Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s prime minister, has said a new “intensified” offensive in Gaza will involve Israeli troops holding on to seized territory and significant displacement of the population.

Speaking after officials said Israel’s security cabinet had approved a plan for “conquering” the Gaza Strip and establishing a “sustained presence” there, Netanyahu posted a video on X in which he said Israeli soldiers would not go into Gaza, launch raids and then retreat.

“The intention is the opposite of that,” he said. “Population will be moved, for its own protection.”

Brig Gen Efi Dufferin, the chief Israeli military spokesperson, said in a statement shortly afterwards that Operation Gideon’s Chariots, as the new offensive has been named, would “include a wide-scale attack and the movement of the majority of the strip’s population, this is to protect them in an area sterile of Hamas. And continued airstrikes, elimination of terrorists, and dismantling of infrastructure.”

The plan, which was unanimously approved at a security cabinet meeting late on Sunday, goes beyond any aims so far outlined by Israel for its offensive in the devastated Palestinian territory and is likely to prompt deep international concern and fierce opposition.

“This will inevitably lead to countless more civilians killed and the further destruction of Gaza,” said a spokesperson for António Guterres, the United Nations secretary general. “Gaza is, and must remain, an integral part of a future Palestinian state.”

A spokesperson for the British Foreign Office said: “The UK does not support an expansion of Israel’s military operations in Gaza. Continued fighting is in nobody’s interests.”

After a fragile ceasefire collapsed in mid-March, Israel renewed its bombardment, with troops reinforcing kilometre-deep “buffer zones” along the perimeter of the territory and expanding their hold over much of the north and south of the strip.

In all, more than 70% of Gaza is under Israeli control or covered by orders issued by Israel telling Palestinian civilians to evacuate specific neighbourhoods.

On Sunday, the army chief, Lt Gen Eyal Zamir, said the military was calling up tens of thousands of reservists to allow for conscripted regular troops to be deployed to Gaza for the new offensive.

Zamir has resisted calls by some Israeli ministers for the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) to take on the job of distributing aid in Gaza, which has been under a tight blockade by Israel for more than two months. Much of the 2.3 million population can no longer find enough to eat and the humanitarian system is close to collapse, aid officials in the territory have said.

Israeli officials told local media that ministers believed there was “currently enough food” in the territory, but that they approved “the possibility of a humanitarian distribution, if necessary, to prevent Hamas from taking control of the supplies and to destroy its governance capabilities”.

Israel says the blockade and intensified bombardments since mid-March are to put pressure on Hamas to release hostages held in Gaza. Militants in the territory still hold 58 hostages seized in Hamas’s October 2023 attack on Israel, which resulted in the deaths of about 1,200 people, mostly civilians.

Israel’s retaliatory military offensive has killed at least 52,535 people in Gaza, the majority of them civilians, according to the health ministry there.

The officials also said Netanyahu “continues to promote” a proposal made in January by Donald Trump to displace the millions of Palestinians living in Gaza to neighbouring countries such as Jordan or Egypt, to allow its reconstruction.

A “voluntary transfer programme for Gaza residents … will be part of the operation’s goals”, the senior security official said.

Israel’s military on Monday carried out a fresh round of airstrikes against Houthi rebels in Yemen’s Red Sea city of Hodeida, a day after the Iranian-backed rebels launched a missile that hit Israel’s main airport.

The rebels’ media office said at least six strikes hit the crucial Hodeida port Monday afternoon. Other strikes hit a cement factory in the Bajil district in Hodeida province, the rebels said. Israeli media reported that dozens of Israeli air force took part in the operation.

Trump’s scheduled visit later this month to Saudi Arabia, Qatar and UAE may provide an additional incentive to the Israeli government to conclude a new ceasefire deal and allow aid into Gaza. Trump, who recently said he wanted Netanyahu to be “good to Gaza”, is likely to come under pressure from his hosts to push Israel to make concessions to end the conflict.

Israeli military officials say seizing territory provides Israel with additional leverage in its negotiations with Hamas, and some observers suggest that the public announcement of the new offensive and plans for a longer-term presence in Gaza are merely aimed at putting pressure on the militant Islamist group.

Humanitarian organisations have unanimously rejected Israel’s plan to establish a limited number of aid distribution hubs run by private contractors and guarded by the IDF in southern Gaza.

The UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) on Sunday accused Israel of trying to shut down the existing aid distribution system run by the UN and its humanitarian partners in order to impose its own supply system.

“[This] contravenes fundamental humanitarian principles … It is dangerous, driving civilians into militarised zones to collect rations, threatening lives … while further entrenching forced displacement,” OCHA said.

Hamas on Monday described the new Israeli framework for aid delivery in Gaza as “political blackmail” and blamed Israel for the war-ravaged territory’s “humanitarian catastrophe”.

In Israel, hundreds of protesters took to the streets in Jerusalem while a coalition representing the majority of families of hostages held by Hamas, about half of whom are thought to be dead, condemned the planned new offensive as a threat the lives of hostages and Israeli soldiers.

Netanyahu’s governing coalition – and so his hold on power – depends heavily on the support of hardline rightwing parties that have long demanded the reoccupation and resettlement of Gaza, which Israel formally left in 2005. A new parliamentary session opened on Monday.

Israeli strikes across Gaza continued overnight and during Monday, killing at least 32 people in the territory, according to hospital staff. Strikes hit Gaza City, Beit Hanoun and Beit Lahiya and among the dead were eight women and children, according to staff at al-Shifa hospital, where the bodies were brought.

The announcement of Israel’s plan to launch imminently a new, expanded offensive in Gaza and to retain the territory it seized is a significant moment, at least in terms of public rhetoric.

Throughout the nearly 19-month war, Israeli troops have carried out large and frequently bloody operations that have covered all except central parts of Gaza, but they have largely restricted their permanent presence to a buffer zone about 1km deep along the devastated territory’s perimeter and two relatively narrow east-west corridors.

This now seems to have changed. Once “Operation Gideon’s Chariots” is under way, Israel will send its troops across much – if not all – of Gaza, and will seek to establish a “sustained presence” there, Israel officials said.

Israeli officials are also talking openly about the displacement of Palestinians to southern Gaza, and their potential “voluntary” displacement from the territory altogether to allow the implementation of the reconstruction plan announced by the US president, Donald Trump, in January. The far-right Israeli finance minister, Bezalel Smotrich, told Israelis on Monday to embrace the word “occupation”.

All this will confirm many people’s long-held fears of Israel’s intentions in Gaza and prompt international outrage.

The idea of a major new offensive in Gaza has been discussed and debated within the government and the upper ranks of the military for some months. So why has Israel’s government announced this plan so loudly? And why now?

A key factor is the indirect talks being held with Hamas about a new ceasefire. The government of the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, hopes that the Israel Defense Forces’ call-up of tens of thousands of reservists, the threat of the new offensive and the prospect of Israel seizing swaths of territory will force Hamas’s leaders to make concessions.

If it fails to do so, then physical possession of terrain will offer useful leverage in future negotiations and allow Hamas to be squeezed further in the meantime. Israel’s twin war aims – to crush Hamas and free the 59 hostages it still holds – remain unchanged, though Netanyahu has signaled the former is the priority.

Trump is due to visit the Middle East in 10 days, and Israeli officials said the offensive would start after the leader of their country’s most important ally had enjoyed the hospitality of Saudi Arabia, UAE and Qatar. Images of destruction and death from Gaza would make the president’s stay that much more diplomatically delicate. In reality, the complex logistics necessary to move and mobilise additional troops in Israel is likely to mean an even longer delay.

Israel has also now gone public with its plan to allow some aid into Gaza, which has been brought to “the brink of catastrophe”, aid officials say, by two months of Israel’s tight blockade of food, fuel, medicine and everything else.

The scheme involves creating big distribution sites run by private contractors in the south of Gaza, to which vetted representatives of each Palestinian family would travel to pick up food parcels. Israeli troops would guard the bases, likely to be situated in a vast zone up to 5km wide now being cleared along the border with Egypt.

The scheme has been dismissed as unworkable, dangerous and potentially illegal under international law by leading humanitarian organisations. There has been no mention either of who might provide healthcare, sanitation, water, fuel and everything else necessary for life in the territory.

Policy papers outlining and advocating the imposition of a military administration on Gaza have been circulating among senior officials in Israel for more than a year. Netanyahu continues to dismiss out of hand the possibility of the Palestinian Authority, which exercises partial authority in the occupied West Bank, governing the territory. Nor has he outlined any other kind of future political settlement in Gaza. The likely result, should the new offensive go ahead, would be that Israeli troops end up the de facto rulers of much of Gaza and its 2.3 million inhabitants.

The Israeli prime minister also offers little to the majority of Israelis who call for a ceasefire deal to secure the release of the hostages. His coalition still depends heavily on the support of far-right parties who are very happy with the prospect of the new offensive and the prospect of a “sustained” Israeli presence in Gaza. Netanyahu now appears likely to remain in power for the 15 months or so until the next elections.

More than 1,200 people died, mostly civilians, in the Hamas surprise raid into Israel in 2023 that triggered the war, and about 250 were taken prisoner, of whom 58 remain in Gaza. More than 52,000 Palestinians, mostly civilians, have died in the Israeli offensive there which followed.

On Monday – among all the outrage and enthusiasm generated by Operation Gideon’s Chariots – the announcement that Israel’s security cabinet had decided not to establish “at this time” a state commission of inquiry into the failures that allowed that attack to take place went almost unnoticed.

Any inquiry should wait until the war has ended, Netanyahu told Israelis.

Israel’s military has carried out a fresh round of airstrikes against Houthi rebels in Yemen’s Red Sea city of Hodeida, a day after the Iranian-backed rebels launched a missile that hit Israel’s main airport.

The rebels’ media office said at least six strikes hit the crucial Hodeida port Monday afternoon. Other strikes hit a cement factory in the Bajil district in Hodeida province, the rebels said. Israeli media reported that dozens of Israeli air force took part in the operation.

On Sunday, the Houthis launched a missile from Yemen that struck an access road near Israel’s main airport, briefly halting flights and commuter traffic. Four people were lightly injured. It was the first time a missile had struck the grounds of Israel’s airport since the start of the war.

The Houthis claimed that the strikes were a joint Israeli-American operation. However, a US defence official said Washington did not participate in the strikes which were not part of Operation Rough Rider, the ongoing US military operation against the Houthis in Yemen to prevent them from targeting ships in the Red Sea. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive matters.

However, the US military separately launched multiple strikes on the Yemeni capital, Sana’a, on Monday, according to another US official said.

Nasruddin Amer, head of the Houthi media office, said the Israeli strikes would not deter the rebels, vowing that they will respond to the attack.

“The aggressive Zionist-American raids on civilian facilities will not affect our military operations against the Zionist enemy entity,” he said in a social media post.

He said the Houthis will escalate their attacks and won’t stop targeting shipping routes and Israel until it stops the war in Gaza.

The Houthis have targeted Israel throughout the war in solidarity with Palestinians, raising their profile at home and internationally as the last member of Iran’s self-described “Axis of Resistance” capable of launching regular attacks on Israel. The US military under President Donald Trump has launched an intensified campaign of daily airstrikes targeting the Houthis since 15 March.

Houthi rebels have fired at Israel since the war with Gaza began on 7 October, 2023. The missiles have mostly been intercepted, although some have penetrated Israel’s missile defence systems, causing damage. Israel has struck back against the rebels in Yemen.

The Israeli military said it targeted the Hodeida port on Monday because Houthi rebels were using it to receive weapons and military equipment from Iran.

The attack on Ben-Gurion International Airport on Sunday came hours before Israeli cabinet ministers voted to expand the war in Gaza, including to seize the Gaza Strip and to stay in the Palestinian territory for an unspecified amount of time. While air traffic resumed after an hour, the attack could lead to cancellations of many airlines, which had recently resumed flights to Israel.

A Palestinian activist who appeared in a Louis Theroux documentary about settlers in the West Bank has reportedly had his home raided by Israeli soldiers.

Issa Amro, co-founder of the non-violent activist group Youth Against Settlements, shared videos on social media of confrontations with Israeli military at his home, and another of a group of Israeli settlers forcing entry to the property.

Posting on X, Amro said: “The soldiers raided my house today, they wanted revenge from me for participating in the BBC documentary ‘the settlers’, after the army left the settlers raided my house, they injured one activist and cut the tree, they stole tools and the garbage containers.”

Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem are illegal under international law. The UN Security Council have said that the settlements have “no legal validity, constituting a flagrant violation under international law.”

Amro lives in Hebron, the capital of the West Bank’s largest governorate. In Louis Theroux’s documentary, The Settlers, Amro shows Theroux around the Israeli-occupied area of the city, home to about 35,000 Palestinians and 700 settlers protected by the Israeli military.

The documentary, which aired in April on BBC Two, shows Amro and Theroux being confronted by military as they walk around the area. When the pair are sworn at by a passing driver, Amro explains to Theroux: “You deserve a middle finger if you report about Palestinians.”

“By international law, the settlements are illegal,” Amro said in the documentary. “They don’t see us as equal human beings who deserve the same rights they do.”

In one of the videos posted on X, Amro challenges a group of balaclava-covered soldiers at his house, asking why they have their faces covered. One soldier replies: “You know exactly why.”

A Nobel peace prize nominee and one of the West Bank’s most prominent activists, Amro is best known for his work for Youth Against Settlements, which aims to end the expansion of illegal settlements in the West Bank.

Theroux, posting on X, said: “@Issaamro who featured in The Settlers has posted videos of his latest harassment by settlers and soldiers. Our team has been in regular contact with him since the documentary and over the last 24 hours. We are continuing to monitor the situation.”

The Israel Defence Forces were approached for comment.

The White House said on Monday that no final decisions have been made about imposing tariffs on foreign films, just a day after Donald Trump declared a 100% tariff on all movies produced outside the United States – an announcement that sparked widespread alarm across the global film industry.

“Although no final decisions on foreign film tariffs have been made, the administration is exploring all options to deliver on President Trump’s directive to safeguard our country’s national and economic security while Making Hollywood Great Again,” White House spokesperson Kush Desai said.

The US president had announced the tariffs on his Truth Social platform, claiming he had authorized “the Department of Commerce, and the United States Trade Representative, 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”.

In his Sunday post, Trump offered few details on how such a trade penalty would work, but warned that the US film industry was “DYING a very fast death” and said that there was a “concerted effort” by other countries to offer “all sorts of incentives to draw our filmmakers and studios away from the United States” – which he said was a “national security threat”.

Commerce secretary Howard Lutnick responded on X on Sunday evening, writing: “We’re on it.”

The announcement sent shockwaves through the entertainment industry.

On Monday, shares in US streaming platforms and production companies dropped as uncertainty loomed, especially because Trump’s post did not say whether the tariffs would apply to films distributed on streaming platforms.

Netflix shares were down 1.7% by early afternoon, while Amazon dipped 1.5%. Warner Bros Discovery and Paramount dropped 1.1% and 1% respectively.

In Australia and New Zealand, which serve as major production hubs for global franchises such as the Lord of the Rings series, its Tolkienesque cousin The Hobbit, and various Marvel films, lawmakers in those countries responded that they would advocate for their respective film industries.

Australia’s home affairs minister, Tony Burke, said that he had spoken with the head of the government body Screen Australia about the proposed tariffs and that “nobody should be under any doubt that we will be standing up unequivocally for the rights of the Australian screen industry.”

And New Zealand’s prime minister, Christopher Luxon, said: “We’ll have to see the detail of what actually ultimately emerges. But we’ll be obviously a great advocate, great champion of that sector in that industry.”

In the UK, a parliamentarian also warned that such tariffs were “not in the interests of American businesses” and the UK media union Bectu urged the UK government to protect the country’s “vital” film sector, warning tens of thousands of freelance jobs could be at risk.

The announcement on Sunday follows Trump’s earlier pledges to revitalize the US film industry. But early on Monday afternoon, the White House began walking back Trump’s announcement, according to the Hollywood Reporter.

Just before taking office, Trump appointed actors Jon Voight, Sylvester Stallone and Mel Gibson as “special ambassadors” to Hollywood tasked with bringing the industry back “bigger, better, and stronger than ever before”.

The Associated Press reported that it is common for major blockbusters and smaller productions to film scenes in the US as well as internationally. Big-budget projects often span multiple countries.

For years, according to the AP, incentive programs have influenced where films are made, increasingly driving film production away from California to states and countries offering more favorable tax incentives, such as Canada and the UK.

According to FilmLA, a non-profit that tracks production in the Los Angeles area, film and television production in LA has dropped by nearly 40% over the past decade.

Trump’s announcement on Sunday comes after he triggered a trade war with China, and imposed global tariffs, unsettling global markets and sparking fears of a potential US recession.

In April, China, which is currently the world’s second-largest film market after the US, responded to Trump’s tariffs on Chinese products by reducing the quota of American movies allowed into the country.

Donald Trump’s bombshell announcement that “Movies coming into our Country that are produced in Foreign Lands” will be subject to an 100% tariff has certainly caught the attention of Hollywood, as well as the international film industries it seems to be aimed at – principally Canada, the UK, Australia and New Zealand, as well as European countries such as Hungary and Italy that have often acted as bases for US film production.

Vague and grandstanding as it is – Trump concluded his post with an all-caps “WE WANT MOVIES MADE IN AMERICA, AGAIN!” – the chaotic roll out of previous Trump tariffs has triggered feverish speculation, as well as defiance, in the film industry in exactly how this might play out.

The practicalities of how a tariff might be imposed on a film is far from clear. Trump appears partly motivated by China’s decision to limit imports of Hollywood films as part of its tit-for-tat trade war with the US, but a quota system into North America would appear, on the face of it, to be unworkable. Films are no longer manufactured objects that have to pass through a port of entry into the US, and their nationality of production is far from clear. Most film production – and indeed TV shows – are a complex patchwork of corporate investment, globally sourced labour and multinational revenue. Some are tiny, hand-to-mouth operations, others are gigantic behemoths whose turnover dwarfs the GDP of a minor island nation. Added to which, the digital evolution has allowed it to become a fully globalised industry that moves too fast to allow the imposition of consistent financial levies.

However, Trump’s target does not appear to be foreign films per se, but rather the outsourcing of production by Hollywood studios who for decades have used overseas studios and locations to lower costs as well as take advantage of interesting or unusual backdrops. To take some random recent examples: the new Tom Cruise film Mission: Impossible – The Final Reckoning was mostly shot in the UK, at Longcross studios in Surrey and the Lake District, but also in Malta, Norway and South Africa, as well as an American aircraft carrier docked in Italy. Marvel’s new superhero blockbuster Thunderbolts* was filmed in Atlanta Georgia, but a key scene took place at Merdeka 118, a skyscraper in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, and its score was recorded at Abbey Road studios in London.

Revenue plays a large role in Hollywood thinking. While North America (comprising the US and Canada) remains the biggest single market, with around $8.8bn (£6.6bn) in box office takings in 2024, it is dwarfed by international income of around $21.1bn. It is capturing a significant proportion of this that has geared Hollywood to its internationalist thinking, from shooting in locales and casting actors designed to appeal to specific audiences, to continent-hopping global roll-outs with large-scale premieres taking place in different cities across the world.

So the questions are being asked: what would make an individual movie incur tariffs? If it is released in cinemas (in which case expect a wholesale shift to streaming)? Would it include streaming releases (in which case a wholesale rebranding as “TV shows”?) And what would actually be taxed? Could an American-produced, (mostly) British-shot film such as Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire really incur import duty? Would distributors of non-American films have to pay a levy to release them in the US? In any case, if a film shows on streaming, consumers don’t pay directly to watch it, but for a subscription to a platform, so the idea of targeting an individual film’s streaming revenue appears meaningless.

More pragmatically, Trump appears to be taking aim at the system of tax subsidies that allow Hollywood producers to accrue large sums if they shoot at studios in qualifying countries. It was recently revealed, for example, that Universal Studios received £89m from UK taxpayers after agreeing to film Jurassic World: Rebirth in Elstree in Hertfordshire. This partly explains the decline in film production in Los Angeles – nearly 40% in the last decade, according to FilmLA – but the California film industry has also been under attack from other production centres in the US, where states such as New York and Georgia offer tax incentives. California governor Gavin Newsom, a regular target of Trump, recently announced a $750m scheme to try to reverse the industry decline in his state, and Trump’s announcement was in some ways clearly a shot across his bows after Newsom filed a lawsuit in April against Trump’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA) to impose tariffs in other industries.

The current thinking is that Trump’s most realistic option is to levy a tariff on any financial packages a film receives from a foreign government, rather than tax cinema tickets or streaming subscriptions. However, the effect of any tariff is likely to be dramatic. Recent figures from the British Film Institute (BFI) show that in 2024 £4.8bn($6.37bn) of production spend on film and high-end TV in the UK came from international sources, 86% of the total spent on film and TV made in Britain. In Australia, the film industry stands to lose up to AUS$767m. A programme of studio building in the UK, designed to increase capacity and therefore revenue, is likely to feel the chill almost immediately. And the effect on the domestic industry in the US is forecast to be adverse, as production costs rise without the injection of overseas tax incentives, with mid-level projects potentially wiped out.

But whether, as Newsom suggests, this is all a “distraction”, or if this announcement turns into something more solid, a shocked film industry is waiting to find out.

A sharp exchange of statements over the weekend has heightened concerns in Mexico that Donald Trump may push for a US military presence in its territory to fight drug trafficking.

The Mexican president, Claudia Sheinbaum, sought to defuse the situation in her daily press conference on Monday, emphasising that communication between the two leaders had been “very good” so far.

But the episode underlined the fraught path that Sheinbaum is navigating, as she attempts to placate Trump and protect the US-Mexico trade relationship while also defending Mexican sovereignty.

On Saturday, Sheinbaum revealed she had rejected an offer from Trump during a call last week to send US troops into Mexico to help fight drug trafficking.

“I told him, ‘No, President Trump, our territory is inviolable, our sovereignty is inviolable,’” said Sheinbaum, adding that while the two countries can collaborate, “we will never accept the presence of the US army in our territory”.

Trump on Sunday confirmed he had made the offer to Sheinbaum, because the cartels “are horrible people that have been killing people left and right and have been – they’ve made a fortune on selling drugs and destroying our people”.

“The president of Mexico is a lovely woman, but she is so afraid of the cartels that she can’t even think straight,” added Trump.

Despite the exchange over the weekend, the public relationship between Trump and Sheinbaum has been largely cordial, with many comparing Sheinbaum’s performance favourably against other world leaders who have clashed with the US president.

The US-Mexico relationship is complex and vastly important for both countries, spanning trade, migration and security.

Since returning to power in January, Trump has imposed various tariff schemes that have jeopardised the free trade agreement between the two countries and the near trillion dollars of trade a year that passes between them.

Trump directly linked some of those tariffs to reducing the movement of undocumented migrants and fentanyl across the border into the US, and Sheinbaum’s cabinet has been engaged in intense diplomatic efforts to persuade him to withdraw them.

Sheinbaum first sent 10,000 additional troops to the border, then Mexico sent 29 high-level organised crime operatives to face justice in the US, including Rafael Caro Quintero, the drug lord who was convicted of the murder of an undercover US Drug Enforcement Administration agent in 1985.

Meanwhile Sheinbaum has abandoned the hands-off security strategy of her predecessor and ally, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, and ramped up direct confrontation of organised crime groups, with soaring arrests and seizures of drugs and guns.

“Trump has created a real pressure that’s forced Mexico to act,” said Will Freeman from the Council on Foreign Relations, a US-based thinktank. “I think Sheinbaum wants to act anyway, but it’s made her job easier by putting this pressure behind her.

“I think Trump’s vision is that this is almost like an insurgency in Mexico,” added Freeman. “And if the Mexican military is not willing to fight it – and they do often seem to be less than willing to use their full force against the cartels – then the US should do it.”

But experts say it is unclear that greater military action would fundamentally address the problem of organised crime in Mexico.

“I think to really change the balance of power between organised crime and the state in Mexico, you need intelligence, you need accountability through the justice system, you need political will,” said Freeman.

Still, Trump has said that the US could use unilateral military action if Mexico does not do enough to dismantle the cartels.

Sheinbaum has warned that her country would not tolerate an “invasion” of its national sovereignty by US forces.

“But the Mexican government should not just assume that [unilateral military action] couldn’t happen, regardless of how bad an idea it would be on many levels,” said Cecilia Farfán-Méndez, from the Global Initiative against Transnational Organised Crime, an NGO. “All scenarios should be planned for.”

A sharp exchange of statements over the weekend has heightened concerns in Mexico that Donald Trump may push for a US military presence in its territory to fight drug trafficking.

The Mexican president, Claudia Sheinbaum, sought to defuse the situation in her daily press conference on Monday, emphasising that communication between the two leaders had been “very good” so far.

But the episode underlined the fraught path that Sheinbaum is navigating, as she attempts to placate Trump and protect the US-Mexico trade relationship while also defending Mexican sovereignty.

On Saturday, Sheinbaum revealed she had rejected an offer from Trump during a call last week to send US troops into Mexico to help fight drug trafficking.

“I told him, ‘No, President Trump, our territory is inviolable, our sovereignty is inviolable,’” said Sheinbaum, adding that while the two countries can collaborate, “we will never accept the presence of the US army in our territory”.

Trump on Sunday confirmed he had made the offer to Sheinbaum, because the cartels “are horrible people that have been killing people left and right and have been – they’ve made a fortune on selling drugs and destroying our people”.

“The president of Mexico is a lovely woman, but she is so afraid of the cartels that she can’t even think straight,” added Trump.

Despite the exchange over the weekend, the public relationship between Trump and Sheinbaum has been largely cordial, with many comparing Sheinbaum’s performance favourably against other world leaders who have clashed with the US president.

The US-Mexico relationship is complex and vastly important for both countries, spanning trade, migration and security.

Since returning to power in January, Trump has imposed various tariff schemes that have jeopardised the free trade agreement between the two countries and the near trillion dollars of trade a year that passes between them.

Trump directly linked some of those tariffs to reducing the movement of undocumented migrants and fentanyl across the border into the US, and Sheinbaum’s cabinet has been engaged in intense diplomatic efforts to persuade him to withdraw them.

Sheinbaum first sent 10,000 additional troops to the border, then Mexico sent 29 high-level organised crime operatives to face justice in the US, including Rafael Caro Quintero, the drug lord who was convicted of the murder of an undercover US Drug Enforcement Administration agent in 1985.

Meanwhile Sheinbaum has abandoned the hands-off security strategy of her predecessor and ally, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, and ramped up direct confrontation of organised crime groups, with soaring arrests and seizures of drugs and guns.

“Trump has created a real pressure that’s forced Mexico to act,” said Will Freeman from the Council on Foreign Relations, a US-based thinktank. “I think Sheinbaum wants to act anyway, but it’s made her job easier by putting this pressure behind her.

“I think Trump’s vision is that this is almost like an insurgency in Mexico,” added Freeman. “And if the Mexican military is not willing to fight it – and they do often seem to be less than willing to use their full force against the cartels – then the US should do it.”

But experts say it is unclear that greater military action would fundamentally address the problem of organised crime in Mexico.

“I think to really change the balance of power between organised crime and the state in Mexico, you need intelligence, you need accountability through the justice system, you need political will,” said Freeman.

Still, Trump has said that the US could use unilateral military action if Mexico does not do enough to dismantle the cartels.

Sheinbaum has warned that her country would not tolerate an “invasion” of its national sovereignty by US forces.

“But the Mexican government should not just assume that [unilateral military action] couldn’t happen, regardless of how bad an idea it would be on many levels,” said Cecilia Farfán-Méndez, from the Global Initiative against Transnational Organised Crime, an NGO. “All scenarios should be planned for.”

Four Iranian men were being questioned over an alleged major terror plot against a “specific” British target as investigators urgently try to establish whether there is any continuing danger to the public despite the arrests.

The men, all Iranian nationals, were arrested on Saturday, with armed police, and in at least one instance special forces soldiers, sent in to detain them amid fears some of the suspects might have had weapons.

A fifth man arrested in Manchester as part of the same operation was released on bail on Monday.

Commander Dominic Murphy, head of counter-terrorism at the Metropolitan police, said: “The investigation is still in its early stages and we are exploring various lines of enquiry to establish any potential motivation as well as to identify whether there may be any further risk to the public linked to this matter.”

Police said searches were under way at addresses in Greater Manchester, London and Swindon.

Investigators are trying to establish whether or not Iran played any role in what they consider a “significant” attack plot.

In a separate operation, three Iranian nationals were arrested by British police under laws to combat foreign state threats. All three men in that investigation remain in custody.

But the main focus of government, counter-terrorism police and Britain’s security services is on what they believe was a thwarted attack plot, with arrests made amid fears that the unleashing of violence could have been staged soon.

Those arrested, all male, were a 29-year-old detained in the Swindon area, a 46-year-old man who was arrested in west London, a 29-year-old man held in Cheadle Hume, in the Stockport area, and a 40-year-old was detained at gunpoint in Rochdale.

All four were arrested under terrorism laws for allegedly planning terrorist acts and warrants to detain them until this Saturday have been granted by magistrates.

Police said a 24-year-old man arrested in the Manchester area had been released on bail, but with conditions restricting his freedoms.

The arrests followed a joint operation by counter-terrorism police and the security service MI5.

Investigators do not believe the target was a synagogue as some news outlets have suggested, but will not comment whether the “specific premises” that faced the potential threat was linked to Britain’s Jewish community.

The plot was more sophisticated than recent lone actor terrorism attacks seen in the UK, police believe.

The result of searches of electronic devices is being examined by detectives.

Murphy said: “Our officers and staff are progressing what is a significant and highly complex investigation, and we still have searches and activity under way at multiple addresses across the country.

“We are working incredibly hard, with public safety at the forefront of our ongoing efforts.

“We believe that a specific premises was the target of this suspected plot and counter-terrorism policing officers remain in close contact with the affected premises.

“At this time, we will not be providing further information about the suspected target for reasons of operational security and public safety.

“As always, I would ask the public to remain vigilant and if they see or hear anything that concerns them, then to contact us.”

Yvette Cooper, the home secretary, has said the arrests in the “two major operations” over the weekend reflected some of the biggest threats “we have seen in recent years”.

Ken McCallum, the head of MI5, said in October 2024 that Tehran was behind “plot after plot” in the UK and that MI5 had uncovered five new planned attacks last year, usually against dissidents, taking the total since January 2022 to 20.

A frantic search for two children presumed lost in the unforgiving and thickly forested lands of Nova Scotia has entered its fourth day as police in Atlantic Canada expand their search.

Nearly 150 searchers have braved rain and fog to track down Lily Sullivan, six, and Jack Sullivan, four, who were last seen on Friday around their home in Pictou county, 100 miles north-east of Halifax.

Their mother Malehya Brooks-Murray and stepfather, Daniel Martell, have told local media they were sleeping with their 16-month-old baby on Friday morning as the older children played in the house. But when they awoke later in the morning, the two children were gone.

The Royal Canadian Mounted Police believe the pair, members of the Mi’kmaq First Nation community of Sipekne’katik, wandered off from their home and probably entered a heavily forested area.

Among the resources devoted to the effort have been dog teams with the heavy urban search and rescue team from Halifax, the region’s largest city, as well as thermal imaging cameras attached to drones. Police say their work has been “strategic and thorough” as they weigh any clues that might suggest a likely whereabouts for the children.

The search is also the first major undertaking by the Nova Scotia Guard, a newly formed a volunteer emergency organization meant to address shortfalls in the province’s response to crisis. In 2023, a flash flood killed four people, including three children – a tragedy that some residents believe could have been avoided by timely warnings sent by authorities.

Nova Scotia’s premier, Tim Houston, a resident of Pictou county, has visited the search headquarters alongside other local officials, to offer support for residents and searchers.

“People in Pictou County and across Nova Scotia are praying for a positive outcome for two missing children,” he said in a statement. “During this time of worry, please know that our first responders and volunteers are working tirelessly during this 24/7 operation.”

Foiled at times by inclement weather, more than a dozen search teams are in the field.

“Everybody in the community is concerned and worried, but we’re all hoping for the best here,” said Donald Parker, a municipal councillor with the municipality of Pictou county told CBC News. “It’s hard on the whole community … It’s incredibly tough.”

On social media, the Sipekne’katik chief, Michelle Glasgow, questioned the decision not to issue an Amber alert, used when a child is presumed abducted, and said the disappearance underscored the need for a national alerting system.

“Please help bring Jack and Lily home,” she wrote.

An attempt by Sudan’s government to make the United Arab Emirates legally accountable for acts of genocide in West Darfur has been rejected by the international court of justice after the judges voted by 14 to 2 to declare they had no jurisdiction. By a narrower majority the judges voted 9 to 7 to strike the case entirely from the ICJ list.

There have been repeated allegations during the two-year civil war in Sudan that the UAE has been flying arms to the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF) in an attempt to oust the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) led by Abdel Fattah al-Burhan.

However, when the UAE signed up to article IX of the genocide convention in 2005, it inserted a reservation stating it would not allow disputes about the interpretation, application and fulfilment of the convention to be resolved at the ICJ.

The ICJ ,president, Yuji Iwasawa, acknowledged that Sudanese government lawyers in presenting their case claimed that the RSF had engaged in “extrajudicial killing, ethnic cleansing, rape, enforced disappearances and burning of villages as well as killing on an ethnic basis”.

The court was “deeply concerned about [how] the unfolding conflict led to untold loss of life and suffering in west Darfur”. But, the president said, the UAE reservation had been formulated in clear terms, and was not incompatible with the purpose of the genocide convention.

The judges’ ruling was largely expected but marks a second diplomatic victory in the UAE efforts to ward off allegations that it has been prolonging the bloody two-year civil war by arming the RSF. A UN panel of experts report on 29 April published no evidence that the UAE was arming the RSF.

Speaking after the ICJ ruling in The Hague, , deputy assistant minister for political affairs at the UAE ministry of foreign affairs said: “Quite simply, today’s decision represents a resounding rejection of the Sudanese Armed Forces’ attempt to instrumentalise the court for its campaign of misinformation and to distract from its own responsibility.

“The facts speak for themselves: the UAE bears no responsibility for the conflict in Sudan. On the contrary, the atrocities committed by the warring parties are well documented.

“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. The Sudanese Armed Forces and the Rapid Support Forces must stop fighting, must stop weaponising aid, and must endorse civilian leadership independent from military control as the only foundation for sustainable peace.”

The ICJ ruling that it had no jurisdiction is controversial for some. A group of prestigious international jurists last week backed a legal opinion from the Raoul Wallenberg Centre for Human Rights that argued: “While some narrowly tailored reservations to article IX of the genocide convention might be permissible, blanket reservations to the entirety of article IX should be rejected as invalid.”

They argued “the utility of the genocide convention is not for states to adopt these principles in the abstract, which exist with or without the convention, but to bind states to comply with its terms.

“To allow states to exempt themselves from the genocide convention’s only judicial mechanism not only undermines the integrity of the convention, but also the efficacy, foreseeability, and reliability of the international system as a whole.”

Currently 153 states are party to the genocide convention, with 16 states inserting blanket reservations including the UAE. The UK has been one of a group of influential states that have argued such broad reservations may be incompatible with the convention.

In its opinion, the Wallenberg Centre concluded: “The current expectation that the court bend to the will of outlier reserving states seeking to evade participation in cases as significant as genocide should be reversed. In 2025, these states should not have the final word before the judicial process even begins. They should be compelled to account for their actions in a court of law.”

An attempt by Sudan’s government to make the United Arab Emirates legally accountable for acts of genocide in West Darfur has been rejected by the international court of justice after the judges voted by 14 to 2 to declare they had no jurisdiction. By a narrower majority the judges voted 9 to 7 to strike the case entirely from the ICJ list.

There have been repeated allegations during the two-year civil war in Sudan that the UAE has been flying arms to the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF) in an attempt to oust the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) led by Abdel Fattah al-Burhan.

However, when the UAE signed up to article IX of the genocide convention in 2005, it inserted a reservation stating it would not allow disputes about the interpretation, application and fulfilment of the convention to be resolved at the ICJ.

The ICJ ,president, Yuji Iwasawa, acknowledged that Sudanese government lawyers in presenting their case claimed that the RSF had engaged in “extrajudicial killing, ethnic cleansing, rape, enforced disappearances and burning of villages as well as killing on an ethnic basis”.

The court was “deeply concerned about [how] the unfolding conflict led to untold loss of life and suffering in west Darfur”. But, the president said, the UAE reservation had been formulated in clear terms, and was not incompatible with the purpose of the genocide convention.

The judges’ ruling was largely expected but marks a second diplomatic victory in the UAE efforts to ward off allegations that it has been prolonging the bloody two-year civil war by arming the RSF. A UN panel of experts report on 29 April published no evidence that the UAE was arming the RSF.

Speaking after the ICJ ruling in The Hague, , deputy assistant minister for political affairs at the UAE ministry of foreign affairs said: “Quite simply, today’s decision represents a resounding rejection of the Sudanese Armed Forces’ attempt to instrumentalise the court for its campaign of misinformation and to distract from its own responsibility.

“The facts speak for themselves: the UAE bears no responsibility for the conflict in Sudan. On the contrary, the atrocities committed by the warring parties are well documented.

“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. The Sudanese Armed Forces and the Rapid Support Forces must stop fighting, must stop weaponising aid, and must endorse civilian leadership independent from military control as the only foundation for sustainable peace.”

The ICJ ruling that it had no jurisdiction is controversial for some. A group of prestigious international jurists last week backed a legal opinion from the Raoul Wallenberg Centre for Human Rights that argued: “While some narrowly tailored reservations to article IX of the genocide convention might be permissible, blanket reservations to the entirety of article IX should be rejected as invalid.”

They argued “the utility of the genocide convention is not for states to adopt these principles in the abstract, which exist with or without the convention, but to bind states to comply with its terms.

“To allow states to exempt themselves from the genocide convention’s only judicial mechanism not only undermines the integrity of the convention, but also the efficacy, foreseeability, and reliability of the international system as a whole.”

Currently 153 states are party to the genocide convention, with 16 states inserting blanket reservations including the UAE. The UK has been one of a group of influential states that have argued such broad reservations may be incompatible with the convention.

In its opinion, the Wallenberg Centre concluded: “The current expectation that the court bend to the will of outlier reserving states seeking to evade participation in cases as significant as genocide should be reversed. In 2025, these states should not have the final word before the judicial process even begins. They should be compelled to account for their actions in a court of law.”

Donald Trump has said he is directing the administration to reopen and expand Alcatraz, the notorious former prison on an island off San Francisco that has been closed for more than 60 years.

California Democrats called the idea “absurd on its face” and part of the US president’s strategy of political distraction. Other officials pointed to the closure of the prison complex in 1963, known for its brutal conditions, due to operational expense and the high number of (unsuccessful) escape attempts.

“Alcatraz closed as a federal penitentiary more than 60 years ago. It is now a very popular national park and major tourist attraction. The president’s proposal is not a serious one,” the California Democratic congresswomen and former House speaker Nancy Pelosi said.

In a post on his Truth Social site on Sunday evening, Trump wrote: “For too long, America has been plagued by vicious, violent, and repeat Criminal Offenders, the dregs of society, who will never contribute anything other than Misery and Suffering. When we were a more serious Nation, in times past, we did not hesitate to lock up the most dangerous criminals, and keep them far away from anyone they could harm. That’s the way it’s supposed to be.”

He added: “That is why, today, I am directing the Bureau of Prisons, together with the Department of Justice, FBI, and Homeland Security, to reopen a substantially enlarged and rebuilt ALCATRAZ, to house America’s most ruthless and violent Offenders.”

But the directive received a scathing reception from critics, especially California Democrats. Scott Wiener, a Democratic state senator representing San Francisco, posted that Trump “wants to turn Alcatraz into a domestic gulag right in the middle of San Francisco Bay”.

“In addition to being deeply unhinged, this is an attack on the rule of law. Putting aside that Alcatraz is a museum & tourist attraction, this is both nuts & terrifying,” he added, calling the proposal “absurd on its face”.

Trump later on Sunday said it was “just an idea” and it was unclear on Monday whether it would happen.

“Looks like it’s Distraction Day again in Washington, DC,” said Izzy Gardon, a spokesperson for the California governor, Gavin Newsom.

Civil rights attorney Scott Hechinger concurred, posting on X and referencing the White House budget proposal issued last Friday: “Alcatraz. No more than a sensational distraction from this: Trump just cut nearly $1 billion from bipartisan, proven, successful anti-crime, violence prevention programs around the country.”

Instead of preventing crime before people are harmed, Hechinger added, Trump had “made America substantially less safe. And now he’s stomping & parading around with big words and sensational capital letters about a wasteful reopening of a domestic torture complex that will never actually happen & do nothing to keep America safer … what a dangerous joke.”

The Bureau of Prisons said the prison, which was open for only 29 years, had “no source of fresh water, so nearly one million gallons of water had to be barged to the island each week. The federal government found that it was more effective to build a new institution than to keep Alcatraz open.”

Before it was turned into a federal prison in 1934, Alcatraz island was used, in 1895, to imprison 50 Hopi Native American parents after they refused to send their children to culture-washing Indian boarding schools.

In 1969, 89 Native American protesters occupied Alcatraz for 18 months, declaring it Native land.

“After centuries of broken treaties, brutal injustice, and government policies aimed at erasing Native culture and identity, this action was a powerful fight for survival,” Dr LaNada War Jack, one of the original student occupiers said, as reported by Native News Online.

The island, designated part of the Golden Gate national recreation area since 1972, remains a contested area for Native Americans.

Trump’s directive to rebuild and reopen the long-shuttered penitentiary is the latest salvo in his effort to overhaul how and where federal prisoners and immigration detainees are locked up.

The island is now operated by the National Park Service and is a designated national historic landmark. Tourists can buy tickets to tour the former prison and hear tales of ruthless deprivation for inmates.

The prison – which was considered escape-proof due to the strong currents and cold Pacific waters that surround it – was known as “the Rock” and housed some of the nation’s most notorious criminals, including Al Capone and George “Machine Gun” Kelly.

In the 29 years it was open, 36 men attempted 14 separate escapes, according to the FBI. Nearly all were caught or did not survive.

The fates of three inmates – the brothers John and Clarence Anglin, and Frank Morris – are the subject of some debate, with their story dramatised in the 1979 film Escape from Alcatraz starring Clint Eastwood.

Markwayne Mullin, a Republican congressman for Oklahoma, told Fox News on Monday of the idea of reopening Alcatraz. The Hill reported Mullin said: “I’m all about it,” adding of those incarcerated: “I don’t believe in keeping them comfortable.”

The order came as Trump has been clashing with the courts as he tries to send more accused gang members to a maximum-security prison in El Salvador, many on flimsy evidence and without due process, with talks of sending US citizens there.

The Associated Press contributed reporting

The German chancellor, Olaf Scholz, is to be played out of office by a military band who will perform tunes chosen by him that are intended to sum up his mood and political life.

Scholz will bow out to the Beatles, Johann Sebastian Bach and an Otis Redding hit made famous by Aretha Franklin.

The 66-year-old will hand over office on Tuesday to Friedrich Merz, whose centre-right conservatives won Germany’s federal election in February, and who will lead a coalition with Scholz’s Social Democrats.

In a tradition going back to the 16th century, chancellors, presidents, defence ministers and military generals are given a farewell ceremony, and their chosen playlist always receives much scrutiny.

According to tradition, Scholz was allowed to request three pieces of music that will be performed by the band of the armed forces. On the programme is the Beatles’ In My Life, seen as a nod to his earlier political life when he was mayor of the northern port city of Hamburg between 2011 and 2018, where the Liverpool musicians cut their teeth in its clubs and bars in the 1960s.

Some commentators have suggested the song, the lyrics of which include the line “of all these friends and lovers, there is no one compares with you”, is also a tribute to his wife, the fellow politician Britta Ernst, to whom he has often expressed his affection and gratitude.

An excerpt from Bach’s second Brandenburg Concertos, his only classical choice, is a likely reference to the state of Brandenburg, where he lives and which he will continue to serve as a backbencher. He was the only Social Democrat to win a direct mandate in the former communist east, where the far-right Alternative für Deutschland more or less swept the board.

The song choice that has caused the most mirth is the feminist anthem Respect, made famous by Franklin, which alludes to a keyword of the election campaign that brought him to power in 2021, and which he has repeated often. Critics say he has not always lived up to the motto himself, having sometimes been gruff or appearing dismissive to journalists in particular.

Commentators have said Scholz’s musical choices offer a rare glimpse into the emotional side of the chancellor, who was often referred to as a “Scholzomat” due to his robotic-like responses, and whose old black leather briefcase became something of a TikTok star while he stayed in the background.

Referring to him as a “file carrier” in a farewell column, Franz Josef Wagner, a veteran columnist for the tabloid Bild, said Scholz’s inability to communicate had probably contributed to the brevity of his tenure as chancellor, which lasted just over three years. “Dear departing chancellor, if you had told us everything that went on in your heart, you would maybe still be chancellor today. But your mouth was sealed. You had a silent heart,” he wrote.

Scholz’s immediate predecessor Angela Merkel chose Nina Hagen’s 1974 hit You Forgot the Colour Film, a mix of nostalgia for holidays on the Baltic coast and a critique of grey life in communist Germany; the chanson Red Roses Should Rain for Me, a 1968 hit by the German actor Hildegard Knef; and Great God, We Praise You, a 17th-century ecumenical hymn.

Among the choices of her predecessor, the Social Democrat Gerhard Schröder, was Frank Sinatra’s My Way.

The Vatican has announced that it will cut the phone signal within the tiny city state during the conclave to elect a new pope – but this would not affect St Peter’s Square.

The office of the presidency of the Governorate of the Vatican City State said that “all the transmission systems of the telecommunications signal for mobile telephones present in the territory of the Vatican City State … will be deactivated” from 3pm on 7 May.

“The signal will be restored after the announcement of the election of the supreme pontiff,” it said in a statement.

But the deactivation will not cover St Peter’s Square, Vatican spokesperson Matteo Bruni told reporters.

Thousands of faithful are expected to gather in the square in front of St Peter’s Basilica to await the announcement of a successor to Pope Francis, who died on 21 April.

A total of 133 cardinals from across the globe will gather in the Vatican’s Sistine Chapel on Wednesday to begin voting for a new head of the world’s 1.4 billion Catholics.

The election is carried out in utmost secrecy and the cardinals will be required to leave their mobile phones behind when they enter the conclave, Bruni said.

Human friendship groups are complex – and often fraught – but a study of mountain gorillas has found that their societies can also be head-scratchingly complicated.

The study, which took in 20 years of health data involving 164 gorillas in Rwanda, discovered that the costs and benefits of being close to others changed depending on the size of groups and differed for males and females.

For example, friendly females in small groups didn’t get ill very often but had fewer offspring, while those in large groups got ill more but had higher birthrates. Meanwhile, males with strong social bonds tended to get ill more frequently but were less likely to be injured in fights.

The study, by the Dian Fossey Gorilla Fund and the universities of Zurich and Exeter, may help give an insight into how the relationships of other social animals, including humans, work.

“Having a lot of strong social relationships is often really good but sometimes it isn’t,” said Robin Morrison, the lead author on the paper and a senior researcher at the University of Zurich.

Morrison said the example of strong and stable social bonds appearing to lead to less illness in female gorillas but more in males could not be explained simply by social contact leading to more disease risk.

She said: “It’s possible that males expend more energy by having close social ties, as they have to defend females and offspring, and the stress of this may reduce their immune function. If you are a very popular male in your group, that comes with a lot of responsibilities.”

The study is based on observations of gorillas in Rwanda’s Volcanoes national park, where the apes usually live in groups of about 12 with a single dominant male.

Morrison said one of the big surprises was how there seemed to be room for very different characters. “You have gorillas that are actually quite peaceful and will intervene very rarely, but seem to have this very authoritative kind of role. Whereas others will be very kind of ‘it’s my way or nothing’. And they can be successful in different ways.”

Among the gorillas studied was Titus, a silverback adult male gorilla who lost his father and many other group members to poachers and whose mother died when he was only four.

He became the dominant male of his group at the early age of 15 and had an unusual leadership style, being exceptionally gentle and calm. His nature made him attractive to females and contributed to his 20-year tenure as dominant male.

Maggie was the highest-ranking female gorilla in a group. She was one of the most frequently aggressive group members but also quick to provide friendly support such as grooming.

She often acted as a protector, a role usually taken by males, and when the dominant male died unexpectedly she took charge, guiding the group until they merged with a neighbouring group.

Morrison said the study could shed light on the evolutionary history of humans. “Why are some people very social and others aren’t? I think this paper helps us see that actually it’s not as straightforward as saying ‘always be as social as possible’. Actually, some individuals can do very well by having sort of a smaller number of close friends.”

The paper, published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, is titled “Group traits moderate the relationship between individual social traits and fitness in gorillas”.