Donald Trump has said he “just want[s] to be friends with Canada” after his first post-election meeting with the country’s prime minister, Mark Carney – who used the gathering to shoot down any prospect of his country becoming the 51st state.

Speaking in the Oval Office, Trump praised Carney – whose Liberal party won the federal election last week – for one of the “greatest political comebacks of all time”, and described the prime minister’s visit as “an honour” for the White House.

The amicable tone of Tuesday’s meeting marked a stark contrast with Trump’s hostile rhetoric over recent months, as he launched a trade war against his northern neighbour, belittled Carney’s predecessor, Justin Trudeau, and made repeated threats to crush Canada’s economy with the aim of annexing it.

Carney returned the praise, telling Trump he was a “transformational president” with a strong focus on the economy. But he shot down any idea that Canada might accede to joining the US as the 51st state – a proposal again floated by Trump in the meeting.

“As you know from real estate, there are some places that are never for sale,” Carney told Trump.

“That’s true,” said Trump.

“Having met with the owners of Canada over the course of the campaign … it’s not for sale,” said Carney. “Won’t be for sale, ever.”

“Never say never,” said Trump. Carney smiled and mouthed “never, never, never, never.”

The meeting between the prime minister and president is probably the most closely watched summit in Canada’s history, amid fears of further diplomatic and trading friction between two countries which have traditionally shared political and cultural values.

Minutes before the meeting, Trump posted on social media that he “very much” wants to work with Carney, but revived a debunked figure that the US is “subsidizing Canada by $200 Billion Dollars a year, in addition to giving them FREE Military Protection”.

“We don’t need their Cars, we don’t need their Energy, we don’t need their Lumber, we don’t need ANYTHING they have, other than their friendship, which hopefully we will always maintain,” he wrote. “They, on the other hand, need EVERYTHING from us! The Prime Minister will be arriving shortly and that will be, most likely, my only question of consequence.”

Carney crafted much of his successful federal election campaign around a patriotic defiance to the US president’s threats to the nation’s sovereignty. The prime minister has repeatedly accused Trump of trying to “break” Canada so that he can “own” the country. Carney also used his first post-election press conference to once again quash any idea Canada was interested in becoming the 51st US state, a proposal repeatedly floated by Trump.

“It’s always important to distinguish want from reality,” Carney said last week. But Carney has throughout steered clear of criticizing the president personally, acutely aware the two countries also share a tightly integrated economy, with more than C$1tn (US$725bn) in trade – and that US diplomacy depends more than ever on the whims of its president.

The country’s trade relationship came up during the meeting, with Trump signalling he was interested in renegotiating key aspects of USMCA free trade agreement, calling the prior deal, Nafta, the “worst in the history of the world”.

“We’re dealing more with concepts right now,” Trump said later in the meeting, telling reporters he didn’t want Canadian cars or steel. “We want to do it ourselves.”

Asked if there was anything Carney could say to him that would make him lift the tariffs on Canada, Trump replied: “No.”

Carney pushed back on Trump’s characterization of the current deal, including the use of tariffs by US officials, but agreed the existing deal was a “framework” for future talks and a “bigger discussion”.

The prime minister later described his discussions with Trump as “very constructive,” and said they would at the G7 summit in Canada next month.

He also told reporters that he had asked Trump to stop referring to Canada as a part of the United States.

“I told him that it wasn’t useful to repeat this idea, but the president will say what he wants,” Carney said.

Trump was equally positive in his framing of the meeting, telling reporters after it went “very well” and set the stage for further talks.

“We want to do what’s right for our respective peoples, and that’s what’s going to happen,” he said. “As far as calling him governor Carney, no, I haven’t done that yet, and maybe I won’t. I did have a lot of fun with Trudeau. But I think this is, this is a big step up, it’s a good step up for Canada.”

Travelling with Carney were some of the country’s top trade and diplomatic officials, including the international trade minister, Dominic LeBlanc, foreign affairs minister, Mélanie Joly, public safety minister, David McGuinty and Canada’s ambassador to the US, Kirsten Hillman.

Seated alongside Trump were his vice-president, JD Vance; the US secretary of state, Marco Rubio; the US secretary of commerce, Howard Lutnick; and the US trade representative Jamieson Greer.

Trump, who at times used the meeting to attack the former US president Joe Biden, also used the forum to criticize Trudeau and the former finance minister Chrystia Freeland.

“She was terrible. Actually, she was a terrible person, and she really hurt that deal very badly because she tried to take advantage of the deal and she didn’t get away with it,” said Trump.

Before Carney and Trump met at the White House, Canadian provincial leaders weighed in.

“This guy drives me nuts,” Ontario’s premier, Doug Ford, said of Trump. “You see this guy on TV, ‘We don’t need Canada.’ Really?” he said, telling attenders that Canada’s largest trading partner desperately needed potash, nickel and uranium.

Ford, a populist conservative who has embraced his role as a patriotic anti-Trump figure, said a growing number of US governors “totally disagree” with the president’s trade war with its northern neighbour.

Ford pointed to fresh polling that shows a drop in Trump’s approval rating as the cost of tariffs hit American consumers.

“I can’t wait for the midterms. Then we’ll fix his little red wagon,” he said.

An Israeli government minister has vowed that “Gaza will be entirely destroyed” as a result of an Israeli military victory, and that its Palestinian population will “leave in great numbers to third countries”, raising fears of ethnic cleansing in the occupied territory.

The declaration on Tuesday by the finance minister, Bezalel Smotrich, came a day after Israel’s security cabinet approved a plan for Operation Gideon’s Chariots, which an Israeli official said would entail “the conquest of the Gaza Strip and the holding of the territories”.

The Israeli threats to seize control of the territory permanently has stirred global outrage.

“We strongly oppose the expansion of Israel’s operations,” the UK’s Middle East minister, Hamish Falconer, said. “Any attempt to annex land in Gaza would be unacceptable.”

After the intensified offensive was announced, Hamas said it was no longer interested in truce talks with Israel and urged the international community to halt Israel’s “hunger war” against Gaza, a reference to the total blockade on aid deliveries to Gaza, which has been in place for more than two months.

“There is no sense in engaging in talks or considering new ceasefire proposals as long as the hunger war and extermination war continue in the Gaza Strip,” Basem Naim, a senior Hamas official, told AFP.

Effie Defrin, Israel’s chief military spokesperson, said the planned offensive would include “moving most of the population of the Gaza Strip … to protect them”.

Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, said the “population will be moved, for its own protection” in a video posted on social media, but gave no further details.

Smotrich, speaking to a conference on Jewish settlement in the occupied West Bank, went further, making clear that many Palestinians would be driven out of the territory altogether, as part of a scorched earth offensive.

“Gaza will be entirely destroyed, civilians will be sent to … the south to a humanitarian zone without Hamas or terrorism, and from there they will start to leave in great numbers to third countries,” the minister said.

Israel’s neighbours Egypt and Jordan have said they will refuse to allow an exodus of refugees on their territory, arguing that would make them party to the ethnic cleansing of Gaza.

The international court of justice is assessing allegations of genocide against Israel for its military campaign in Gaza, and last year issued a series of provisional measures that included orders for Israel to “take all measures” to prevent genocide being committed or incited, and to allow the “unhindered provision” of humanitarian assistance across the territory’s southern border with Egypt.

The international criminal court (ICC) has issued arrest warrants for Netanyahu and former defence minister Yoav Gallant, and the ICC prosecutor is reported to be preparing more warrant requests.

“Smotrich has been saying similar things for some time now, but obviously this is very serious in the context of the call for more troops by the government,” Victor Kattan, assistant professor in public international law at the University of Nottingham, said.

“Deportation and forcible transfer of civilians is a crime against humanity under the Rome statute [the ICC’s founding treaty], and that’s a clear call for that. If that’s occurring in the context of his ministerial position or as a result of deliberations in the cabinet, that could be very serious.”

Late on Tuesday, at least 22 people were killed in an Israeli strike on a school sheltering displaced people, said Gaza’s civil defence agency.

Dozens more were wounded in the attack on Bureij camp in the centre of the territory, civil defence media officer Ahmad Radwan told AFP.

The call for an intensification of Israel’s war in Gaza came as it carried out a second day of airstrikes aimed at Houthi forces in Yemen, severely damaging the country’s international airport in the capital, Sana’a.

The strikes came after Israel launched similar attacks on Monday in retaliation for a Houthi missile strike the previous day on Israel’s international airport.

Nearly all of Gaza’s population of 2.3 million has been displaced, often repeatedly, since the start of the war triggered by Hamas’s 7 October 2023 attack on Israel, in which militants killed about 1,200 people, mostly civilians, and abducted another 250.

More than 52,000 people have been killed in the Israeli offensive in Gaza that followed. A two-month ceasefire collapsed in mid-March when Israel reneged on a promise to implement a second phase.

Faltering indirect talks have continued since, brokered by Qatar and Egypt, but with little sign of any significant progress. Any breakthrough appears unlikely as long as Israel remains committed to forcing Hamas to disarm, and Hamas refuses to release hostages without a ceasefire leading to a permanent end to hostilities as well as a total withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza.

Some analysts suggest Israel’s threats of the new offensive, occupation of territory and massive displacement are designed to force concessions from Hamas, as well as shore up rightwing support for Netanyahu’s ruling coalition.

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”.

A UN spokesperson said on Monday that António Guterres, the UN secretary general, was “alarmed” by the Israeli plan that “will inevitably lead to countless more civilians killed and the further destruction of Gaza”.

Humanitarian officials say the territory is on the brink of catastrophe as food and fuel runs out due to a total Israeli blockade imposed on 2 March.

Military officials in Israel have given different versions of a plan reportedly agreed by ministers to allow a limited amount of aid into Gaza, which would be distributed from a small number of newly constructed hubs in the south of the territory staffed by private contractors but protected by Israeli troops.

Humanitarian officials have dismissed the scheme as unworkable, dangerous and potentially unlawful.

“The design of the plan presented to us will mean large parts of Gaza, including the less mobile and most vulnerable people, will continue to go without supplies,” a joint statement by UN and other aid agencies said this week.

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

Stephen Cutts, the interim head of Medical Aid for Palestinians, said: “Israel’s proposed military-controlled aid mechanism is a dangerous attempt to weaponise humanitarian aid, entrench further control over Gaza, and continue its ethnic cleansing of Palestinians.”

US officials have not reacted directly to Israel’s threat of a new offensive, but Donald Trump said on Monday that his administration would help get food to “starving” Palestinians. He blamed Hamas for making it “impossible” by diverting humanitarian assistance for its fighters.

“We’re going to help the people of Gaza get some food. People are starving, and we’re going to help them get some food,” Trump told reporters during an event at the White House.

Israeli officials have said the new operation will not be launched before Trump concludes his visit next week to Saudi Arabia, UAE and Qatar.

The Israeli plan to occupy and depopulate Gaza may not be identical to Donald Trump’s vision of a new riviera, but his inspiration and the US’s walkaway diplomacy have ushered Benjamin Netanyahu to the precipice of a dire new chapter in the Israel-Gaza war.

The common perception in both Washington and Israel is that Trump has largely moved on, leaving an emboldened Netanyahu to his own devices, while his offhand proposals for turning Gaza into a “Riviera of the Middle East” have provided cover for rightwing Israeli politicians to enthusiastically support the forced resettlement of the Palestinian population.

“Part of the tragedy is that the only one who can actually save us, Trump, is not even seriously interested in that,” said Amos Harel, a prominent military and defense correspondent for the Haaretz newspaper. “Our only hope to get out of this crazy situation is that Trump would force Netanyahu to reach a hostage deal. But [Trump] seems disinterested. He was enthusiastic when the Riviera [idea] was proposed, but now he has moved on to Greenland, Canada and Mexico instead.”

Trump’s interventions – specifically envoy Steve Witkoff’s threats to Netanyahu during a tense Shabbat meeting – were instrumental in achieving a temporary ceasefire to the conflict in January. His influence on Netanyahu appeared to be greater than that of previous US presidents, including his rival Joe Biden.

But since then the ceasefire has broken down, a two-month Israeli blockade on aid has sparked an even worse humanitarian crisis in Gaza, and, with few opportunities for a quick peace, the White House now appears uninterested and overstretched as Israel signals an offensive and occupation that critics have said will amount to a state policy of ethnic cleansing.

It is a trend that has repeated with this White House: broad designs for a grand deal followed by frustration when diplomacy fails to yield instant results. Recently, the White House announced that it was also ready to walk away from negotiations over the Russia-Ukraine conflict if a quick deal was not achieved. That has incentivized Russia to wait out the Trump administration, observers have said, and bank on a policy of US non-engagement in the longer term. Netanyahu similarly appears to have been unleashed by the White House’s growing disinterest.

The Israeli ultimatum comes as Trump is scheduled to tour the Middle East next week, with Israeli officials briefing that they will begin the operation only after he returns from a three-day visit to Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. Trump’s talks there are expected to focus on investment and a likely quixotic quest to normalize relations between Saudi Arabia and Israel, but not on achieving a resolution to the war. On Tuesday, Maariv, an Israeli newspaper, reported that a Trump visit to Israel was not out of the question, but White House officials have not yet signaled that Trump is ready to go meet Netanyahu.

Witkoff, the Trump envoy, still appears personally invested in a resolution to the conflict, but he is overstretched by attempting to mediate between Russia and Ukraine, and also negotiate an Iran nuclear deal simultaneously. The US has continued negotiations with Israel over an aid delivery scheme that would create a new mechanism for aid distribution to avoid Hamas, they have said. But the UN and all aid organizations working in Gaza have condemned the plan as an Israeli takeover. “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,” the heads of all UN agencies and NGOs that operate in Gaza said in a joint statement on Sunday.

The Trump administration’s budget and personnel cuts have also signaled a retreat from diplomacy. The state department was reportedly ready to cut the role of the security coordinator role for the West Bank and Gaza, a three-star general who was tasked with managing security crises between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, particularly with regards to growing tensions between settlers and local Palestinian communities.

More importantly, Trump has given cover to Israeli officials who had sought more aggressive action in Gaza, including forced depopulations. Rightwingers in government have been particularly aggressive, with finance minister Bezalel Smotrich saying that within months Gaza would be “totally destroyed” and the Gazan population would be “concentrated” in a small strip of land. “The rest of the strip will be empty,” he said.

But other ministers have also become more radical using Trump’s rhetoric for cover, said Harel.

“Once Trump said that, you could see how not only the radicals, but also Likud ministers and so on, have an excuse,” said Harel. “‘It’s not us. It’s the world, the free world’s leader is saying that, so we have to play along.’”

More than a dozen senior Conservative MPs and peers have written to the prime minister calling for the UK to immediately recognise Palestine as a state, breaking ranks with their own party to do so.

Seven MPs and six members of the House of Lords have signed the letter to Keir Starmer urging him to defy the Israeli government and give formal recognition to Palestine in advance of key UN talks next month.

The letter, which has been seen by the Guardian, was written in late March soon after Israel broke its peace agreement with Hamas, diminishing hopes of an eventual two-state solution. On Monday, the Israeli cabinet went one step further, approving a plan to “conquer” the Gaza Strip and occupy most if not all of it.

In the letter, which was organised by the former minister Kit Malthouse, the group writes: “For decades, the Palestinian people have endured occupation, displacement and systemic restrictions on their basic freedoms.

“Recognising Palestine would affirm our nation’s commitment to upholding the principles of justice, self-determination and equal rights. It would send a clear message that Britain stands against indefinite occupation and supports the Palestinian people’s legitimate aspirations.”

The letter continues: “Recognition should not be treated as a distant bargaining chip but as a necessary step to reinforce international law and diplomacy. Prime minister, we stand ready to offer our public support for this decision.

“This is an opportunity for Britain to show leadership, to be on the right side of history and to uphold the principles we claim to champion. More than 140 UN member states have already recognised Palestine – it is time for the United Kingdom to do the same.”

The letter was signed by several on the moderate wing of the party such as Malthouse himself, the father of the house, Edward Leigh, and Simon Hoare.

But it was also signed by several associated more with the right, including John Hayes and Desmond Swayne. Members of the Lords including Hugo Swire, Nicholas Soames and Patricia Morris, the party’s deputy speaker in the upper chamber, also signed.

The prime minister is understood not to have replied.

Most UN countries formally recognise a Palestinian state, but the US and most European countries do not. France and Saudi Arabia will co-host a conference next month designed to boost support for a two-state solution, at which the French president, Emmanuel Macron, has suggested France may grant formal recognition for the first time.

David Cameron, the former prime minister and foreign secretary, made a key concession last year when he said he wanted to see Palestine recognised as part of peace negotiations with Israel, rather than at the end of them.

A Conservative spokesperson said: “Our longstanding position has been that we will recognise a Palestinian state at a time that is most conducive to the peace process. We are not at that point now and we are clear that recognition cannot be the start of the process.”

Starmer has used similar language, with the British government keen not to get too far ahead of the US. But David Lammy, the foreign secretary, said last week the government was in talks with France about its plans for next month.

“We have always said recognition is not the end in itself, two states is the end in itself,” he said. “We would prefer recognition as part of that process towards two states so we will continue to talk to partners about that.”

Downing Street did not respond to a request for comment.

The German parliament has formally elected Friedrich Merz as the country’s 10th chancellor since the second world war, after a humiliating loss in the first round of voting that raised troubling doubts about the stability of the next coalition government.

Merz secured 325 votes in the second round, just above the necessary 316. Earlier in the day 18 unnamed rebels from the newly formed alliance between his conservatives and the Social Democrats had voted to deprive him of the required majority in the secret ballot.

“Madam speaker, thank you for the trust,” a visibly relieved Merz told the Bundestag president, Julia Klöckner, after she announced the result. “I accept the election.”

Commentators had called the earlier shock act of political sabotage a “complete catastrophe” for Merz and “a punch to the stomach”. The 69-year-old leads the centre-right CDU/CSU bloc, which won February’s snap election with a disappointing 28.6%.

The Social Democrats (SPD), now junior partners in government, turned in their worst performance in more than a century in the election, with just over 16%.

Together they have only a slim majority to pass a reform agenda in the Bundestag, where the far-right Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) party now forms the biggest opposition bloc.

A failure by Merz to win in the second round would have plunged Europe’s top economy into political turmoil, triggering an open-ended leadership battle or new elections in which the anti-immigration, pro-Kremlin AfD would have been expected to do well, or even win outright.

Nevertheless, the shaky start to Merz’s four-year term points to potential divisions in the coalition’s ranks just as he is facing an already staggering in-tray of domestic and foreign policy challenges unseen since national reunification 35 years ago.

The incoming government will have to revive the flatlining economy and fend off the far right while maintaining support for Ukraine against the backdrop of fresh uncertainty in the transatlantic relationship under Donald Trump.

The Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, congratulated Merz on X, saying that Kyiv hopes “Germany will grow even stronger and that we’ll see more German leadership in European and transatlantic affairs”.

“This is especially important with the future of Europe at stake – and it will depend on our unity,” he said.

Merz, a corporate lawyer who made a fortune in the private sector but has never led a state government or a ministry, promised “strong, well-planned and dependable governance … in times of profound change, of profound upheaval” as he signed the coalition pact on Monday.

“That is why we know that it is our historic obligation to lead this coalition to success,” he said, noting that partners keenly awaited a return of German engagement with Europe.

The AfD co-leader Alice Weidel gleefully welcomed the earlier debacle, posting on X that his failure to win a majority in the first round “shows what a weak foundation the small coalition is built on”.

After his swearing-in before parliament about seven hours behind schedule, Merz presented his cabinet to President Frank-Walter Steinmeier at Bellevue Palace in central Berlin. He will later go to the chancellery for the official handover from his predecessor, Olaf Scholz.

Merz will travel to Paris and Warsaw on Wednesday, signalling a return to German engagement with the EU after six months of political limbo since Scholz’s government collapsed in acrimony.

On Thursday, Merz is due to preside over ceremonies in Berlin marking the 80th anniversary of the end of the second world war in Europe before heading to Brussels on Friday to meet EU and Nato leaders.

The European Commission’s president, Ursula von der Leyen, a member of Merz’s CDU, called him “a proven friend and expert on Europe” on Tuesday, promising to “work together for a strong and more competitive Europe”.

Despite leading his party to victory in February, Merz has a deep popularity deficit among Germans, who dislike his often brash style and mercurial temperament.

A poll last week for the public broadcaster ZDF showed that only 38% supported him as chancellor while 56% said he was the wrong person for the job. Merz is particularly disliked by Social Democrats, with 62% rejecting him, in a gloomy foreshadowing of Tuesday’s disaster.

The black-red coalition, named for the parties’ colours, had stronger backing than Merz himself at 48%, while 37% oppose the alliance. Yet nearly one in two Germans do not think the team has what it takes to solve the country’s most pressing problems.

The outgoing government slashed its economic growth forecast to zero for this year, citing the impact of Trump’s erratic trade policies after two years of recession.

Before even taking office, Merz in March engineered a reform of the “debt brake” which curbs public spending to unleash a “bazooka” package of investment in Germany’s creaking infrastructure and the military, amid fears about Trump’s commitment to Nato and Ukraine’s defence against the Russian onslaught.

Germany is the second biggest national supplier of military aid to Ukraine after the US.

However, the bold budget move proved highly unpopular with fiscal hawks in the CDU/CSU – possibly a source of the dissent on display in Tuesday’s vote.

Ursula Münch, director of the Academy for Political Education thinktank, called Merz’s unfortunate start only a “mid-level catastrophe”, saying it could serve to focus minds within the coalition that its success “is truly up to each of them”.

But she warned that if the teams fail to pull themselves together, “mistrust could spread in both parliamentary groups” with Merz left to doubt “before every important vote whether he actually has a majority”. “The AfD will of course try to exploit that” by sowing discord, she said.

Merz had for decades harboured an ambition to become chancellor but was long thwarted by his bitter rival Angela Merkel, who watched the day’s drama from the VIP gallery of the Bundestag.

Since assuming the leadership of their CDU in 2022, he has steered the party to the right of her more moderate course, particularly on border policy.

Meanwhile the AfD has capitalised on a public backlash against migration, coming second in the February election. Two recent polls have shown it overtaking Merz’s CDU/CSU in support as it profits from the power vacuum in Berlin.

Last week, the BfV domestic intelligence agency designated it a “confirmed rightwing extremist” force, stoking long-running calls for an initiative to ban the party outright. Merz’s bid to claw back support from the AfD is seen as one of the biggest challenges facing him this term.

Although he ground out a win, Merz will now engage in the battle in a weaker position than initially presumed, while Germany seeks to restore its vaunted reputation for predictability.

“Germany is always seen as a source of super-stability in Europe, even worldwide,” the political scientist Wolfgang Schröder told the rolling news channel n-tv. “This bumpy patch on the way to forming a government clearly shows that’s not necessarily the case. You could call it Germany becoming normal.”

The Trump administration can begin to enforce a ban on transgender troops serving in the military while a challenge to the policy plays out in the courts, the supreme court ruled on Tuesday, a significant decision that could lead to the discharge of thousands of military members.

The court’s order was unsigned and gave no explanation for its reasoning, which is typical of decisions the justices reach on an emergency basis. The court’s three liberal members – Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson – all noted their dissent from the decision.

Lambda Legal and the Human Rights Campaign Foundation, which represented challengers in the case, called the decision “a devastating blow to transgender servicemembers”.

“By allowing this discriminatory ban to take effect while our challenge continues, the Court has temporarily sanctioned a policy that has nothing to do with military readiness and everything to do with prejudice,” the groups said in a statement. “Transgender individuals meet the same standards and demonstrate the same values as all who serve. We remain steadfast in our belief that this ban violates constitutional guarantees of equal protection and will ultimately be struck down.”

Immediately after coming into office, Donald Trump rescinded an executive order from the Biden administration that allowed transgender people to serve openly in the military. On 27 January, the president issued a second executive order that said transgender people couldn’t serve in the military.

“It is the policy of the United States Government to establish high standards for troop readiness, lethality, cohesion, honesty, humility, uniformity, and integrity,” the order said. “This policy is inconsistent with the medical, surgical, and mental health constraints on individuals with gender dysphoria. This policy is also inconsistent with shifting pronoun usage or use of pronouns that inaccurately reflect an individual’s sex.” The defense department began implementing the ban at the end of February.

A defense department estimate from earlier this year said there were 4,240 people in the military with a diagnosis of gender dysphoria – roughly 0.2 % of the 2 million people currently serving.

Seven transgender servicemembers and one transgender person who would like to join the military challenged the ban. Lawyers for the lead platiniff, navy pilot Emily Shilling, said the military had spent $20m on her training, according to SCOTUSBlog.

Several lower courts had halted the ban. The case before the supreme court involved a ruling from US district court judge Benjamin Settle, who blocked the ban in March.

“The government’s arguments are not persuasive, and it is not an especially close question on this record,” Settle, an appointee of George W Bush, wrote at the time. “The government’s unrelenting reliance on deference to military judgment is unjustified in the absence of any evidence supporting ‘the military’s’ new judgment reflected in the Military Ban.”

Another judge, Ana Reyes, of the US district court in Washington DC, also blocked the ban, saying it was “soaked with animus and dripping with pretext”.

The Trump administration asked the supreme court to intervene last month. “The district court issued a universal injunction usurping the Executive Branch’s authority to determine who may serve in the Nation’s armed forces,” John Sauer, the US solicitor general, wrote in a brief to the court.

Trump’s ban is broader than a similar policy enacted during his first term. The previous policy allowed those who had come out before the ban to continue to serve in the military. The more recent policy affects nearly all active serving transgender members.

Pausing the order, Shilling’s lawyers said, would “upend the status quo by allowing the government to immediately begin discharging thousands of transgender servicemembers … thereby ending distinguished careers and gouging holes in military units”.

A majority of Americans support allowing transgender people to serve in the military, according to a February Gallup poll. However, there is a sharp partisan split. While 84% of Democrats favor such a policy, only 23% of Republicans do.

Roughly a week after Donald Trump started his second term as president, the US military issued an order to three freight airlines operating out of Dover air force base in Delaware and a US base in Qatar: stop 11 flights loaded with artillery shells and other weaponry that were bound for Ukraine.

In a matter of hours, frantic questions reached Washington from Ukrainians in Kyiv and from officials in Poland, where the shipments were coordinated. Who had ordered the US Transportation Command, known as TransCom, to halt the flights? Was it a permanent pause on all aid? Or just some?

Top national security officials – in the White House, the Pentagon and the state department – couldn’t provide answers. Within one week, flights were back in the air.

The verbal order originated from the office of Pete Hegseth, the secretary of defense, according to TransCom records reviewed by Reuters. A TransCom spokesperson said the command received the order via the Pentagon’s joint staff.

The cancelations came after Trump wrapped up a 30 January Oval Office meeting about Ukraine that included Hegseth and other top national security officials, according to three sources familiar with the situation. During the meeting, the idea of stopping Ukraine aid came up, said two people with knowledge of the meeting, but the president issued no instruction to halt it.

The president was unaware of Hegseth’s order, as were other top national security officials in the meeting, according to two sources briefed on the private White House discussions and another with direct knowledge of the matter.

Asked to comment on this report, the White House told Reuters that Hegseth had followed a directive from Trump to pause aid to Ukraine, which it said was the administration’s position at the time. It did not explain why, according to those who spoke to Reuters, top national security officials in the normal decision-making process didn’t know about the order or why it was so swiftly reversed.

“Negotiating an end to the Russia-Ukraine War has been a complex and fluid situation. We are not going to detail every conversation among top administration officials throughout the process,” said Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary. “The bottom line is the war is much closer to an end today than it was when President Trump took office.”

The cancelations cost TransCom $2.2m, according to the records reviewed by Reuters. In response to a request for comment, TransCom said that the total cost was $1.6m – 11 flights were canceled but one incurred no charge.

An order halting military aid authorized under the Biden administration went into effect officially a month later, on 4 March, with a White House announcement.

The story of how flights were canceled, detailed by Reuters for the first time, points to an at-times haphazard policymaking process within the Trump administration and a command structure that is unclear even to its own ranking members.

The multiday pause of the flights, confirmed by five people with knowledge of it, also shows confusion in how the administration has created and implemented national security policy. At the Pentagon, the disarray is an open secret, with many current and former officials saying the department is plagued by internal disagreements on foreign policy, deep-seated grudges and inexperienced staff.

Reuters couldn’t establish exactly when Hegseth’s office ordered the freight flights canceled. Two sources said Ukrainian and European officials began asking about the pause on 2 February. The TransCom records indicate that there was a verbal order from “SECDEF” – the secretary of defense – that stopped the flights and that they had resumed by 5 February.

“This is consistent with the administration’s policy to move fast, break things and sort it out later. That is their managing philosophy,” said Mark Cancian, a retired US Marine officer and defense expert with the Center for Strategic and International Studies thinktank. “That is great for Silicon Valley. But when you’re talking about institutions that have been around for hundreds of years, you are going to run into problems.”

The stop in shipments caused consternation in Kyiv.

The Ukrainians quickly asked the administration through multiple channels but had difficulty obtaining any useful information, according to a Ukrainian official with direct knowledge of the situation. In later conversations with the Ukrainians, the administration wrote off the pause as “internal politics”, said the source. Ukrainian officials did not respond to requests for comment.

The shipping of American weapons to Ukraine requires signoff from multiple agencies and can take weeks or even months to complete, depending on the size of the cargo. The majority of US military assistance goes through a logistics hub in Poland before being picked up by Ukrainian representatives and transported into the country.

That hub can hold shipments for extended periods of time. It’s not clear if the 11 canceled flights were the only ones scheduled that week in February, how much aid was already stockpiled in Poland and if it continued to flow into Ukraine despite the US military’s orders.

The revelations come at a time of upheaval in the Pentagon. Several of Hegseth’s top advisers were escorted from the building on 15 April after being accused of unauthorized disclosure of classified information. The secretary continues to face scrutiny, including from Congress, about his own communications. Previously he’s attributed allegations of upheaval to disgruntled employees.

The canceled flights contained weapons that had long been approved by the Biden administration and authorized by lawmakers on Capitol Hill.

Reuters couldn’t determine if Hegseth or his team knew how the order to TransCom would play out or that the order would be a substantial change in US policy on Ukraine. Three sources familiar with the situation said Hegseth misinterpreted discussions with the president about Ukraine policy and aid shipments without elaborating further.

Four other people briefed on the situation said a small cadre of staffers inside the Pentagon, many of whom have never held a government job and who have for years spoken out against US aid to Ukraine, advised Hegseth to consider pausing aid to the country.

Two people familiar with the matter denied there was a true cutoff in aid. One of them described it as a logistical pause.

“[They] just wanted to get a handle on what was going on and people, as a result, misinterpreted that as: ‘You need to stop everything,’” said one.

Flights canceled

According to two sources with knowledge of the meeting, Hegseth arrived at the 30 January Oval Office meeting with Trump with a memo drafted by some of his top policy advisers, advocating that their boss push the White House to consider pausing weapons deliveries to Ukraine to gain leverage in peace negotiations with Russia.

The sources said the secretary attended the meeting with other top officials involved in Ukraine policy, including then national security adviser Mike Waltz and Ukraine envoy Keith Kellogg. The group broadly discussed US policy on Ukraine and Russia, including potentially tightening sanctions on Moscow.

It’s not clear the extent to which Hegseth proposed stopping aid during the meeting, but the idea came up in discussions, said one of the sources and another person familiar with the meeting.

Since the beginning of Russia’s full-scale invasion in February 2022, the US had approved billions of dollars worth of military aid to Ukraine. Most was delivered under the Biden administration. But a few shipments remained in the pipeline, scheduled into this summer.

Trump had threatened to freeze aid repeatedly on the campaign trail, but had yet to do so. And during the meeting, he again declined to stop aid to Ukraine or order Hegseth to implement any policy changes when it came to sending equipment to Kyiv, the sources said.

An order effectively freezing any military support for an ally would normally be discussed intensively among top national security officials and approved by the president. It requires the coordination of multiple agencies and often multiple freight companies.

None of that discussion or coordination happened when Hegseth’s office canceled the scheduled flights carrying American artillery shells and ammunition to Poland from Al Udeid military base in the United Arab Emirates and the Dover US military base in Delaware, three of the sources said.

The pause came as Ukraine’s military was struggling to fend off Russian forces in eastern Ukraine and in the consequential battle for the Kursk region of Russia, where Ukrainian forces were losing ground and have since all but been expelled.

Close Trump advisers were tipped off to the pause by Pentagon staffers and discussed with the president whether to restore the aid shipments, according to two sources. By then, TransCom had canceled 11 flights, according to the records reviewed by Reuters. Some media outlets, including Reuters, wrote about the pause but Hegseth’s role was previously unknown.

It’s unclear if Trump subsequently questioned or reprimanded Hegseth. One source with direct knowledge of the matter said then national security adviser Waltz ultimately intervened to reverse the cancelations. Waltz was forced out on Thursday and is expected to be nominated as US ambassador to the United Nations.

Growing infighting

When Trump entered office, aid to Ukraine continued flowing and he pledged to work with Ukraine and Russia to end the war – or at the very least broker a ceasefire.

Two of his most prominent envoys, Kellogg, a supporter of Kyiv who worked with Trump in his first administration, and Steve Witkoff, a real-estate magnate and close friend of the president, set out to negotiate with both parties.

Separately, at the Pentagon, some of Hegseth’s policy advisers privately started drafting proposals to pull back American support for Ukraine, according to two sources briefed on the matter.

That group of staffers align themselves closely with the anti-interventionist philosophy.

Some have previously advised Republican lawmakers advocating for an America-first approach to foreign policy and have called publicly, in writings and talks, for the US to pull back from military commitments in the Middle East and Europe – a view similarly held by the vice-president, JD Vance. Several have advocated that the US instead focus on China.

Supporters of the staffers have slammed those pushing back on the anti-interventionist movement in the administration, claiming Vance and others are merely trying to save the lives of people living in war zones such as Ukraine and prevent future American military deaths.

The infighting has complicated the policymaking process, according to a person familiar with the matter and four other sources. At a time when Kellogg and Witkoff are trying to broker a peace deal with Russia and Ukraine, the staffers have advocated behind the scenes for the US to draw back its support for Kyiv – a policy that has angered Ukrainian officials and put pressure on European allies to fill the gap, five people with knowledge of the situation said.

Washington has signed a deal with Kyiv for rights to its rare earth minerals – an agreement US officials say is an attempt to recoup money the US has spent to prop up Ukraine’s war effort.

At least one of the staffers who had previously pushed for the administration to pull back its support for Kyiv, Dan Caldwell, was escorted out of the Pentagon for a leak he claims never happened. Caldwell, a veteran, served as one of Hegseth’s chief advisers, including on Ukraine.

Despite the brief pause in February and the longer one that began in early March, the Trump administration has resumed sending the last of the aid approved under Joe Biden. No new policy has been announced.

Roughly a week after Donald Trump started his second term as president, the US military issued an order to three freight airlines operating out of Dover air force base in Delaware and a US base in Qatar: stop 11 flights loaded with artillery shells and other weaponry that were bound for Ukraine.

In a matter of hours, frantic questions reached Washington from Ukrainians in Kyiv and from officials in Poland, where the shipments were coordinated. Who had ordered the US Transportation Command, known as TransCom, to halt the flights? Was it a permanent pause on all aid? Or just some?

Top national security officials – in the White House, the Pentagon and the state department – couldn’t provide answers. Within one week, flights were back in the air.

The verbal order originated from the office of Pete Hegseth, the secretary of defense, according to TransCom records reviewed by Reuters. A TransCom spokesperson said the command received the order via the Pentagon’s joint staff.

The cancelations came after Trump wrapped up a 30 January Oval Office meeting about Ukraine that included Hegseth and other top national security officials, according to three sources familiar with the situation. During the meeting, the idea of stopping Ukraine aid came up, said two people with knowledge of the meeting, but the president issued no instruction to halt it.

The president was unaware of Hegseth’s order, as were other top national security officials in the meeting, according to two sources briefed on the private White House discussions and another with direct knowledge of the matter.

Asked to comment on this report, the White House told Reuters that Hegseth had followed a directive from Trump to pause aid to Ukraine, which it said was the administration’s position at the time. It did not explain why, according to those who spoke to Reuters, top national security officials in the normal decision-making process didn’t know about the order or why it was so swiftly reversed.

“Negotiating an end to the Russia-Ukraine War has been a complex and fluid situation. We are not going to detail every conversation among top administration officials throughout the process,” said Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary. “The bottom line is the war is much closer to an end today than it was when President Trump took office.”

The cancelations cost TransCom $2.2m, according to the records reviewed by Reuters. In response to a request for comment, TransCom said that the total cost was $1.6m – 11 flights were canceled but one incurred no charge.

An order halting military aid authorized under the Biden administration went into effect officially a month later, on 4 March, with a White House announcement.

The story of how flights were canceled, detailed by Reuters for the first time, points to an at-times haphazard policymaking process within the Trump administration and a command structure that is unclear even to its own ranking members.

The multiday pause of the flights, confirmed by five people with knowledge of it, also shows confusion in how the administration has created and implemented national security policy. At the Pentagon, the disarray is an open secret, with many current and former officials saying the department is plagued by internal disagreements on foreign policy, deep-seated grudges and inexperienced staff.

Reuters couldn’t establish exactly when Hegseth’s office ordered the freight flights canceled. Two sources said Ukrainian and European officials began asking about the pause on 2 February. The TransCom records indicate that there was a verbal order from “SECDEF” – the secretary of defense – that stopped the flights and that they had resumed by 5 February.

“This is consistent with the administration’s policy to move fast, break things and sort it out later. That is their managing philosophy,” said Mark Cancian, a retired US Marine officer and defense expert with the Center for Strategic and International Studies thinktank. “That is great for Silicon Valley. But when you’re talking about institutions that have been around for hundreds of years, you are going to run into problems.”

The stop in shipments caused consternation in Kyiv.

The Ukrainians quickly asked the administration through multiple channels but had difficulty obtaining any useful information, according to a Ukrainian official with direct knowledge of the situation. In later conversations with the Ukrainians, the administration wrote off the pause as “internal politics”, said the source. Ukrainian officials did not respond to requests for comment.

The shipping of American weapons to Ukraine requires signoff from multiple agencies and can take weeks or even months to complete, depending on the size of the cargo. The majority of US military assistance goes through a logistics hub in Poland before being picked up by Ukrainian representatives and transported into the country.

That hub can hold shipments for extended periods of time. It’s not clear if the 11 canceled flights were the only ones scheduled that week in February, how much aid was already stockpiled in Poland and if it continued to flow into Ukraine despite the US military’s orders.

The revelations come at a time of upheaval in the Pentagon. Several of Hegseth’s top advisers were escorted from the building on 15 April after being accused of unauthorized disclosure of classified information. The secretary continues to face scrutiny, including from Congress, about his own communications. Previously he’s attributed allegations of upheaval to disgruntled employees.

The canceled flights contained weapons that had long been approved by the Biden administration and authorized by lawmakers on Capitol Hill.

Reuters couldn’t determine if Hegseth or his team knew how the order to TransCom would play out or that the order would be a substantial change in US policy on Ukraine. Three sources familiar with the situation said Hegseth misinterpreted discussions with the president about Ukraine policy and aid shipments without elaborating further.

Four other people briefed on the situation said a small cadre of staffers inside the Pentagon, many of whom have never held a government job and who have for years spoken out against US aid to Ukraine, advised Hegseth to consider pausing aid to the country.

Two people familiar with the matter denied there was a true cutoff in aid. One of them described it as a logistical pause.

“[They] just wanted to get a handle on what was going on and people, as a result, misinterpreted that as: ‘You need to stop everything,’” said one.

Flights canceled

According to two sources with knowledge of the meeting, Hegseth arrived at the 30 January Oval Office meeting with Trump with a memo drafted by some of his top policy advisers, advocating that their boss push the White House to consider pausing weapons deliveries to Ukraine to gain leverage in peace negotiations with Russia.

The sources said the secretary attended the meeting with other top officials involved in Ukraine policy, including then national security adviser Mike Waltz and Ukraine envoy Keith Kellogg. The group broadly discussed US policy on Ukraine and Russia, including potentially tightening sanctions on Moscow.

It’s not clear the extent to which Hegseth proposed stopping aid during the meeting, but the idea came up in discussions, said one of the sources and another person familiar with the meeting.

Since the beginning of Russia’s full-scale invasion in February 2022, the US had approved billions of dollars worth of military aid to Ukraine. Most was delivered under the Biden administration. But a few shipments remained in the pipeline, scheduled into this summer.

Trump had threatened to freeze aid repeatedly on the campaign trail, but had yet to do so. And during the meeting, he again declined to stop aid to Ukraine or order Hegseth to implement any policy changes when it came to sending equipment to Kyiv, the sources said.

An order effectively freezing any military support for an ally would normally be discussed intensively among top national security officials and approved by the president. It requires the coordination of multiple agencies and often multiple freight companies.

None of that discussion or coordination happened when Hegseth’s office canceled the scheduled flights carrying American artillery shells and ammunition to Poland from Al Udeid military base in the United Arab Emirates and the Dover US military base in Delaware, three of the sources said.

The pause came as Ukraine’s military was struggling to fend off Russian forces in eastern Ukraine and in the consequential battle for the Kursk region of Russia, where Ukrainian forces were losing ground and have since all but been expelled.

Close Trump advisers were tipped off to the pause by Pentagon staffers and discussed with the president whether to restore the aid shipments, according to two sources. By then, TransCom had canceled 11 flights, according to the records reviewed by Reuters. Some media outlets, including Reuters, wrote about the pause but Hegseth’s role was previously unknown.

It’s unclear if Trump subsequently questioned or reprimanded Hegseth. One source with direct knowledge of the matter said then national security adviser Waltz ultimately intervened to reverse the cancelations. Waltz was forced out on Thursday and is expected to be nominated as US ambassador to the United Nations.

Growing infighting

When Trump entered office, aid to Ukraine continued flowing and he pledged to work with Ukraine and Russia to end the war – or at the very least broker a ceasefire.

Two of his most prominent envoys, Kellogg, a supporter of Kyiv who worked with Trump in his first administration, and Steve Witkoff, a real-estate magnate and close friend of the president, set out to negotiate with both parties.

Separately, at the Pentagon, some of Hegseth’s policy advisers privately started drafting proposals to pull back American support for Ukraine, according to two sources briefed on the matter.

That group of staffers align themselves closely with the anti-interventionist philosophy.

Some have previously advised Republican lawmakers advocating for an America-first approach to foreign policy and have called publicly, in writings and talks, for the US to pull back from military commitments in the Middle East and Europe – a view similarly held by the vice-president, JD Vance. Several have advocated that the US instead focus on China.

Supporters of the staffers have slammed those pushing back on the anti-interventionist movement in the administration, claiming Vance and others are merely trying to save the lives of people living in war zones such as Ukraine and prevent future American military deaths.

The infighting has complicated the policymaking process, according to a person familiar with the matter and four other sources. At a time when Kellogg and Witkoff are trying to broker a peace deal with Russia and Ukraine, the staffers have advocated behind the scenes for the US to draw back its support for Kyiv – a policy that has angered Ukrainian officials and put pressure on European allies to fill the gap, five people with knowledge of the situation said.

Washington has signed a deal with Kyiv for rights to its rare earth minerals – an agreement US officials say is an attempt to recoup money the US has spent to prop up Ukraine’s war effort.

At least one of the staffers who had previously pushed for the administration to pull back its support for Kyiv, Dan Caldwell, was escorted out of the Pentagon for a leak he claims never happened. Caldwell, a veteran, served as one of Hegseth’s chief advisers, including on Ukraine.

Despite the brief pause in February and the longer one that began in early March, the Trump administration has resumed sending the last of the aid approved under Joe Biden. No new policy has been announced.

The US will halt its bombing campaign against Yemen’s Houthis after the Iran-aligned group agreed to stop targeting shipping in the Red Sea.

The halt – announced by the US president, Donald Trump, during an Oval Office meeting with Mark Carney, Canada’s prime minister, came on a day in which Israel claimed its jets had fully disabled Yemen’s main airport, including three civilian aircraft on the ground, in retaliation for a missile strike on Sunday that hit within the perimeter of Tel Aviv’s Ben Gurion airport.

“The Houthis have announced … that they don’t want to fight any more. They just don’t want to fight. And we will honour that, and we will stop the bombings, and they have capitulated,” Trump said. He provided minimal details of the agreement and denied that he had struck a deal.

“We just found out about that. So I think that’s very, very positive … I will accept their word, and we are going to stop the bombing … effective immediately,” he said.

Oman, which has been mediating contacts between the US and the Houthis, confirmed the deal, which it said would ensure “freedom of navigation” in the Red Sea.

Oman’s foreign minister, Badr al-Busaidi, said in an online statement: “Following recent discussions and contacts … with the aim of de-escalation, efforts have resulted in a ceasefire agreement between the two sides.”

He added: “Neither side will target the other … ensuring freedom of navigation and the smooth flow of international commercial shipping” in the Red Sea.

There was no official comment from the Houthis, but the rebels’ political leader, Mahdi al-Mashat, said attacks against Israel would continue.

The Houthi response would go “beyond what the Israeli enemy can withstand”, Mashat said in a statement.

The agreement with the US follows a recent sharp intensification of air raids on Yemen, including with the participation of UK forces last week. Some of those strikes claimed civilian lives as well as those of Houthi fighters.

The Houthis have been firing at Israel and at shipping in the Red Sea since Israel began its military offensive against Hamas in Gaza after the Palestinian militant group’s deadly attack on Israel on 7 October 2023.

The Trump administration launched its operation in mid March, markedly increasing the number of air raids against Yemen, after a campaign of intermittent strikes.

Since then the US military says it has “hit over 1,000 targets” in Yemen, claiming to have killed Houthi fighters and leaders, “including senior Houthi missile and UAV officials, and degrading their capabilities”.

There has been a number of reported civilian deaths, including last week when local officials said the US had struck a detention centre for nationals of African countries in Saada, reportedly killing at least 68 people.

An 18 April raid on Ras Isa fuel port also killed at least 80 people and wounded 150 others.

The Trump administration has maintained that the strikes are in self-defence in response to Houthi strikes on US commercial and naval ships. They have denied the six-week campaign requires congressional approval.

Attacks by the Houthis have prevented ships from passing through the Suez canal – a vital route that normally carries about 12% of the world’s shipping traffic.

Tensions between the Houthis and Israel – against whom the group said it had begun the attacks – have been high since the Gaza war began, but have risen further since a Houthi missile landed near Israel’s Ben Gurion airport on Sunday, prompting Israeli airstrikes on Yemen’s Hodeidah port on Monday and Sana’a airport on Tuesday.

The UN special envoy for Yemen, Hans Grundberg, said the strikes carried out by both sides marked a “grave escalation in an already fragile and volatile regional context”.

The Israeli military claimed on Tuesday that its airstrike on Yemen’s main airport had disabled it.

“The strike was carried out in response to the attack launched by the Houthi terrorist regime against Ben Gurion airport,” the Israeli military said in a statement.

“Flight runways, aircraft and infrastructure at the airport were struck,” it added.

A Yemeni official said the airport had been “completely destroyed” by the strikes.

“Three planes out of seven belonging to Yemenia Airlines were destroyed at Sana’a airport, and Sana’a international airport was completely destroyed,” the official said.

Israel’s defence minister, Israel Katz, said the strike should be seen as a warning to the “head of the Iranian octopus”, which he said bears direct responsibility for attacks by the Houthis against Israel.

The Houthi-affiliated al-Masirah television channel said three people had been killed and 38 people wounded in the airstrikes on the airport, as well as a cement factory, and the Haziz power station.

AP, Reuters and AFP contributed to this report

New York governor, Kathy Hochul, announced that the state will be distributing inflation refund checks to more than 8 million New Yorkers.

Last week, as part of New York’s fiscal year 2026 budget, Hochul announced the state’s “first-ever inflation refund checks” which is slated to put $2bn back into the pockets of millions of New Yorkers.

“While inflation has driven prices higher, sapping the income of New Yorkers, it has also driven sharp increases in the state’s collection of sales tax. Governor Hochul believes that money belongs to hardworking New York families and should be returned to their pockets as an inflation refund,” the governor’s office said.

Under the new plan, joint tax filers with income up to $150,000 will receive a $400 check and joint filers with income of more than $150,000 but no greater than $300,000 will receive a $300 check. Single tax filers with income up to $75,000 will receive a $200 check and single filers with incomes of more than $75,000 but no greater than $150,000 will receive a $150 check.

“The cost of living is still too damn high, so I promised to put more money in your pockets – and we got it done,” Hochul said, adding: “When I said your family is my fight, I mean it – and I’ll never stop fighting for you.”

The governor’s office said that more details regarding the timing for distributing inflation refund checks will be announced in the “near future”.

Also part of the fiscal year 2026 budget is Hochul’s plan to ensure free school meals including breakfast and lunch for all of the state’s 2.7 million students. Under the plan, which Hochul proposed earlier this year, the free school meals are estimated to save families $165 per child in grocery spending each month.

Hochul also announced plans to cut taxes for more than 75% of all tax filers in New York, which is expected to deliver nearly $1bn annually in tax relief to 8.3 million New Yorkers.

The governor’s office said: “Once the rate change is fully phased in, the middle class tax cut will deliver hundreds of dollars in average savings to three out of every four taxpayers in the state. This will bring taxes for the middle class to their lowest level in 70 years.”

The BBC has admitted to “a lapse in our usual high editorial standards” over its coverage on Radio 4’s Today programme of the broadcaster’s recent interview with the Duke of Sussex.

The admission came after it failed to include responses from the Home Office and Buckingham Palace to allegations made by the duke.

Prince Harry gave an interview to BBC News on Friday in response to the court of appeal’s dismissal of his case over security arrangements for him and his family while in the UK.

On Saturday, the Today programme covered the duke’s interview in which he described his court defeat as a “good old-fashioned establishment stitch-up”. The programme also had an interview with the close protection expert Richard Aitch, where Harry’s “stitch-up” claims were “repeated”, the BBC said.

On its Corrections and Clarifications website, the BBC said on Tuesday: “The programme covered the latest developments in the story of Prince Harry and his legal case around protection for him and his family in the UK and interviewed former close protection officer Richard Aitch to get a broader understanding of security considerations.

“Claims were repeated that the process had been ‘an establishment stitch-up’ and we failed to properly challenge this and other allegations. This case is ultimately the responsibility of the Home Office and we should have reflected their statement,” it said.

The BBC then included the Home Office statement: “We are pleased that the court has found in favour of the government’s position in this case. The UK government’s protective security system is rigorous and proportionate. It is our longstanding policy not to provide detailed information on those arrangements, as doing so could compromise their integrity and affect individuals’ security.”

The broadcaster said it should also have given the view of Buckingham Palace. The palace statement after Friday’s ruling read: “All of these issues have been examined repeatedly and meticulously by the courts, with the same conclusion reached on each occasion.”

The BBC added: “This was a lapse in our usual high editorial standards.”

During the Today interview, Aitch, who is the director of operations at security services company Mobius International, said he “was shocked but certainly not surprised” at the judgment.

He claimed that the “provision of protection should not be based on legal argument”, but on assessment of “risk and threat against Harry” and agreed that it had been a “stitch-up”.

Posting on X after the BBC clarification, Aitch said: “There should not be any need to apologise BBC News for opinion-based interviews. Absence of a threat and risk assessment on Prince Harry where the focus is on legal process influenced by the recommendations of a committee that is not independent, it defines ‘stitch up’.”

A man was arrested after crashing a car into the front gate of Jennifer Aniston’s home in Los Angeles, California, authorities said on Tuesday.

Police told KABC-TV that the Friends star was home at the time of the crash.

The incident occurred at about 12.20pm on Monday in the wealthy Bel Air neighborhood, according to officer Jeff Lee of the LA police department.

Online property records show a home on that block owned by a trust run by Jennifer Aniston’s business manager.

Private security guards apprehended the driver and held him until police arrived. Lee described the suspect as a white middle-aged man who has since been identified as Jimmy Wayne Carwyle, 48, according to ABC.

“He used his vehicle to ram a gate to the residence,” Lee said.

His booking was reportedly delayed after he complained of back pain, which led him to a hospital visit. He is also reported to have a minor criminal history.

Messages were left on Tuesday with representatives and attorneys for Aniston.

Aniston, currently starring in Apple TV’s The Morning Show, bought the midcentury mansion on a 3.4-acre lot for about $21m in 2012, according to reporting by Architectural Digest.

“Aesthetically, it was the furthest thing from what I wanted, but I immediately had the sense that it could work,” she said to Architectural Digest in 2018. “It’s hard to describe, but I felt a connection. I’m all about cozy. Sexy is important, but comfort is essential. Every corner you turn, you have an experience. Everywhere you look, you get a vista. We worked very hard to get that flow right.”

Her last film role was in the comedy sequel Murder Mystery 2 alongside Adam Sandler. She will next be seen in the fourth season of The Morning Show, which airs this year.