Mr Combs permission to wear non prison clothing during his trial rather than the jumpsuits he wears in jail.

At the first day of his trial on Monday for jury selection, the rapper appeared in court in a blue sweater and white shirt, wearing glasses on his head with streaks of gray in his hair.

He asked the judge for multiple bathroom breaks, telling the court he was “a little nervous today”.

The trial began on Monday, with the jury selection expected to last one week to choose a panel of 12 jurors and six alternates.

Mr Combs’ trial is taking place in front of US District Judge Arun Subramanian at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan courthouse in lower Manhattan.

The judge has told jurors the case could last around eight weeks total.

The trial is expected to be open to the public, but won’t be streamed online.

Cameras, phones and electronic devices are normally not allowed in US federal courtrooms.

Attorneys made progress on Monday weeding through dozens of potential jurors, after already ruling out some who were not able to attend the lengthy trial.

Judge Subramanian reminded the court several times on Monday of the importance of seating a fair and impartial jury. He called in dozens of people who walked the judge through their answers to a lengthy questionnaire.

Nearly every one had read news reports of the allegations in the case, and many had seen the footage of Mr Combs kicking his girlfriend in the hotel hallway.

Many female potential jurors also said they had been victims of sexual abuse or assault themselves or knew someone close who had.

Still, over a dozen of them said they could go into the case with an open mind and pledged not to form an opinion until they heard all the evidence.

At the end of the day, 19 jurors were moved onto the next stage of questioning. They range in age from 30 to 75 and are from Manhattan, the Bronx and Westchester. They have diverse occupations including financial analysts, teachers, scientists and cashiers.

Mr Combs faces up to life in prison if convicted on the racketeering charge.

He faces another statutory minimum sentence of 15 years if he is found guilty of sex trafficking.

Transportation for purposes of prostitution carries a maximum sentence of 10 years.

The pace at 64-year-old Thirunavkarsu’s spinning mill in southern India’s Tamil Nadu state has noticeably slowed down.

The viscose yarn – a popular material that goes into making woven garments – he produces, now sits in storage, as orders from local factories have dropped nearly 40% in the last month.

That’s because Chinese import of the material has become cheaper by 15 rupees ($0.18; £0.13) per kilo and has flooded Indian ports.

With Donald Trump imposing tariffs of up to 145% on Chinese goods going into the US, manufacturers in China have begun looking for alternative markets.

India’s textiles makers say they are bearing the brunt of the trade tensions as Chinese producers are dumping yarn in key production hubs.

While China is the leading producer of viscose yarn, India makes most of the viscose yarn the country needs locally with imports only bridging supply gaps.

Mill owners like Thirunavkarsu fear their yarn won’t survive the onslaught of such competition.

“We can’t match these rates. Our raw material is not as cheap,” he says.

Jagadesh Chandran, of the South India Spinners Association, told the BBC nearly 50 small spinning mills in the textile hubs of Pallipalayam, Karur and Tirupur in southern India are “slowing production”. Many say they’ll be forced to scale down further if the issue isn’t addressed.

China’s Ambassador to India, Xu Feihong has sent assurances to India that his country will not dump products and in fact wants to buy more high-quality Indian products for Chinese consumers.

“We will not engage in market dumping or cut-throat competition, nor will we disrupt other countries’ industries and economic development,” he wrote in an opinion piece for the Indian Express newspaper.

But anxieties about dumping are spread across sectors in India, as China – Asia’s biggest economy – is the world’s largest exporter of practically all industrial goods, from textiles and metals, to chemicals and rare minerals.

While pharmaceuticals – and later phones, laptops, and semiconductor chips – were exempted from steep tariffs, large chunks of Chinese exports still run into Trump’s 145% tariff wall. It is these goods that are expected to chase other markets like India.

Their sudden inflow will prove “very disruptive” to emerging economies in Asia, according to Japanese broking house Nomura, whose research earlier revealed that China was flooding global markets with cheap goods even before Donald Trump took office earlier this year.

In 2024, investigations against unfair Chinese imports rose to a record high. Data from the World Trade Organisation (WTO) shows, nearly 200 complaints were filed against China at the forum – a record – including 37 from India.

India in particular, with heavy dependencies on Chinese raw materials and intermediate goods, could be hit hard. Its trade deficit with China – the difference between what it imports and exports – has already ballooned to $100bn (£75bn). And imports in March jumped 25%, driven by electronics, batteries and solar cells.

In response, India’s trade ministry has set up a committee to track the influx of cheap Chinese goods, with its quasi-judicial arm probing imports across sectors, including viscose yarn.

India also recently imposed a 12% tax on some steel imports, locally known as a safeguard duty, to help halt an increase in cheap shipments primarily from China, which were pushing some Indian mills to scale down.

Despite such protections – and a loud marketing campaign by Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government to boost manufacturing locally – India has found it hard to reduce its reliance on China, with imports rising even when border tensions between the two neighbours peaked after 2020.

That’s because the government has only had “limited success” with its plans to turn India into the world’s factory through things like the production linked subsidies, says Biswajit Dhar, a Delhi-based trade expert. And India continues to depend heavily on China for the intermediate goods that go into manufacturing finished products.

While western multi-national companies like Apple are increasingly looking towards India to diversify their assembly lines away from China, India is still dependent on Chinese components to make these phones. As a result, imports in sectors like electronics have risen significantly, pushing up its trade deficit.

India’s burgeoning deficit is a “worrying story”, says Ajay Srivastava, founder of the Global Trade Research Initiative (GTRI) think tank, all the more so because its exports to China have dropped to below 2014 levels despite a weaker currency, which should ideally help exporters.

“This isn’t just a trade imbalance. It’s a structural warning. Our industrial growth, including through PLI (production linked incentive) schemes, is fuelling imports, not building domestic depth,” Srivastava wrote in a social media post. In other words, the subsidies are not helping India export more.

“We can’t bridge this deficit without bridging our competitiveness gap.”

India needs to get its act together quickly to do that, given the opportunity US trade tensions with China have presented. But also because countries with a large rise in imports from China generally tend to see the sharpest slowdown in manufacturing growth, according to Nomura.

Akash Prakash of Amansa Capital agrees. A key reason why Indian private companies were not investing enough, was because they feared being “swamped by China”, he wrote in a column in the Business Standard newspaper. A recent study by the ratings agency Icra also corroborates this view.

With fears of Chinese dumping becoming more widespread and the likes of the European Union seeking firm guarantees from Beijing that its markets will not be flooded, pressure is mounting on China – which is now urgently looking to secure newer trading partners outside the US.

China wants to completely shift the narrative, says Mr Dhar, “It is trying to come clean amidst increased scrutiny”.

Despite the reassurances from Beijing, Delhi should use thawing relations with its larger neighbour to kickstart a proper dialogue on its firm stance about dumping, says Mr Dhar.

“This is an issue that India must flag, like most of the Western countries have.”

The UN’s top court has dismissed Sudan’s case against the UAE accusing the Gulf state of complicity in genocide.

Sudan alleged the UAE supported the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF) in the Sudanese civil war, in which tens of thousands of people have died, forced millions from their homes and left many facing famine.

The UAE categorically denied the accusations, branding the case “political theatre” and “a cynical publicity stunt”.

The International Court of Justice in The Hague ruled that the case could not proceed because the UAE had opted out Article 9 of the Genocide Convention, which means that it cannot be sued by other states over genocide allegations.

• BBC finds fear, loss and hope in Sudan’s ruined capital
• Sudan war: A simple guide to what is happening
• Fear and prayers in Sudan city under siege

The court said that it lacked jurisdiction and was therefore “precluded by its statute from taking any position on the merits of the claims made by Sudan”. The case was thrown out in a 14-2 vote.

Sudan case had claimed that the UAE’s alleged military, financial and logistical backing of the RSF – including weapons shipments and mercenary recruitment – enabled systematic attacks against non-Arab communities, particularly the Masalit, in Darfur.

The allegations included mass killings, forced displacement and the use of sexual violence as a weapon.

Reem Ketait, the UAE’s deputy assistant minister for political affairs, said the court’s decision was “clear and decisive”.

“The international community must focus urgently on ending this devastating war and supporting the Sudanese people, and it must demand humanitarian aid reaches all those in need,” she said.

Both the Sudanese army and the RSF have been accused of committing atrocities, including ethnically targeted killings, obstruction of humanitarian relief and looting.

Sudan’s case at the ICJ was unusual because it targeted an alleged sponsor of atrocities, not the direct perpetrators.

The case was seen as a test of whether states can be held responsible for fuelling atrocities abroad.

While the ICJ’s judges found they did not have the power to rule in the case, it nevertheless serves as a powerful illustration of how international courts are becoming diplomatic battlegrounds.

• The children living between starvation and death in Darfur
• Civil war survivors tell of killings and rapes
• Thousands flee fresh ethnic killings in Darfur
• ‘I saw bodies dumped in Darfur mass grave’

Thousands of people were left trapped on trains or stranded overnight after the theft of copper cables halted high-speed services between Madrid and southern Spain’s Andalusia region.

Authorities opened an investigation on Monday after Sunday’s theft, which Transport Minister Óscar Puente called a “serious act of sabotage”.

He added that the cable theft took place at five locations, all within a few kilometres of each other on the high-speed line. On Monday morning, Puente said train operations were being “fully restored” .

This travel disruption comes a week after Spain and Portugal suffered a blackout, which similarly saw trains comes to a standstill. The cause is still unknown.

“All of a sudden in the last two weeks – what is going on?” Kevin, a tourist from the US told Reuters news agency as he waited at Madrid’s Atocha station, where thousands were stranded.

More than 10,000 passengers were affected between Madrid, Seville, Malaga, Valencia and Granada, and at least 30 trains.

The disruption came after a long weekend in Madrid and ahead of the week-long Feria festival in Seville, which sees an influx of travellers to the city.

“Operations are now fully restored after a very difficult night for commuters… and staff, who had to respond under extremely complex circumstances,” the transport minister said on Monday morning.

The theft locations, he said, were in areas accessed via forest trails.

Train services were gradually returning to normal, Spain’s national rail manager Adif said on Monday afternoon.

Earlier in the day, the Spanish interior ministry said the country’s civil guard, and police were in contact with Adif and other authorities to “clarify what happened and identify those responsible”.

The price of copper has soared in recent years, and cable thefts from train and telecommunications networks have surged.

Three people are dead and at least nine more are missing after a small boat overturned in the Pacific Ocean off the coast near San Diego, California, officials say.

At least 16 people, including two children, were on board the panga-style fishing boat, which overturned near Torrey Pines State Beach, the US Coast Guard said in a statement on X.

Rescuers were searching for survivors from Monday’s incident off Del Mar, 15 miles (24km) north of San Diego.

Jorge Sanchez, of the Encinitas Fire Department, said the immigration status of those caught in the “mass casualty incident” was not known. Four people were taken to a hospital, and it was unknown if any other victims were in the water, he said.

A panga boat is a small, open, lightweight vessel typically powered by an outboard motor.

A Coast Guard cutter and a helicopter were searching for the missing, a Coast Guard spokesman told the BBC.

Nick Backouris, a lieutenant with the San Diego Sheriff’s office, said people from his office helped victims on the beach.

“The deputies were assisting with life-saving measures,” he said, according to Reuters.

The San Diego Sheriff’s Department said no-one had been detained in connection with the incident, KFMB reported.

Hundreds of opposition protesters dressed in red and black have condemned a decision by Ghana’s president to suspend the country’s chief justice, and are demanding that she be reinstated with immediate effect.

They accuse President John Mahama of violating the constitution by failing to follow due process, and say he is interfering in the independence of the judiciary.

Gertrude Torkornoo was removed from her post last week pending investigations into her conduct – the first time a chief justice has been suspended in Ghana’s history.

Action was taken after the president said three people had sent petitions to him containing undisclosed allegations against Chief Justice Torkornoo.

Monday’s demonstration in Accra was led by the main opposition New Patriotic Party (NPP), who were in power when Chief Justice Torkornoo was appointed by then-president Nana Akufo-Addo two years ago.

The NPP’s national organiser Nana Boakye Yiadom told the BBC her treatment was politically motivated and an attack on democracy.

Also taking part in the protests were three smaller opposition groups.

The opposition’s demands echo those made by the Ghana Bar Association last week. The grouping of top legal professionals said suspending the chief justice was unconstitutional and President Mahama must reverse it.

But that view is not shared by all.

A number of lawyers in the country argue it is within the president’s power to act when there is evidence of misconduct by a public officer, no matter the position. This view is also backed by the president’s supporters.

By law, chief justices in Ghana enjoy security of tenure, which means that they remain in office until retirement.

Yet Ghana’s constitution does empower the president to appoint, suspend or even fire the chief justice where there is evidence of wrongdoing, including incompetence and misbehaviour. However some Ghanaians argue due process has not been followed in this instance.

One protester, Serwaa Akoto, told the BBC: “The judiciary is under attack and we want the right thing to be done. Why is he suspending the chief justice?”

Also at the protest was Charles Oteng, who told the BBC: “We want to send a strong signal to the president. Yes, indeed, he has all the powers as a president, but the way he is attacking our judiciary is very alarming – and we the youth will not sit for him to do whatever he wants to do.”

Chief Justice Torkornoo is the third woman to hold the position in Ghana. Since winning power, Mahama’s National Democratic Congress has stepped up accusations of bias in her rulings of high profile political cases, which she denies.

She is expected to be summoned to answer questions in person in front of a committee investigating the allegations against her.

• ‘An African pope would be inspirational’
• ‘I was duped into leaving London for school in Ghana – but it saved me’
• Ghana wants more for its cashews, but it’s a tough nut to crack

Rwanda is in the “early stage” of talks with the Trump administration to accept migrants deported by the US, the East African country’s Foreign Affairs Minister Olivier Nduhungirehe has said.

His comments come after US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said last month that Washington was “actively searching” for countries that would take in “some of the most despicable human beings”.

Nduhungirehe said the talks were “not new to us” as Rwanda had previously agreed to accept migrants deported by the UK.

However, the UK abandoned the scheme, which faced numerous legal challenges, after Sir Keir Starmer’s Labour government took office last July.

Speaking to Rwandan TV on Sunday, Nduhungirehe said the government was in the “spirit” of giving “another chance to migrants who have problems across the world”.

Nduhungirehe added that the talks with the US were continuing, and it was too early to predict their outcome.

Since coming to office in January, US President Donald Trump has focused on speeding up the removal of undocumented migrants, with the promise of “mass deportations”.

In February, El Salvador offered to take in criminals deported from the US, including those with US citizenship, and house them in its mega-jail.

Salvadorean President Nayib Bukele said his government would do so “in exchange for a fee”.

Panama and Costa Rica have also taken in migrants deported from the US.

Last week an unnamed Rwandan official told the Washington Post that the country was “open” to taking in more migrants expelled from the US, after having accepted an Iraqi in March.

The official added that talks with the US started shortly after Trump’s inauguration in January.

Rwanda has previously been criticised for its human rights record, including the risk that those sent to the East African nation could be deported again to countries where they may face danger.

However, Rwanda says it is a safe place for refugees.

• The rapid remaking of the US, in 100 days
• Rwanda’s Hope Hostel ready for first UK migrants
• UK asylum deal: Is Rwanda a land of safety or fear?

One of Francis’s popemobiles, which the late pontiff used to greet thousands of people, will be turned into a mobile health clinic to help the children of Gaza.

Following a request by Pope Francis, the vehicle used during his visit to Bethlehem in 2014 is being refitted with everything needed for frontline care in a war zone, charity organisation Caritas, which is overseeing the project, said.

“There’ll be rapid tests, suture kits, syringes, oxygen supplies, vaccines and a small fridge for storing medicines,” it explained in a statement.

The Vatican said it was the pope’s “final wish for the children of Gaza” before he died last month. The vehicle is currently in Bethlehem, and will enter Gaza if and when Israel opens a humanitarian corridor.

The war between Israel and Hamas in the Gaza Strip has killed more than 15,000 children and displaced nearly one million since it erupted in October 2023, Unicef reports.

Israel has blocked humanitarian aid from entering the Strip for more than two months, which has left “families struggling to survive” as food, clean water and medicines reach critically low levels, the UN agency for children said.

For now, Caritas will have to wait until Israel reopens the aid corridor – but when that happens, they say they will be ready.

“With the vehicle, we will be able to reach children who today have no access to health care – children who are injured and malnourished,” Peter Brune, Secretary General of Caritas Sweden, said in a statement.

A team of doctors will run the mobile clinic, which will have the capabilities to examine and treat patients, and there will be a dedicated driver. Some details are still being finalised, like how to make the vehicle safe from potential blasts, Mr Brune told the BBC.

“It’s not just a vehicle, it’s a message that the world has not forgotten about the children in Gaza,” he said.

Throughout his pontificate, Pope Francis made many impassioned remarks on the war in Gaza, calling the humanitarian situation in the Strip “shamefull”. During his final speech on Easter Sunday, he urged all “warring parties” to agree to a ceasefire and spoke of the suffering of Palestinians and Israelis.

During 18 months of war, he reportedly called parishioners in Gaza nightly to check on their wellbeing, and suggested that the international community should examine whether Israel’s military offensive in Gaza should be classed as genocide – an allegation Israel has vehemently denied.

The popemobile is one of a number of specially converted vehicles allowing the pontiff to greet huge crowds of well-wishers during official visits. He was able to sit or stand while it rolled along, flanked by security agents, and its design allowed those gathered to have a clear view of the Pope.

Popemobiles in the past were bullet-proof after an assassination attempt on Pope John Paul II in 1981, but Francis told Spanish media in 2014 that he didn’t like the glass “sardine can” design that separated him from people.

The Israeli military launched a campaign to destroy Hamas in response to an unprecedented cross-border attack on 7 October 2023, in which about 1,200 people were killed and 251 others were taken hostage. Hamas is still holding 59 hostages.

Israel’s military campaign has killed at least 52,243 Palestinians, according to Gaza’s Hamas-run health ministry.

On Monday, Israel’s security cabinet reportedly approved, in principle, a plan to resume deliveries and distribution of humanitarian aid through private companies, but the UN and other aid agencies said the proposal would be a breach of basic humanitarian principles and that they will not co-operate.

Russia says Ukraine has launched an overnight drone attack targeting Moscow for the second night in a row.

All four of the capital’s major airports have been closed temporarily to ensure safety, Russia’s aviation watchdog Rosaviatsia said on Telegram.

Moscow’s mayor, Sergei Sobyanin, said on social media at least 19 Ukrainian drones had been destroyed before they reached the city “from different directions”. He said some of the debris had landed on one of the key highways into the city, but there were no casualties.

Ukraine has not yet commented. But the mayor of Kharkiv said Russia had also carried out drone strikes in the city overnight, as well as in the Kyiv area.

As well as in Moscow, the governors of other Russian cities, including Penza and Voronezh, also said they had been targeted by drones overnight into Tuesday.

Unconfirmed reports by Russian military bloggers suggested windows of an apartment in the south of Moscow were smashed.

It is the second night in a row that Russia has reported a drone attack by Ukraine – on Monday, Russia’s defence ministry said it had destroyed 26 Ukrainian drones overnight.

Since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine more than three years ago, Kyiv has launched several drone attacks on Moscow. Its biggest attack in March killed three people.

It comes after reports on Monday of fresh attempts by Ukraine to cross into Russia’s Kursk region.

Kyiv said it had hit a drone command unit in the Kursk region on Sunday near the Russian village of Tyotkino, according to the Ukrainian general staff.

In April, Moscow said it had regained control of the entire region, nine months after a Ukrainian forces launched a surprise invasion. Kyiv insists it still has soldiers operating across the border.

Also in Kursk, Russian officials reported an electrical substation in the town of Rylsk lost power on Monday after being damaged in an attack by Ukraine.

Two transformers at the substation in Rylsk had been damaged, according to acting governor of the Kursk region, Alexander Khinshtein, in a post on the Telegram messaging app.

He added two teenagers had been injured by shrapnel from the blast.

Multiple Russian military bloggers also reported that Ukrainian forces had attempted to cross into the village, posting images – as yet unverified by the BBC – of vehicles breaking through tank traps on the border.

On Monday, Ukrainian forces fired missiles over the border and crossed minefields in special vehicles, according to the bloggers.

“The enemy blew up bridges with rockets at night and launched an attack with armoured groups in the morning,” blogger RVvoenkor said according to Reuters news agency.

“The mine clearance vehicles began to make passages in the minefields, followed by armoured vehicles with troops. There is a heavy battle going on at the border.”

In a statement on Monday, Ukraine said: “Nine months after the start of the Kursk operation, Ukraine’s Defence Forces maintain a military presence on the territory of Russia’s Kursk region.”

While there has been no official response from Moscow, some military bloggers have also published maps showing opposing forces attempting to cross the border in two places towards Tyotkino – near where the drone command unit that was hit.

Meanwhile, in Sumy – around 12km across the border from Tyotkino in north-eastern Ukraine – local authorities urged people to evacuate from two settlements, Reuters reported.

Ukraine originally made its surprise incursion into Kursk in August 2024 to create a buffer zone and protect Sumy and surrounding areas, while also hoping to use it as a bargaining chip in future negotiations.

I ran from the White House briefing room, past the portico entrance of the West Wing to our camera position on the lawn, and flung on an ear piece connecting me to the studio.

A moment later the presenter asked me about the comments we had just heard live from US President Donald Trump.

I said we were seeing a fundamental shift in a United States’ policy position after decades of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

It was February this year, and Trump had just held talks with Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu – the first foreign leader since Trump’s inauguration to be invited to the White House. The US president vowed that his country would take control of the Gaza Strip, having earlier pledged the territory would also be “cleaned out” and emptied of its Palestinian population.

Trump was grabbing the world’s attention with a proposal that hardened his administration’s support for Israel and also upended international norms, flying in the face of international law. It marked an apex of the current Republican Party’s relationship with Israel – sometimes described as support “at all costs”.

The alliance between the two countries had been thrust into the international spotlight after the Hamas attacks on Israel on 7 October 2023 and Israel’s offensive in Gaza that followed.

During that war, the administration of President Joe Biden sent some $18bn (£13.5bn) worth of weapons to Israel, maintaining unprecedented levels of US backing. The period was marked by intensifying protests in the US, with many of those protesting being traditional Democrat leaning voters. The fallout became the focus of a bitter culture war centring on American attitudes towards Israel and the Palestinians. I covered demonstrations in which protesters repeatedly labelled Biden “Genocide Joe” – an accusation he always rejected.

At the time Donald Trump branded the protesters “radical-left lunatics” and the Trump administration is now targeting for deportation hundreds of foreign students who it accuses of antisemitism or support for Hamas, a move being vigorously challenged in the courts.

But as a Democrat who could otherwise have expected the vote of many of those upset over his support for Israel that support was politically costly for Biden in a way not experienced by previous presidents or, indeed, Trump.

One of Biden’s key decision makers over relations with Israel still wrestles with the decisions they took.

“My first reaction is just, I understand that this has evoked incredibly passionate feelings for Arab Americans, for non-Arab Americans, Jewish Americans,” says Jake Sullivan, Biden’s former national security adviser.

“There were two competing considerations: one was wanting to curb Israel’s excesses, both with respect to civilian casualties and the flow of humanitarian assistance. The other was […] wanting to make sure that we were not cutting Israel off from the capabilities it needed to confront its enemies on multiple different fronts.”

He added: “The United States stood behind Israel materially, morally, and in every other way in those days following October 7th.”

But opinion polls suggest support for Israel among the American public is dwindling.

A Gallup survey taken in March this year found only 46% of Americans expressed support for Israel (the lowest level in 25 years of Gallup’s annual tracking) while 33% now said they sympathised with the Palestinians – the highest ever reading of that measure. Other polls have found similar results.

Surveys – with all their limitations – suggest the swing is largely among Democrats and the young, although not exclusively. Between 2022 and 2025, the Pew Research Center found that the proportion of Republicans who said they had unfavourable views of Israel rose from 27% to 37% (younger Republicans, aged under 49, drove most of that change).

The US has long been Israel’s most powerful ally – ever since May 1948, when America was the first country to recognise the nascent State of Israel. But while US support for Israel is extremely likely to continue long-term, these swings in sentiment raise questions over the practical extent and policy limits of the US’s ironclad backing and whether the shifting sands of public opinion will eventually feed through to Washington, with real-world policy impacts.

To many, the close relationship between the US and Israel seems like a permanent, unshakeable part of the geopolitical infrastructure. But it wasn’t always guaranteed – and at the very beginning largely came down to one man.

In early 1948, US President Harry S Truman had to decide on his approach to Palestine. The country was in the grip of sectarian bloodshed between Jews and Arab Palestinians after three decades of colonial rule by Britain, which had announced its intention to pull out. Truman was deeply moved by the plight of Jewish survivors of the Holocaust stranded in displaced persons camps in Europe.

In New York City, a young Francine Klagsbrun, who would later become an academic and historian of Israeli prime minister Golda Meir, watched her parents praying for a Jewish homeland.

“I grew up in a very Jewish home and a very Zionist home also,” she explains. “So my older brother and I would go out and collect money to try to get England to open the doors. My brother would go on the subway trains, all the doors open on the train and he’d shout ‘open, open, open the doors to Palestine’,” she recalls.

Truman’s administration was deeply divided over whether to back a Jewish state. The CIA and the Department of State cautioned against recognising a Jewish state. They feared a bloody conflict with Arab countries that might draw in the US, risking Cold War escalation with the Soviets.

Two days before Britain was due to pull out of Palestine, an explosive row took place in the Oval Office. Truman’s domestic advisor Clark Clifford argued in favour of recognising a Jewish state. On the other side of the debate was Secretary of State George Marshall, a World War Two general whom Truman viewed as “the greatest living American”.

The man Truman admired so much was vigorously opposed to the president immediately recognising a Jewish state because of his fears about a regional war – and even went as far as telling Truman he would not vote for him in the coming presidential election if he backed recognition.

But despite the moment of extraordinary tension, Truman immediately recognised the State of Israel when it was declared two days later by David Ben-Gurion, the country’s first prime minister.

The historian Rashid Khalidi, a New York-born Palestinian whose family members were expelled from Jerusalem by the British in the 1930s, says the US and Israel were fused together in part by shared cultural connections. From 1948 onwards, he says, the Palestinians had a critical diplomatic disadvantage in the US, with their claim to national self-determination sidelined in an unequal contest.

“On the one side, you had the Zionist movement led by people whom are European and American by origin… The Arabs had nothing similar,” he says. “[The Arabs] weren’t familiar with the societies, the cultures, the political leaderships of the countries that decided the fate of Palestine. How could you speak to American public opinion if you had no idea what America is like?” says Khalidi.

Popular culture played its role too – notably the 1958 novel and subsequent blockbuster film Exodus by the author Leon Uris. It retold the story of Israel’s establishment to mass audiences of the 1960s, the movie version creating a heavily Americanised portrayal of pioneers in a new land.

Ehud Olmert, who at the time was a political activist but would later become Israeli prime minister, points to the war of 1967 as the moment when America’s support for Israel became the profound alliance that it is today.

That was the war in which Israel, after weeks of escalating fears of invasion by its neighbours, defeated the Arab countries in six days, effectively tripling the size of its territory, and launching its military occupation over (at that time) more than a million stateless Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza.

“For the first time, the United States understood the importance and the significance of Israel as a major military and political power in the Middle East, and since then everything has changed in the basic relations within our two countries,” he says.

Over the years, Israel became the biggest recipient of US foreign military aid on Earth. Strong American diplomatic support, particularly at the United Nations, has been a key element of the alliance; while successive US presidents have also sought to broker peace between Israel and its Arab neighbours.

But in recent years it has been far from a straightforward relationship.

When I spoke to Jake Sullivan, I put to him the issue of Arab Americans in the state of Michigan who boycotted Biden and his successor candidate Kamala Harris over the extent of their support for Israel during the Gaza conflict, voting instead for Trump. He rejected the idea that Biden lost the state because of this support.

But that backing still prompted a marked backlash within a section of the American public.

A Pew Research Center survey taken in March this year found that 53% of Americans expressed an unfavourable opinion of Israel, an 11 point increase since the last time the survey was taken in 2022.

Currently, these shifts in public opinion haven’t yet prompted a major change in US foreign policy. Whilst some ordinary US voters are turning away from Israel, on Capitol Hill elected politicians from both parties are still mostly keen to talk up the importance of a strong alliance with Israel.

Some think that a sustained, long-term shift in public opinion might eventually lead to reduced real-world support for the country – with weaker diplomatic ties and reduced military aid. This issue is felt particularly sharply by some inside Israel. Several months before 7 October, the former Israeli general and head of the Military Intelligence Directorate, Tamir Hayman, warned of cracks forming between his country and the United States, in part because of what he described as the slow movement of American Jews away from Zionism.

Israel’s political shift in favour of the national-religious right has played a key part in this. From early 2023, Israel was gripped by an unprecedented wave of protests among Jewish Israelis against Netanyahu’s judicial reforms, with many arguing he was moving the country towards theocracy – a claim he always rejected. Some in the US who had always felt a deep sense of connection with Israel were watching with growing concern.

In March this year, the Institute for National Security Studies, a leading Tel Aviv-based think tank led by Hayman, published a paper arguing that US public opinion had entered the “danger zone”, as far as support for Israel was concerned. “The dangers of diminished US support, particularly as it reflects long-term and deeply rooted trends, cannot be overstated,” wrote the paper’s author, Theodore Sasson. “Israel needs the support of the global superpower for the foreseeable future,”.

That support at the policy level has only strengthened over the decades, but it is important to note that historic American opinion polling shows public opinion has ebbed and flowed before.

Today, Dennis Ross, who helped negotiate the Oslo accords with President Bill Clinton, says American opinion on Israel has become increasingly tied to sharp political divisions in the US.

“Trump is viewed very negatively by most Democrats – the latest polls show over 90 percent,” Ross says. “There’s potential for Trumpian support for Israel to feed a dynamic here that, at least among Democrats, increases criticism of Israel.”

But he expects that Washington’s support for Israel – in the form of military aid and diplomatic ties – will continue. And he thinks if Israeli voters eject their prime minister and replace him with a more centrist government, one that may reverse some of the disquiet in the US. A general election must be held in Israel before late October next year.

Under such a new Israeli government, Ross argues, “there won’t be the same impulse towards creating de-facto annexation of the West Bank. There’ll be much more outreach to the Democratic Party and the Democratic Party officials.”

Those who see a fraying relationship are paying particularly close attention to the views of younger Americans – a group that has shown the most marked shift in opinion since 7 October. As the ‘TikTok generation’, many young Americans get their news about the war from social media and the high civilian death toll from Israel’s offensive in Gaza appears to have driven the declining support among young Democrats and liberals in America. Last year, 33 percent of Americans under 30 said their sympathies lie entirely or mostly with the Palestinian people, versus 14 percent who said the same about Israelis, according to a Pew Research poll published last month. Older Americans were more likely to sympathise with the Israelis.

Karin Von Hippel, chair of the Arden Defence and Security Practice and a former official in the US State Department, agrees there is a demographic divide among Americans on the topic of Israel – one that even extends to Congress.

“Younger Congress men and women are less knee jerk, reactively supporting Israel,” she says. “And I think younger Americans, including Jewish Americans, are less supportive of Israel than their parents were.”

But she is sceptical of the idea that this might lead to a serious change at the policy level. Despite changing opinions among the party’s base, she says, many of the most prominent Democrats who might run for President in 2028 are “classically supportive of Israel”. She names Gretchen Whitmer, the governor of Michigan, and Pete Buttigieg, the former Transportation Secretary, as examples. And what about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the Instagram-famous congresswoman who is a long-standing supporter of Palestinian rights? Hippel responds bluntly: “I don’t think an Ocasio-Cortez type can win right now.”

In the weeks after February’s Trump-Netanyahu press conference at the White House, I asked Jake Sullivan where he thought the US-Israel relationship was going. He argued that both countries were dealing with internal threats to their democratic institutions that would define their character and their relationship.

“I think it’s almost less of a foreign policy question than it is a domestic policy question in these two countries – whither America and whither Israel?” he says. “The answer to those two questions will tell you where does the US-Israel relationship go five, ten, fifteen years from now.”

Israel’s security cabinet has approved a plan to expand its military offensive against Hamas which includes the “capture” of Gaza and the holding of its territory, according to an Israeli official.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the cabinet had decided on a “forceful operation” to destroy Hamas and rescue its remaining hostages, and that Gaza’s 2.1 million population “will be moved, to protect it”.

He did not say how much territory would be seized by troops, but he stressed that “they will not enter and come out”.

The cabinet also approved, in principle, a plan to deliver aid through private companies, which would end a two-month blockade the UN says has caused severe food shortages.

The UN and other aid agencies have said the proposal would be a breach of basic humanitarian principles and that they will not co-operate.

A Hamas official said the group rejected Israel’s “pressure and blackmail”.

Asked about the Israeli plan to expand its offensive, President Donald Trump repeated a pledge to help get food to Palestinians there.

The UK meanwhile said it “does not support an expansion of Israel’s military operations in Gaza”. The EU earlier urged restraint, saying it was concerned about “further casualties and suffering for the Palestinian population”.

Israel’s security cabinet met on Sunday evening to discuss the Gaza offensive, which resumed when Israel ended a two-month ceasefire on 18 March.

An Israeli official who briefed the media on Monday morning said ministers voted unanimously to approve a plan proposed by the Israeli military’s Chief of Staff Lt Gen Eyal Zamir to “defeat Hamas in Gaza and return the hostages”.

“The plan will include, among other things, the capture of the Strip and holding the territories, moving the Gazan population south for its defence, denying Hamas the ability to distribute humanitarian supplies, and powerful attacks against Hamas,” the official said.

Israeli media reported that first stage would include the seizure of additional areas of Gaza and the expansion of the Israeli-designated “buffer zone” running along the territory’s borders. It would aim to give Israel additional leverage in negotiations with Hamas on a new ceasefire and hostage release deal.

Later, a senior Israeli security official said the plan would not be implemented until after US President Donald Trump’s visit to the region between 13 and 16 May, providing what he called “a window of opportunity” to Hamas to agree a new ceasefire and hostage release deal.

Trump will visit Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates and Qatar on his trip.

Far-right Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich meanwhile told a conference in Jerusalem on Monday that Israel was “going to finally occupy the Gaza Strip”, according to Reuters news agency.

Israel occupied Gaza in the 1967 Middle East war along with the West Bank. It unilaterally withdrew troops and settlers from Gaza in 2005, but the UN still regards Gaza as Israeli-occupied territory because it retained control of Gaza’s shared border, airspace and shoreline.

In a briefing later on Monday, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) said the expanded campaign would displace most Palestinians in Gaza as air strikes and other military operations continued.

However, critics say military action has failed to secure the return of the 59 remaining hostages – up to 24 of whom are believed to be alive – and have urged the government to strike a deal with Hamas.

The Hostages and Missing Families Forum, which represents hostages’ relatives, said the plan was an admission by the government that it was “choosing territories over the hostages” and that this was “against the will of over 70% of the people” in Israel.

Hamas official Mahmoud Mardawi reiterated that the group wanted a comprehensive deal, including “a complete ceasefire, full withdrawal from Gaza, reconstruction of the Gaza Strip, and the release of all prisoners from both sides”.

Palestinians in north Gaza told the BBC that they were strongly opposed to being forcibly displaced to the south once again, with several saying they would rather die amid the ruins of their homes.

“In October 2023, I evacuated with my children, daughters, and grandchildren – about 60 people in total,” 76-year-old Gaza City resident Ahmed Shehata said.

“We lived through unbearable conditions in what Israel claimed was a ‘safe zone’ in the south. This time, we will not leave, even if Israel brings down the tents over our heads.”

Osama Tawfiq, a 48-year-old father of five, said: “Israeli threats won’t scare us. We are staying in Gaza.”

The Israeli official said the security cabinet also approved by a large majority “the possibility of humanitarian [aid] distribution – if necessary – that would prevent Hamas from taking control of supplies and would destroy its governmental capabilities”.

The security official said deliveries would resume once the expanded offensive began, and that the military would establish a “sterile area” in the southern Rafah area that Palestinians would be able to enter pending inspection.

On Sunday, the Humanitarian Country Team (HCT), a forum that includes UN agencies, said Israeli officials were seeking to “shut down the existing aid distribution system” and “have us agree to deliver supplies through Israeli hubs under conditions set by the Israeli military, once the government agrees to re-open crossings”.

The HCT warned that the plan would mean large parts of Gaza, including less mobile and most vulnerable people, would continue to go without supplies.

“It contravenes fundamental humanitarian principles and appears designed to reinforce control over life-sustaining items as a pressure tactic – as part of a military strategy,” it said.

“It is dangerous, driving civilians into militarized zones to collect rations, threatening lives, including those of humanitarian workers, while further entrenching forced displacement.”

Israel cut off all deliveries of humanitarian aid and other supplies to Gaza aid on 2 March, two weeks before resuming its offensive.

According to the UN, the population is facing a renewed risk of hunger and malnutrition because warehouses are empty, bakeries have shut, and community kitchens are days away from running out of supplies.

The blockade has also cut off essential medicines, vaccines and medical equipment needed by Gaza’s overwhelmed healthcare system.

The UN says Israel is obliged under international law to ensure supplies for Gaza’s population, almost all of whom have been displaced. Israel says it is complying with international law and there is no shortage of aid.

The Israeli military launched a campaign to destroy Hamas in response to an unprecedented cross-border attack on 7 October 2023, in which about 1,200 people were killed and 251 others were taken hostage.

At least 52,567 people have been killed in Gaza since then, including 2,459 since the Israeli offensive resumed, according to the territory’s Hamas-run health ministry.

Sir David Attenborough is launching what he says is one of the most important films of his career as he enters his hundredth year.

He believes his new, cinema-length film Ocean could play a decisive role in saving biodiversity and protecting the planet from climate change.

Sir David, who will be 99 on Thursday, says: “After almost 100 years on the planet, I now understand the most important place on land is not on Earth but at sea.”

The ocean is the planet’s support system and humanity’s greatest ally against climate catastrophe, the film argues. It shows how the world’s oceans are at a crossroads.

A blue carpet will be rolled out at the film’s premiere tonight at the Royal Festival Hall.

A host of celebrities are expected to attend including Chris Martin and Coldplay, Benedict Cumberbatch, astronaut Tim Peake, Geri Halliwell-Horner and Simon LeBon.

Toby Nowlan, who produced Ocean, says this new production is not a typical Attenborough film. “This is not about seeing brand new natural history behaviours. It is the greatest message he’s ever told,” he says.

The film documents how the state of the world’s oceans and our understanding of how they function have changed in the course of Sir David’s lifetime.

Sir David remembers his first scuba dive on the Great Barrier Reef way back in 1957: “I was so taken aback by the spectacle before me I forgot – momentarily – to breathe.”

Since then, there has been a catastrophic decline in life in the world’s oceans. “We are almost out of time,” he warns.

Ocean contains some of the most graphic footage of the damage that bottom trawling – a common fishing practice around the world – can do to the seabed. It is a vivid example of how industrial fishing can drain the life from the world’s oceans, Sir David claims.

The new footage shows how the chain that the trawlers drag behind them scours the seafloor, forcing the creatures it disturbs into the net behind. The trawlers are often after a single species: more than three-quarters of what they catch may be discarded.

“It’s hard to imagine a more wasteful way to catch fish,” comments Sir David.

The process also releases vast amounts of carbon dioxide which contributes to the warming of our planet, yet bottom trawling is not just legal but is actively encouraged by many governments.

Sir David says the state of the ocean has almost made him lose hope for the future of life on the planet. What has kept him from despair is what he calls the “most remarkable discovery of all” – that the ocean can “recover faster than we had ever imagined”.

Sir David says the story of the world’s whales has been a source of huge optimism for him.

It is estimated that 2.9 million whales were killed by the whaling industry in the 20th Century alone. Scientists have said it is the largest cull of any animal in history when measured in terms of total biomass. It pushed almost all whale species to the edge of extinction.

Just one per cent of Blue Whales were left, recalls Sir David: “I remember thinking that was it. There was no coming back, we had lost the great whales.”

But in 1986 lawmakers bowed to public pressure and banned commercial whaling worldwide. The whale population has rapidly recovered since then.

One of the film’s directors, Keith Scholey, has worked with Sir David for 44 years. “When I first met David, I was in shorts,” he jokes. That was in 1981, two years after Sir David had resigned as the BBC’s director of programmes – one of the most senior jobs at the Corporation. “He’d done one career, and he was off on his next.”

Despite now nearing his 99th birthday Sir David is still remarkably energetic, says Scholey. “Every time you work with David, you learn something new,” he says. “It’s really good fun. But also, David keeps you on your mettle, because he is so on his mettle and so, you know, it’s always a very creative process.”

Sir David’s key message in the Ocean film is that all is not lost. Countries have promised to protect a third of the world’s oceans. He hopes his new film will spur leaders to take firm action on this promise at a UN conference next month.

He believes that could be transformational.

“The ocean can bounce back to life,” Sir David says. “If left alone it may not just recover but thrive beyond anything anyone alive has ever seen.”

A healthier ocean ecosystem would also be able to trap more carbon dioxide, helping protect the world from climate change, according to scientists.

“In front of us is a chance to protect our climate, our food, our home,” Sir David says.

As he celebrates his 99th birthday this week he is still fighting to protect the natural world he has worked his lifetime to show to us in all its glory.

Ocean will be in cinemas across the country from Thursday.

Sign up for our Future Earth newsletter to keep up with the latest climate and environment stories with the BBC’s Justin Rowlatt. Outside the UK? Sign up to our international newsletter here.

A woman missing for nearly 63 years has been found alive and well after the case into her disappearance was reviewed, police in the US state of Wisconsin said.

Audrey Backeberg was 20 years old when she disappeared from her home in the small city of Reedsburg on 7 July 1962.

In a statement, Sauk County Sheriff Chip Meister said Ms Backeberg’s disappearance “was by her own choice and not the result of any criminal activity or foul play”.

The sheriff said she was living outside Wisconsin, but did not provide any further details.

According to Wisconsin Missing Persons Advocacy, a non-profit group, Ms Backeberg was married and had two children when she went missing.

The group said that days before she went missing, Ms Backeberg, now 82, had filed a criminal complaint against her husband, whom she had married at the age of 15, alleging he had beaten her and threatened to kill her.

On the day she disappeared, she left home to pick up her pay cheque from the woollen mill where she worked.

The couple’s 14-year-old babysitter told police she and Ms Backeberg then hitchhiked to Madison, Wisconsin’s state capital, and from there caught a bus to Indianapolis, Indiana, about 300 miles (480km) away.

The babysitter then became nervous and wanted to return home, but Ms Backeberg refused and was last seen walking away from the bus stop.

The Sauk County Sheriff’s Office said investigators pursued numerous leads in the case but it had gone cold before a comprehensive review of old case files was carried out earlier this year.

The detective who solved the case, Isaac Hanson, told local news station WISN that an online ancestry account belonging to Ms Backeberg’s sister was crucial in helping locate the missing woman.

Det Hanson said he contacted local sheriffs where Ms Backeberg now lives, and spoke to her on the phone for 45 minutes.

“I think she just was removed and, you know, moved on from things and kind of did her own thing and led her life,” he told WISN. “She sounded happy. Confident in her decision. No regrets.”

US President Donald Trump has doubled down on his proposal to reopen and expand Alcatraz, the once-notorious prison island in the icy waters of San Francisco Bay.

Alcatraz – popularly known as “the Rock” – has not been used as a prison for decades. It is now a historic landmark visited by millions of tourists each year.

The US president says he believes the prison could be used once again to house dangerous inmates, and to serve as a symbol of law and order in the US.

But experts say that refurbishing the dilapidated remains of the once-formidable prison is “not realistic at all”. Here’s what we know about the plan.

Located on an island about 1.25 miles (2km) offshore from San Francisco, Alcatraz originally was built as a naval defence fort, but was rebuilt in the early 20th century as a military prison.

In 1934, it was formally converted into a federal prison – Alcatraz Federal Penitentiary – housing notorious inmates including gangster Al Capone, Mickey Cohen and George “Machine Gun” Kelly, among others.

The prison was among one of the most notorious in the US at the time, and was considered inescapable because of the strong currents and frigid temperatures of San Francisco Bay.

• Trump orders reopening of notorious Alcatraz prison
• The men who broke out of Alcatraz with a spoon
• Alcatraz 1962 escapees had small chance of success

The facility also was made famous by the 1979 American biographical prison movie, Escape from Alcatraz, which recounted a 1962 prisoner escape, starring Clint Eastwood as ringleader Frank Morris.

It was also the site of the 1996 film The Rock, starring Sean Connery and Nicolas Cage, about a former SAS captain and FBI chemist who rescue hostages from Alcatraz Island.

According to the Federal Bureau of Prisons, BOP, it was nearly three times more costly to operate than other federal institutions and was ultimately closed by Attorney General Robert Kennedy in 1963.

The island and prison are now a museum operated by the National Park Service. More than 1.4m people visit each year.

“Alcatraz is a place where the past meets the present,” Christine Lehnertz, president and CEO of the Golden Gate National Parks Conservancy, said in a statement sent to the BBC.

“It challenges us to listen, to learn, and to carry forward the stories that still shape our world today,” she added.

Donald Trump is not the first president to mull re-opening the facility as a detention centre.

In 1981, Alcatraz was one of 14 sites considered by the Reagan administration to hold up to 20,000 refugees who had fled from Cuba to Florida in the famous “Mariel Boatlift”.

The site eventually was rejected due to its value as a historical tourist site and its complete lack of adequate facilities.

In a Truth Social post on 4 May, Trump first said he had directed his government to re-open and expand the island prison, saying that “for too long America has been plagued by vicious, violent, and repeat criminal offenders”.

Speaking to reporters at the White House the following day, Trump said that, in his view, Alcatraz “represents something very strong, very powerful” – law and order.

“We need law and order in this country,” he said. “So we’re going to look at it. Some of the people up here are going to be working very hard on that.”

While he said he finds the idea “interesting”, Trump also acknowledged that the prison is currently a “big hulk” that is “rusting and rotting”.

“It sort of represents something that is both horrible and beautiful and strong and miserable,” he said.

Trump’s border czar, Tom Homan, also told reporters that Alcatraz could be “an option” for “significant public safety threats and national security threats”.

“It should be on the table,” he added.

Soon after Trump’s comments made news around the world, justice department spokesman Chad Gilmartin said in a statement that BOP “is working towards rebuilding and opening Alcatraz to serve as a symbol of law and order”.

But prison experts and historians have expressed serious doubts whether the plan is feasible.

“To be frank, at first I thought it was a joke,” Hugh Hurwitz, who served as acting director of the BOP between May 2018 and August 2019, told the BBC. “It’s not realistic to think you can repair it. You’d have to tear it up and start over.”

Mr Hurwitz pointed to a number of issues with the facility, including buildings that are “literally falling apart”, and cells in which “a six-foot person can’t stand up”.

“There’s no security upgrades. No cameras. No fencing,” he added. “You can’t run a prison.”

“I have two words: water and sewage,” said Jolene Babyak, an author and Alcatraz historian who lived there as a child during her father’s two stints as prison administrator.

“In its heyday, all the sewage for 500 or more people was just dumped in the bay,” she said. “Nowadays it has to be boated off. It’s just not realistic at all. But it captures everyone’s imagination.”

When the facility closed in 1963, the BOP said it was nearly three times more expensive to operate Alcatraz than any other federal prison – the per-capita cost being $10 and $13 per inmate, compared to between $3 and $5 at other facilities. This was in part because it required food and supplies to be dropped off by boat.

In today’s federal prisons, the per capita cost for inmates is between $120 and $164 – meaning that costs could rise to over $500 per person in a facility like Alcatraz.

Alcatraz could hold only about 340 prisoners at its peak.

“It was mind bogglingly expensive to keep a convict there,” said John Martini, a historian who spent several years on Alcatraz as a ranger with the National Park Service. “Things have not changed. But the place has gone downhill.”

“It’s basically a shell. Even the concrete has major problems. The Park Service has put millions into structurally stabilising it,” he added. “They would need water, electricity, heat, and sanitation. None of those functions.”

“This [Trump’s comments] are just another twist in the odd history of Alcatraz,” Mr Martini added.

The only surviving guest of the deadly beef wellington lunch at the heart of a high-profile Australian court says he and his wife had been “very happy” to get an invitation to the gathering.

Ian Wilkinson was left seriously ill after the meal, which led to the deaths of his wife and two other relatives.

Erin Patterson – who is charged with the murder of three relatives and the attempted murder of another, has pleaded not guilty and her defence team says she “panicked” after unintentionally serving poison to family members she loved.

Three people died in hospital in the days after the meal.

The victims included Ms Patterson’s former in-laws, Don Patterson, 70, and Gail Patterson, 70, as well as Gail’s sister, Heather Wilkinson, 66.

Mr Wilkinson, a local pastor and Heather’s husband, survived after weeks of treatment in hospital.

He told the packed courtroom that Ms Patterson had plated “all of the food”, which included mashed potato, green beans, and beef wellington.

“Each person had an individual serve, it was very much like a pasty,” he said. “It was a pastry case and when we cut into it, there was steak and mushrooms. It was completely pastry encased.”

Mr Wilkinson also said that Gail and Heather picked up four grey plates with the food and set them on the table, while Ms Patterson ate from an “orangey tan” coloured plate.

“Erin picked up the odd plate and carried it to the table. She took it to her place at the table.”

He was shown a picture of the dining room table on an iPad and he marked where each of the five people at the lunch had been seated.

He said that both he and Heather “ate the entire meal”, while Don ate his meal along with half of the beef wellington that Gail did not finish.

“There was talk about husbands helping their wives out.”

Asked about his relationship with Ms Patterson he said: “I would say our relationship was friendly, amicable. It did not have much depth. We were more like acquaintances. We didn’t see a great deal of each other.”

“She just seemed like a normal person to me,” he added. “When we met things were friendly. We never had arguments or disputes. She just seemed like an ordinary person.”

“Heather would have seen Erin more than me, talked to her more than me but we did not consider that the relationship was close,” he said.

The invitation was made to Heather Wilkinson at church, a week or two earlier, Mr Wilkinson recalled.

“We were very happy to be invited. It seemed like maybe our relationship was going to improve,” he said.

“We were very happy to accept.”

The court was shown a copy of Mrs Wilkinson’s diary where she had written, “Erin for lunch” with a pencil.

Written in blue ink: “12:00” – which Mr Wilkinson said was the time they were to be picked up by Don and Gail Patterson. Another word “fruit” in the diary referred to a fruit platter they were taking to the lunch, he said.

Ms Patterson, wearing a light pink striped shirt sat emotionless as Mr Wilkinson began his evidence.

Last week, her lawyer said there was no intent to hurt anyone and the deaths were. the result of a tragic accident – though many of the facts are not in dispute and it is accepted that she lied several times to police.

On Monday the jury heard from members of a true crime Facebook group that Ms Patterson was part of.

One of the witnesses, Christine Hunt, was asked about Erin Patterson’s relationship with her estranged husband Simon.

She told the court that the words “controlling” and “coercive” had been used by Ms Patterson.

Another member of the same group. Daniela Barkley, told the court that Erin Patterson had been “excited” about buying a dehydrator, and the jury was shown several images shared with the group, which showed mushrooms drying on the metal racks of the appliance.

In a text message shown to the court, Ms Patterson said “I’ve been hiding powdered mushrooms in everything” – including recipes such as brownies so her children couldn’t tell they were eating them.

The court also heard that in July 2023, she’d asked the group for advice on cooking a beef Wellington, the dish that was served to the four guests at that deadly lunch later the same month.

The pace at 64-year-old Thirunavkarsu’s spinning mill in southern India’s Tamil Nadu state has noticeably slowed down.

The viscose yarn – a popular material that goes into making woven garments – he produces, now sits in storage, as orders from local factories have dropped nearly 40% in the last month.

That’s because Chinese import of the material has become cheaper by 15 rupees ($0.18; £0.13) per kilo and has flooded Indian ports.

With Donald Trump imposing tariffs of up to 145% on Chinese goods going into the US, manufacturers in China have begun looking for alternative markets.

India’s textiles makers say they are bearing the brunt of the trade tensions as Chinese producers are dumping yarn in key production hubs.

While China is the leading producer of viscose yarn, India makes most of the viscose yarn the country needs locally with imports only bridging supply gaps.

Mill owners like Thirunavkarsu fear their yarn won’t survive the onslaught of such competition.

“We can’t match these rates. Our raw material is not as cheap,” he says.

Jagadesh Chandran, of the South India Spinners Association, told the BBC nearly 50 small spinning mills in the textile hubs of Pallipalayam, Karur and Tirupur in southern India are “slowing production”. Many say they’ll be forced to scale down further if the issue isn’t addressed.

China’s Ambassador to India, Xu Feihong has sent assurances to India that his country will not dump products and in fact wants to buy more high-quality Indian products for Chinese consumers.

“We will not engage in market dumping or cut-throat competition, nor will we disrupt other countries’ industries and economic development,” he wrote in an opinion piece for the Indian Express newspaper.

But anxieties about dumping are spread across sectors in India, as China – Asia’s biggest economy – is the world’s largest exporter of practically all industrial goods, from textiles and metals, to chemicals and rare minerals.

While pharmaceuticals – and later phones, laptops, and semiconductor chips – were exempted from steep tariffs, large chunks of Chinese exports still run into Trump’s 145% tariff wall. It is these goods that are expected to chase other markets like India.

Their sudden inflow will prove “very disruptive” to emerging economies in Asia, according to Japanese broking house Nomura, whose research earlier revealed that China was flooding global markets with cheap goods even before Donald Trump took office earlier this year.

In 2024, investigations against unfair Chinese imports rose to a record high. Data from the World Trade Organisation (WTO) shows, nearly 200 complaints were filed against China at the forum – a record – including 37 from India.

India in particular, with heavy dependencies on Chinese raw materials and intermediate goods, could be hit hard. Its trade deficit with China – the difference between what it imports and exports – has already ballooned to $100bn (£75bn). And imports in March jumped 25%, driven by electronics, batteries and solar cells.

In response, India’s trade ministry has set up a committee to track the influx of cheap Chinese goods, with its quasi-judicial arm probing imports across sectors, including viscose yarn.

India also recently imposed a 12% tax on some steel imports, locally known as a safeguard duty, to help halt an increase in cheap shipments primarily from China, which were pushing some Indian mills to scale down.

Despite such protections – and a loud marketing campaign by Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government to boost manufacturing locally – India has found it hard to reduce its reliance on China, with imports rising even when border tensions between the two neighbours peaked after 2020.

That’s because the government has only had “limited success” with its plans to turn India into the world’s factory through things like the production linked subsidies, says Biswajit Dhar, a Delhi-based trade expert. And India continues to depend heavily on China for the intermediate goods that go into manufacturing finished products.

While western multi-national companies like Apple are increasingly looking towards India to diversify their assembly lines away from China, India is still dependent on Chinese components to make these phones. As a result, imports in sectors like electronics have risen significantly, pushing up its trade deficit.

India’s burgeoning deficit is a “worrying story”, says Ajay Srivastava, founder of the Global Trade Research Initiative (GTRI) think tank, all the more so because its exports to China have dropped to below 2014 levels despite a weaker currency, which should ideally help exporters.

“This isn’t just a trade imbalance. It’s a structural warning. Our industrial growth, including through PLI (production linked incentive) schemes, is fuelling imports, not building domestic depth,” Srivastava wrote in a social media post. In other words, the subsidies are not helping India export more.

“We can’t bridge this deficit without bridging our competitiveness gap.”

India needs to get its act together quickly to do that, given the opportunity US trade tensions with China have presented. But also because countries with a large rise in imports from China generally tend to see the sharpest slowdown in manufacturing growth, according to Nomura.

Akash Prakash of Amansa Capital agrees. A key reason why Indian private companies were not investing enough, was because they feared being “swamped by China”, he wrote in a column in the Business Standard newspaper. A recent study by the ratings agency Icra also corroborates this view.

With fears of Chinese dumping becoming more widespread and the likes of the European Union seeking firm guarantees from Beijing that its markets will not be flooded, pressure is mounting on China – which is now urgently looking to secure newer trading partners outside the US.

China wants to completely shift the narrative, says Mr Dhar, “It is trying to come clean amidst increased scrutiny”.

Despite the reassurances from Beijing, Delhi should use thawing relations with its larger neighbour to kickstart a proper dialogue on its firm stance about dumping, says Mr Dhar.

“This is an issue that India must flag, like most of the Western countries have.”

Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has been re-elected as the country’s leader, becoming the first in decades to secure a second term.

He defeated opposition leader Peter Dutton of the centre-right Liberal-National coalition. Dutton also lost his seat in Dickson, Queensland – one he had held for 24 years.

It is a remarkable turnaround for Albanese, 62, whose popularity was at record lows at the start of the year as Australians grappled with a cost of living crisis and challenges in healthcare and housing.

US President Donald Trump’s global tariff policy, which did not spare Australia, was also on voters’ minds.

Here’s a look at how that played out in charts, based on an unofficial count by Australian broadcaster ABC:

Albanese needed at least 76 seats in the House of Representatives to form a government.

Before the dissolution of parliament, Labor had a razor-thin majority of 77 seats.

With some 70.8% of the seats already counted, the ABC puts Labor on track to finish with 85 seats – far above the 76 seats needed, giving it a comfortable majority.

The Coalition is expected to gain 36 seats and the Independents stand at 10.

Here’s a reminder of what the seats in the House of Representatives looked like before tonight’s results.

Current projections mean Labor has so far claimed 34.7% of first-preference votes, with the Coalition trailing behind at 31.7%.

The Greens stand at 12.2% of first-preference votes.

As compared to the 2022 election, its clear Labor has increased its share of the national vote, with an increase of 2.1% so far – though that number could increase as counting goes on.

Official vote counting won’t conclude for days but its clear that the Labor government is set to dramatically increase its majority – with swings towards them in almost every area.

France’s former interior minister has apologised for the first time for the 2022 fiasco at the Stade de France which saw Liverpool football supporters wrongly blamed for a riot.

Gérald Darmanin admitted that security arrangements for the Champions League final between Liverpool and Real Madrid were wrong, and that his first public remarks – blaming English fans – were a mistake.

“It was a failure because I had not foreseen. That was a mistake on my part. I was led astray by my preconceptions,” said Darmanin, now France’s justice minister.

“The scapegoat was easy to find, and I apologise now to Liverpool supporters. They were quite right to be hurt. It was a mistake and a failure.”

Police used tear gas on Liverpool supporters as they tried to enter the stadium in Paris. Some fans were also ambushed and mugged by gangs of French youths.

In a lengthy interview on the Legend YouTube channel, Darmanin said the night was “the biggest failure” of his career.

“What I did not appreciate that evening was that the real problem was not coming from English supporters, but from delinquents who were robbing fans.

• Liverpool fans’ claim ‘can be heard in England’

“Our security arrangements were not designed for that eventuality. We had riot police … with big boots and shields – not great for running. What you need against that kind of delinquency is officers in running shoes.

“We got our arrangements wrong. We were expecting a war of (football) hooligans, and what we got instead was muggers.”

In their first comments after the problems, Darmanin and police chief Didier Lallement said the dangerous crush at the stadium was largely caused by Liverpool fans in possession of fake tickets.

The claim was subsequently debunked in an independent report commissioned by UEFA.

In another section of the interview, Darmanin said that there was “no longer any safe place” in France – a comment that drew fire from the hard-right opposition.

“What a lot of French people can see is that (violence) has become general, it has metastasised. It’s no longer only in the places where you once looked for potential problems.

“Nowadays you can see that the tiniest country village has experience of cocaine or cannabis.”

National Rally MP Jean-Philippe Tanguy noted that Darmanin has been in government since President Emmanuel Macron’s first election in 2017.

Tungay said he was “treating the French like imbeciles, making all these so-called tough declarations when the record is so catastrophic”.

Darmanin, who is 42 and from the political right, did nothing in the interview to dispel speculation that he might be in the running to replace Macron in 2027.

“Do I think of the presidential election? The answer is yes,” he said.

“That does not mean that I am going to be a candidate, but it does mean I have ambitions for the country to do better than what I see now.”