The new Pope, Leo XIV, has called for the Catholic Church to “desperately” counter a lack of faith in his first mass at the Vatican.

Speaking on Friday, the day after he was elected the first US leader of the Catholic Church, he warned that people were turning to “technology, money, success, power, or pleasure” for security instead of the Church.

Pope Leo also called for cardinals to extend missionary outreach.

The ascension of Chicago-born Robert Francis Prevost, 69, has been widely celebrated by 1.4 billion Catholics across the world, with joyous outbursts in particular in Peru, where he was stationed for 20 years, and in his US homeland.

In his speech, the new pope said he had been elected to be a “faithful administrator” of the Church and to steer it as a “beacon” to reach areas suffering a “lack of faith”.

“A lack of faith is often tragically accompanied by the loss of meaning in life, the neglect of mercy, appalling violations of human dignity, the crisis of the family and so many other wounds that afflict our society,” he said in Italian.

Pope Leo wore a white robe trimmed in gold as he addressed the seated cardinals in the Sistine Chapel address broadcast live by the Vatican administration.

On Thursday evening, Prevost was introduced to the world as the new Pope Leo XIV to rousing cheers from crowds gathered in St Peter’s Square.

Appearing on the balcony of St Peter’s Basilica, his first words to the tens of thousands of worshippers gathered outlined a vision of a “missionary” Church which “builds bridges, which holds dialogues, which is always open”.

• Live: Follow the latest updates after new Pope chosen
• Profile: Who is Robert Prevost, the new Pope Leo XIV?
• Watch: Oh my God, it’s Rob! – Pope’s brother speaks of joy
• Analysis: Continuity the key for Pope seen as unifier in the Church

He echoed his predecessor, the late Pope Francis, in calling for peace.

“Help us, and each other, to build bridges through dialogue, through encounter, to come together as one people, always in peace,” he said.

World leaders have rushed to congratulate Prevost on his election, pledging to work with him on global issues. US President Donald Trump called it a “great honour” to have the first American pope.

Prevost, who also holds Peruvian citizenship, only became an archbishop and then cardinal in 2023. He was elected leader by his fellow cardinals in just two days of voting in the secret conclave that took place two weeks after Francis died.

He is seen as being aligned with the late Pope, who was viewed as a progressive champion of human rights and the poor and celebrated for his charismatic style that sought to make the Catholic Church more outward-facing.

Vatican watchers have noted that Francis appeared to have brought Prevost to Rome in recent years, perhaps to set him up as a potential successor.

Pope Leo’s upcoming remarks, which include Sunday’s midday Regina Coeli prayer and a Monday press conference with journalists, will be closely scrutinised for hints as to which direction he intends to lead the Church and what kind of Pope he will be.

Cardinal Robert Prevost has been elected pope and will be known as Pope Leo XIV.

The 69-year-old is the first American to become a pontiff and will lead members of the Catholic Church’s global community of 1.4bn people.

Born in Chicago, he is seen as a reformer and worked for many years as a missionary in Peru before being made an archbishop there.

He also has Peruvian nationality and is fondly remembered as a figure who worked with marginalised communities and helped build bridges in the local Church.

One of the first acts of a new pope is to choose a new name, changing their baptismal one.

The decision is part of a longstanding tradition but it has not always been like that.

For more than 500 years, popes used their own names.

This then changed to symbolic names in order to simplify their given names or to refer to previous pontiffs.

• Live: Follow the latest updates after new Pope chosen
• Profile: Who is Robert Prevost, the new Pope Leo XIV?
• Watch: Oh my God, it’s Rob! – Pope’s brother speaks of joy
• Analysis: Continuity the key for Pope seen as unifier in the Church

Over the years, popes have often chosen the names of their immediate or distant predecessors out of respect or admiration and to signal the desire to follow in their footsteps and continue the most relevant pontificates.

For example, Pope Francis said his name honoured St Francis of Assisi, and that he was inspired by his Brazilian friend Cardinal Claudio Hummes.

The new Pope has not yet specified why he has decided to be known as Pope Leo XIV.

There could be many reasons for it, but the name Leo has been used by many popes over the years.

Pope Leo I, also known as St Leo the Great, was pontiff between 440 and 461 AD.

He was the 45th pope in history and became known for his commitment to peace.

According to legend, the miraculous apparition of Saints Peter and Paul during the meeting between Pope Leo I and Attila the king of the Huns in 452 AD made the latter desist from invading Italy.

The scene was then depicted by Raphael in a fresco.

The last pope to choose the name Leo was Pope Leo XIII, an Italian whose baptismal name was Vincenzo Gioacchino Pecci.

Elected in 1878, he was the 256th occupant of the throne of St Peter and led the Catholic Church until his death in 1903.

He is remembered as a pope who was dedicated to social policies and social justice.

He is particularly known for issuing an encyclical – a letter sent to bishops of the Church – called “Rerum Novarum”, a Latin expression which means “Of New Things”.

The encyclical included topics such as workers’ rights and social justice.

Leo is among some of the most popular papal names.

The most commonly used name has been John, first chosen in 523 by Saint John I, Pope and martyr.

The last pope to choose this name was Italian Angelo Giuseppe Roncalli, elected Pope John XXIII in 1958, who was proclaimed Saint by Pope Francis in 2014.

“I’m pretty sure we hung out in Brixton. Hopefully I didn’t embarrass myself.”

Luke Pritchard, the eternally youthful lead singer of The Kooks, is reintroducing himself to fellow indie survivor and Hard-Fi frontman, Richard Archer.

Both admit the 2000s, when they each sold millions of records, are a bit of a blur.

“But I think I’d remember if you’d done something odd,” reassures Archer, all chiselled good looks and friendly bonhomie.

“It’s weird, because we were all part of the same scene but, when you’re on tour, everyone’s like planets, orbiting around but missing each other.”

The Kooks and The ‘Fi were at the epicentre of the last great indie boom – a scene that kicked off in 2002 when The Libertines jolted British guitar music out of its post-Britpop slump.

Over the next half-decade, they joined acts like Franz Ferdinand, Kaiser Chiefs and Razorlight as they surfed a wave to the top of the charts.

Angular riffs, clever-clever lyrics and big, hooky choruses were the order of the day.

By 2006, seven of the UK’s 10 best-selling new albums were by guitar bands, including the Arctic Monkeys’ incendiary debut, Whatever People Say I Am, That’s What I’m Not, and The Kooks’ Inside In/Inside Out.

But the party couldn’t last forever.

In 2008, The Word magazine coined the phrase “indie landfill” to describe a seemingly endless parade of identikit bloke-bands cluttering the airwaves.

Where were they all coming from? Why couldn’t you tell them apart? Why where they all called “The Something”?

Almost overnight, radio stations ditched indie for a new generation of forward-thinking pop (Lady Gaga, Florence + The Machine) and club-centric hip-hop (Black Eyed Peas, Dizzee Rascal).

“It did suddenly seem that four boys in a band became very un-hip,” says Archer.

“The opportunities dried up in England,” agrees Pritchard. “We were playing smaller venues and the vibe just wasn’t exciting any more.”

“It got to a point where we were just exhausted,” Archer continues. “It felt like we were screaming into the void. So we stopped and tried other things.”

In the 2010s, Hard-Fi’s guitarist Ross Phillips retrained as a tiler, while Archer formed the short-lived blues band OffWorld.

But when he streamed an acoustic set of Hard-Fi songs during Covid, the response was big enough to tempt the band back on stage. A one-off gig at London’s Forum sold out in minutes.

“The response was just so warm. I was quite taken aback by it,” says Archer.

The show led to a full reunion. This summer, the band will release a 20th anniversary edition of their class-conscious, Mercury Prize-nominated debut, Stars of CCTV, while preparing a long-delayed fourth album.

The Kooks, meanwhile, never went away, recording a clutch of more experimental albums that blended drum loops, pastoral pop and even Ethiopian jazz influences.

But today, the band are bigger than ever after hits like Naïve and Ooh La found a new audience on TikTok.

Later this year, they will headline the O2 Arena for the first time, with18 to 24-year-olds making up 45% of the audience.

How do they explain this sudden revival?

“We’re at that point where teenagers start going back to listen to the music their parents grew up with,” Pritchard observes.

“In the 90s, we did it too, going back and discovering Nick Drake, so there’s a circular nature to it. The scene, and even the fashion, has come around again.”

But there’s something else, too. Songs like The Kooks’ She Moves In Her Own Way and Hard-Fi’s Hard To Beat have something that went missing in the 2010s – choruses you can sing until you’re hoarse.

“Yeah, that anthemic thing was removed from guitar music,” agrees Pritchard. “People started consuming music on earbuds, so they connected with the introspective stuff.

“But when we were gathering a little fanbase in Brighton, we’d play all these small clubs and you’d filter the setlist by whether people could sing along to the hook.”

Archer recalls the grind of those early tours. In their first year, he reckons, Hard-Fi were on the road for “almost 365 days”.

But with one grassroots venue closing every fortnight in the UK, it’s getting harder to book tours and road-test songs.

“What worries me is, if you’re a new artist now, do you have the opportunity to go out there and make mistakes and fix them?” says Archer.

A shrinking live scene isn’t the only upheaval in the industry.

The Kooks’ debut album sold 1.5 million copies in 2006 – making it the fifth biggest record of the year. Compare that with 2024, when the best-selling album in the UK (Taylor Swift’s Tortured Poets Department) only sold 600,000 copies.

Streams have cannibalised sales, turning every artist into a cult act. It doesn’t help that opportunities for promoting music have dried up.

The only music TV show left standing is Later… With Jools Holland, while weekly music magazines like the NME are no more – not that everyone laments its demise.

“We were never the best friends with the NME,” laughs Archer.

“Who was?” asks Pritchard. “There were two or three anointed bands and the rest of us were cast out.”

Are there any reviews seared into their memories?

“No, I’ve done a lot of work on that,” Pritchard jokes. “But I definitely was more sensitive than I should have been.”

“How can you not be, though?” asks Archer. “They’re criticising something you’ve sweated blood and tears over.”

While compiling the anniversary edition of Stars of CCTV, he found an old clipping where a critic said the band’s fans didn’t understand real music.

“I kept it,” he says, “so I could get revenge later.”

“You should frame it and put it in the loo,” Pritchard suggests.

“Then I’d just be angry every time I have a dump.”

But the music press was powerful in the 2000s. Both frontmen recall feeling pressure to live up to the NME’s ideal of a gobby frontman.

Archer, a thoughtful and introspective character, was even provoked into saying he wanted to be the biggest star in the world.

“I don’t see the point in being just another indie band,” he boasted in one interview. “What’s the point of being parochial and small-time? I’m in competition with Eminem.”

“You had to be super-confident and say provocative things,” Pritchard reflects now.

“But what I learned is that a lot of songwriters are introspective, insular people – and when you throw them in front of a camera, it’s quite challenging.”

With hindsight, both men emerged from the 2000s relatively unscathed, and share a newfound appreciation for their early records.

Pritchard, in particular, is revisiting the breathless pop of The Kooks’ first two albums on their new record Never/Know, released this week.

“I felt like I slightly lost my identity [because] I’d been collaborating with outside producers so much,” he says.

“So I went back and played all the records we were listening to when we started – not to repeat ourselves, but to get a firm hand on the identity again.”

The result is an album that’s perfectly timed for summer road trips and sun-soaked festival sets, replete with buoyant melodies and timeless guitar grooves.

Archer is in a similar place, with a new album inspired by a CD-Rom of old demos an ex-girlfriend sent to him last year.

So, have the bands got a five-year plan?

“Definitely – but it’s locked up in my safe,” laughs Pritchard. “I think it’s good to have goals!”

“Do you really?” asks Archer, with a concerned frown.

“I literally don’t know what I’m going to have for lunch.”

The world’s first drone war between nuclear-armed neighbours has erupted in South Asia.

On Thursday, India accused Pakistan of launching waves of drones and missiles at three military bases in Indian territory and Indian-administered Kashmir – an allegation Islamabad swiftly denied.

Pakistan claimed it had shot down 25 Indian drones in recent hours. Delhi remained publicly silent. Experts say the tit-for-tat attacks mark a dangerous new phase in the decades-old rivalry, as both sides exchange not just artillery but unmanned weapons across a volatile border.

As Washington and other global powers urge restraint, the region is teetering on the edge of escalation, with drones – silent, remote and deniable – opening a new chapter in the India-Pakistan conflict.

“The Indo-Pak conflict is moving into a new drone era – one where ‘invisible eyes’ and unmanned precision may determine escalation or restraint. Thus, in South Asia’s contested skies, the side that masters drone warfare won’t just see the battlefield – they’ll shape it,” Jahara Matisek, a professor at the US Naval War College, told the BBC.

• Follow our live updates

Since Wednesday morning, Pakistan says Indian air strikes and cross-border fire have killed 36 people and injured 57 more in Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir. On the other side, India’s army reports at least 16 civilians dead from Pakistani shelling. India insists its missile barrage was retaliation for a deadly militant attack on Indian tourists in Pahalgam last month – an attack Islamabad denies any role in.

Pakistan’s military announced on Thursday that it had shot down 25 Indian drones across various cities, including Karachi, Lahore and Rawalpindi. The drones – reportedly Israeli-made Harop drones – were reportedly intercepted using both technical and weapon-based countermeasures. India claimed to have neutralised several Pakistani air defence radars and systems, including one in Lahore, which Islamabad denied.

Laser-guided missiles and bombs, drones and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) have become pivotal in modern warfare, significantly enhancing the precision and efficiency of military operations. These can relay co-ordinates for airstrikes or, if equipped, directly laser-designate targets, and help immediate engagement.

Drones can be used as decoys or suppression of enemy air defences, flying into contested airspace to trigger enemy radar emissions, which can then be targeted by other munitions like loitering drones or anti-radiation missiles. “This is how Ukraine and Russia both do it in their war. This dual role – targeting and triggering – makes drones a force multiplier in degrading enemy air defences without risking manned aircraft,” says Prof Matisek.

Experts say India’s drone fleet is largely built around Israeli-made reconnaissance UAVs like the IAI Searcher and Heron, along with Harpy and Harop loitering munitions – drones that double as missiles, capable of autonomous reconnaissance and precision strikes. The Harop, in particular, signals a shift toward high-value, precision-targeted warfare, reflecting the growing importance of loitering munitions in modern conflict, experts say.

The Heron, say experts, is India’s “high-altitude eyes in the sky” for both peacetime monitoring and combat operations. The IAI Searcher Mk II is designed for frontline operations, offering up to 18 hours of endurance, a range of 300km (186 miles), and a service ceiling of 7,000m (23,000ft).

While many believe India’s combat drone numbers remain “modest”, a recent $4bn deal to acquire 31 MQ-9B Predator drones – which can can fly for 40 hours and up to an altitude of 40,000ft – from the US marks a major leap in its strike capabilities.

India is also developing swarm drone tactics – deploying large numbers of smaller UAVs to overwhelm and saturate air defences, allowing higher-value assets to penetrate, say experts.

Pakistan’s drone fleet is “extensive and diverse”, comprising both indigenous and imported systems, Ejaz Haider, a Lahore-based defence analyst told the BBC.

He said the inventory includes “over a thousand drones”, featuring models from China, Turkey and domestic manufacturers. Notable platforms include the Chinese CH-4, the Turkish Bayraktar Akinci, and Pakistan’s own Burraq and Shahpar drones. Additionally, Pakistan has developed loitering munitions, enhancing its strike capabilities.

Mr Haider said the Pakistan Air Force (PAF) has been actively integrating unmanned systems into its operations for nearly a decade. A key focus is the development of “loyal wingman” drones – unmanned aerial vehicles designed to operate in co-ordination with manned aircraft, he added.

Prof Matisek believes “Israel’s technical assistance, supplying Harop and Heron drones, has been pivotal for India, while Pakistan’s reliance on Turkish and Chinese platforms highlights an ongoing arms race”.

While the recent drone exchanges between India and Pakistan mark a significant escalation in their rivalry, they differ markedly from the drone-centric warfare observed in the Russia-Ukraine conflict, experts say. There, drones become central to military operations, with both sides deploying thousands of UAVs for surveillance, targeting and direct attacks.

“Deploying drones [in the ongoing conflict] instead of fighter jets or heavy missiles represents a lower-level military option. Drones are less heavily armed than manned aircraft, so in one sense, this is a restrained move. However, if this is merely a prelude to a broader aerial campaign, the calculus changes entirely,” Manoj Joshi, an Indian defence analyst, told the BBC.

Ejaz Haider believes the recent drone activity in Jammu “appears to be a tactical response to immediate provocations, not a full-scale retaliation [by Pakistan]”.

“A true retaliatory strike against India would involve shock and awe. It would likely be more comprehensive, involving multiple platforms – both manned and unmanned – and targeting a broader range of objectives. Such an operation would aim to deliver a decisive impact, signalling a significant escalation beyond the current tit-for-tat exchanges,” Mr Haider says.

While drones have fundamentally reshaped the battlefield in Ukraine, their role in the India-Pakistan conflict remains more limited and symbolic, say experts. Both countries are using their manned air forces to fire missiles at one another as well.

“The drone warfare we’re witnessing may not last long; it could be just the beginning of a larger conflict,” says Mr Joshi.

“This could either signal a de-escalation or an escalation – both possibilities are on the table. We’re at an inflection point; the direction we take from here is uncertain.”

Clearly India is integrating drones into its precision-strike doctrine, enabling stand-off targeting without crossing borders with manned aircraft. However, this evolution also raises critical questions.

“Drones lower the political and operational threshold for action, providing options to surveil and strike while trying to reduce escalation risks,” says Prof Matisek.

“But they also create new escalation dynamics: every drone shot down, every radar blinded, becomes a potential flashpoint in this tense environment between two nuclear powers.”

Vladimir Putin has led Russia’s Victory Day commemorations with a parade in Red Square and heightened security after days of Ukrainian strikes targeting the capital.

China’s Xi Jinping joined Putin as he told thousands of soldiers and more than 20 international leaders that Russia remembered the lessons of World War Two.

Putin used his speech to tie the war to today’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, and said all of Russia was behind what he called the “special military operation” – now well into its fourth year.

For the first time, a column of trucks carrying various combat drones took part in the Victory Day parade, apparently because of their widescale use in Ukraine.

A unilateral, three-day ceasefire was announced by Russia to coincide with the lavish 80th anniversary event, which Ukraine rejected as a “theatrical show”.

Kyiv has labelled the truce as a farce, accusing Russia of launching thousands of attacks since it came into force at midnight on Wednesday. Russia says it has observed the ceasefire and accuses Ukraine of hundreds of violations.

In the hours before the ceasefire, Ukrainian drone strikes prompted airport closures and disruption for thousands of air passengers in Russia.

Heavy security and restrictions were in place in the centre of Moscow on Friday as Russia marked the Soviet Union’s victory over Nazi Germany.

Before Putin’s address and a one-minute silence, the commander of ground troops, Oleg Salyukov, led 11,000 troops into Red Square, including some 1,500 who had fought in Ukraine. They were then inspected by Defence Minister Andrei Belousov.

Putin insisted that Russia “was and will be an indestructible barrier against Nazism, Russophobia, antisemitism”. The Russian leader has repeatedly and falsely referred to Ukraine’s leadership as Nazis.

“Truth and justice are on our side,” he said, insisting that “the “entire country, society and people support the participants” of the Ukraine war.

READ: Why did Putin’s Russia invade Ukraine?

Russia said 27 world leaders were attending the event, but it was the presence of China’s leader, alongside Putin and more than 100 Chinese soldiers marching on Red Square, that stood out.

China’s Xi Jinping had pride of place, sporting an orange and black St George ribbon, which Russia sees as a symbol of military glory but which has been banned by several neighbouring countries.

Russian state TV spoke of relations between the two countries as being at their highest-ever level, united against the “collective West”.

Russia’s pivot to the east was underlined by military contingents from North Korea, Vietnam and Mongolia, although the North Koreans did not march during the parade.

Thousands of North Koreans have fought against Ukrainian forces in Russia’s Kursk region and Putin made a point of personally greeting some of them on Red Square, hugging one highly decorated officer.

North Korea’s Kim Jong Un visited the Russian embassy in Pyongyang to highlight his country’s increasing ties with Moscow.

Brazil’s Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva and Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro were among the assembled guests, along with Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic and Robert Fico, Slovakia’s prime minister, who is the only European Union leader to travel to Moscow.

EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas had earlier made clear that leaders of EU member states and countries aspiring to join the union should not take part in the event because of Russia’s war in Ukraine. Serbia is an EU candidate country and Vucic said he expected he would face consequences because of his decision to go.

For Putin, the attendance of China’s Xi on Victory Day is seen as a significant achievement, and he praised the “courageous people of China” as he paid tribute to Russia’s allies in World War Two.

Although Chinese forces played a prominent role in fighting against Japan, the government in Taiwan said Beijing and Moscow had distorted history. Taiwan said Chinese communist forces had made “no substantial contribution” in the war, unlike China’s then republican government, which later fled to Taiwan.

Putin and Xi held two rounds of talks before the parade as well as an informal chat on the war in Ukraine, Chinese reports said.

Joining the parade was a wide variety of Russian military hardware, including Yars missile systems, tanks and armoured personnel carriers. Six Su-25 military jets then flew over Red Square to complete the parade.

Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelensky had earlier warned that he could not guarantee the safety of anyone attending the event and has urged heads of state not to travel to Moscow.

Mykhailo Samus, a Ukrainian military analyst and director of the New Geopolitics Research Network, told the BBC he believed that Ukraine would forego attacking the parade, largely because of the presence of foreign leaders.

But should Ukraine choose to do so, it would constitute a legitimate military target, Mr Samus said.

During his evening address on Thursday, Zelensky said that Ukraine was “ready for a full ceasefire starting right now”.

“But it must be real,” he said in a video on X. “No missile or drone strikes, no hundreds of assaults on the front.”

He called on Russia to support the ceasefire and “prove their willingness to end the war”.

Ukraine has accused Russia of violating its own truce thousands of times since it was supposed to come into effect on Wednesday night.

On the second day of the truce, Ukraine said there had been nearly 200 clashes along the front line, eighteen Russian air strikes and almost four thousand instances of shelling by Russian troops.

In Prymorske, a village in the Zaporizhzhia region, a woman was reportedly killed after a Russian drone struck her car.

Russia’s defence ministry has said that all groups of Russian forces in Ukraine “completely ceased combat operations and remained on the previously occupied lines and positions”. However, they were reacting in a “mirror-like manner” to violations by Ukrainian forces.

Zelensky has repeatedly dismissed Putin’s proposal as a “game” and called for a longer truce of at least 30 days, something that is supported by Ukraine’s allies in Europe and the US.

He said he had spoken with US President Donald Trump to reiterate his readiness for a “long and lasting peace” and talks “in any format”. He said he had told Trump that a 30-day ceasefire was a “real indicator” of moving towards peace.

Writing on his social media platform Truth Social on Thursday, the US president reiterated the call for an unconditional ceasefire and warned of further sanctions for any party failing to sign up to it.

US President Donald Trump has hinted that US tariffs on goods from China may come down as top trade officials from the world’s two biggest economies are set to hold talks.

“You can’t get any higher. It’s at 145, so we know it’s coming down,” he said, referring to the new import taxes of up to 145% imposed on China since he returned to the White House.

Trump made the comments during an event to unveil a tariffs deal with the UK – the first such agreement since he hit countries around the world with steep levies in April.

The meeting in Switzerland this weekend is the strongest signal yet that the two sides are ready to deescalate a trade war that has sent shockwaves through financial markets.

“I think it’s a very friendly meeting. They look forward to doing it in an elegant way,” Trump said of the talks with China.

China’s Vice Foreign Minister Hua Chunying also struck a confident note ahead of the talks, saying Beijing has “full confidence” in its ability to manage trade issues with the US.

Officials in both Washington and Beijing are “under growing economic pressure”, Dan Wang from political risk consultancy Eurasia Group told the BBC.

“The recent signals from both sides suggest a transactional de-escalation is on the table”, she added.

The announcement earlier this week of the talks was welcomed as an important first step towards easing tensions but analysts have warned that this marks the start of what are likely to be lengthy negotiations.

“The systemic frictions between the US and China will not be resolved any time soon,” said former US trade negotiator, Stephen Olson.

Any cuts to tariffs as a result of this meeting are likely to be “minor”, he added.

The initial negotiations will be led by US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and China’s Vice Premier and economic tsar He Lifeng.

But “I think everyone recognises that any final deal will require the active engagement of both presidents,” Mr Olson said.

Another trade expert said that even if the new tariffs imposed by Trump were lifted, the two countries would still have major issues to overcome.

“A realistic goal is probably at best a pullback from the sky-high bilateral tariffs but that would still leave in place high tariff barriers and various other restrictions”, the former head of the International Monetary Fund’s (IMF) China division, Eswar Prasad told BBC News.

On Friday, official figures for April showed China’s exports to the US fell by more than 20% compared to a year earlier. But at the same time its total exports rose by a better-than-expected 8.1%.

The talks between China and the US are set to take place just two days after the UK became the first country to strike a tariffs deal with the Trump administration.

The US has agreed to reduce import taxes on a set number of British cars and allow some steel and aluminium into the country tariff-free, as part of a new agreement.

It also offers relief for other key UK industries from some of the new tariffs announced by Trump since his inauguration in January.

Countries around the world are scrambling to make similar deals before steep US import taxes are due to take effect next month.

Trump announced what he called “reciprocal tariffs” on dozens of countries in April but paused them shortly afterwards for 90 days to give their governments time to negotiate with his administration.

Businesses based in the US will also be watching events in Switzerland closely.

Wild Rye, a women’s outdoor clothing firm based in the state of Idaho, has manufacturing stations in China and has been severely affected by the tariffs.

The cost of shipping goods has jumped significantly, the firm’s chief executive, Cassie Abel, told the BBC’s Today programme.

“We have a purchase order that’s incoming, which is around $700,000 [of goods] that’s now costing £1.2m in levies up from £200,000,” she said.

Ms Abel added she was now looking to sell parts of her business to try to raise cash.

Follow the twists and turns of Trump’s second term with North America correspondent Anthony Zurcher’s weekly US Politics Unspun newsletter. Readers in the UK can sign up here. Those outside the UK can sign up here.

Daniel Graham and Adam Carruthers have been found guilty of cutting down the iconic Sycamore Gap tree. The deliberate felling of the tree on Hadrian’s Wall in Northumberland angered people around the world. For the man who was first on the scene, it was a moment that changed his life forever.

Park ranger Gary Pickles was in shock.

Where once had stood arguably England’s favourite tree, there was now just air.

When the call had come through earlier that morning, Gary had thought it was a prank.

His working day on 28 September 2023 had barely started when a farmer called his office to report the tree was down.

“I doubted a farmer would be telling us a silly story so I thought ‘oh my god, I think this might be true’.”

The team of park rangers were alerted by email and Gary got in his van to drive to the tree.

With every passing minute of the short journey, his anxiety levels increased.

“As I got nearer and nearer, I just thought ‘it’s gone, it’s gone’.”

He’d arrived at the road adjacent to the tree and had to “double take” as he saw it for the first time lying on its side.

“It was shock,” said Gary, who was met with a gaping hole in the landscape.

At this stage, he presumed the tree had been damaged in Storm Agnes, which had brought strong winds overnight.

“When you look and it’s gone, it’s just….oh my god,” he said.

“It’s a landmark. It’s a piece of the landscape.”

Gary needed to investigate further. He parked his van in a nearby car park and rushed on foot to the fallen tree.

The sadness he was feeling soon turned to anger and panic.

“When I got there I realised it had been chopped down and not blown down.

“There was a clean cut so that escalated it up.

“Once you realise it’s been chopped down, then it’s going to become a massive worldwide story.”

The seriousness of the developing situation quickly became apparent.

Gary hastily reported back to Northumberland National Park’s headquarters that it appeared that the tree had been cut down deliberately. At this stage there was no time to consider who by or why.

Just after 09:00 BST, the National Park alerted colleagues at the National Trust, including general manager Andrew Poad.

“My personal phone started lighting up. Messages were coming through on my laptop.

“Once I realised it was a deliberate act, crisis mode kicked in,” said Andrew, whose priority was to personally inform people before they saw it on social media.

“It was like ringing people up to tell them that someone had passed away.

“On the day I was using the expression ‘it’s like losing a loved one’. We all went through that grief.

“There were numerous members of staff in tears.”

Viral photographs shared on social media showed the tree on its side, as the PR teams at the National Park and the National Trust frantically collaborated on an official response.

“Within the hour it was global, effectively,” Andrew said.

Shortly before 11:00, a statement from the organisations confirmed the tree had been cut down.

At around midday, Northumbria Police announced it was being treated as “a deliberate act of vandalism”.

Local journalists were already carrying out interviews at the scene, before reporters from around the world turned the grassy mound opposite the stump into a “sea of camera tripods”.

“It is the largest press story that the National Trust has ever dealt with,” Andrew said.

“It was one of the things that surprised us. The sheer scale of the global reach of the interest really took us back a bit.”

The usual calming sound of the vast countryside was drowned out by the clicks of cameras and the engines of broadcast trucks.

“We knew it was popular, but we didn’t know how popular,” Andrew said.

The international interest also surprised Gary.

“My sister lives in France, my brother is in America, and by dinner time they’d both rung me, so it was global news at such a fast rate.”

Senior management from the National Park and the National Trust spent the afternoon at the fallen tree, speaking to the crowds of emotional walkers and journalists.

Reporters gathered shocking footage of the trunk draped over a now damaged Hadrian’s Wall.

This idyllic, tranquil spot that had brought peace to so many was now a crime scene wrapped in blue and white police tape. Forensic officers in white suits also gathered DNA from the stump.

Eighteen months on from its felling, Andrew and Gary regularly reflect on the day that north-east England lost “a massive local landmark.”

“It’s just senseless. Who or what were they trying to get at?” said Andrew.

“It’s still a huge part of my life dealing with this. It’s a big gap in all our lives, never mind the landscape.”

From a woman waving a colonial-era flag in a shopping mall, to bakery staff selling cakes with protest symbols on them – dozens of Hongkongers have been reported to the police by one man for what he believes were national security violations.

“We’re in every corner of society, watching, to see if there is anything suspicious which could infringe on the national security law,” former banker Innes Tang tells the BBC World Service.

“If we find these things, we go and report it to the police.”

When the UK returned Hong Kong to China 28 years ago, internationally binding treaties guaranteed the city’s rights and freedoms for 50 years. But the national security law (NSL), imposed by Beijing a year after Hong Kong’s 2019 mass pro-democracy protests, has been criticised for scuttling free speech and press, and for ushering in a new culture of informing.

The law criminalises activities considered to be calls for “secession” (breaking away from China), “subversion” (undermining the power or authority of the government), and collusion with foreign forces.

An additional security law called Article 23, voted in last year, has further tightened restrictions.

With new laws and arrests, there has been limited reporting on Hong Kong’s pro-China “patriots” – the people who are now running and policing the city, as well as the ordinary citizens who openly support them. But the BBC has spent weeks interviewing Innes Tang, 60, a prominent self-described patriot.

He and his volunteers have taken screen grabs from social media of any activities or comments they believe could be in breach of the NSL.

He also established a hotline for tip-offs from the public and encouraged his online followers to share information on the people around them.

Nearly 100 individuals and organisations have been reported to the authorities by him and his followers, he says.

“Does reporting work? We wouldn’t do it if it didn’t,” Mr Tang says. “Many had cases opened by the police… with some resulting in jail terms.”

Mr Tang says he hasn’t investigated alleged law breakers himself, but simply reported incidents he thinks warrant scrutiny – describing it as “proper community-police co-operation”.

Mr Tang is not the only so-called patriot to engage in this kind of surveillance.

Hong Kong’s authorities have set up their own national security hotline, receiving 890,000 tip-offs from November 2020 to February this year – the city’s security bureau told the BBC.

For those who are reported to the authorities, pressure can be relentless.

Since the NSL was enacted in 2020, up until February this year, more than 300 people had been arrested for national security offences. And an estimated 300,000 or more Hongkongers have permanently left the city in recent years.

Pong Yat-ming, the owner of an independent bookshop that hosts public talks, says he often receives inspections from government departments which cite “anonymous complaints”.

He received 10 visits in one 15-day period, he says.

Kenneth Chan, political scientist and university lecturer, who has been involved in the city’s pro-democracy movement since the 1990s, jokes he has “become a bit radioactive these days”.

Some friends, students and colleagues now keep their distance because of his outspoken views, he says. “But I would be the last person to blame the victims. It’s the system.”

In response, Hong Kong’s government said it “attaches great importance to upholding academic freedom and institutional autonomy”. But it adds that academic institutions “have the responsibility to ensure their operations are in compliance with the law and meet the interests of the community at large”.

Innes Tang says he is motivated to report people by a love of Hong Kong, and that his views on China were cultivated when he was young, when the city was still a British colony.

“The colonial policies weren’t really that great,” he says. “The best opportunities were always given to the British and we [the locals] did not really have access.”

Like many of his generation, he nursed a longing to be united with China and taken out of colonial governance. But he says many other Hongkongers at the time were more concerned with their livelihoods than their rights.

“Democracy or freedom. These were all very abstract ideas which we didn’t really understand,” he says.

An average citizen should not become too involved in politics, he says, explaining he only became politically active to restore what he calls “balance” to Hong Kong society following the turbulence of 2019.

He is giving a voice, he says, to what he calls “the silent majority” of Hongkongers who do not support independence from China, nor the disruption created by the protests.

But other Hongkongers consider rallies and demonstrations a longstanding tradition, and one of the only ways to voice public opinion in a city that now does not have a fully democratically elected leadership.

“We are no longer a city of protests,” says Kenneth Chan, who specialises in Eastern European politics. “So what are we? I don’t have the answer yet.”

And patriotism isn’t inherently a negative thing, he says.

It is “a value, maybe even a virtue”, he argues, although it needs to allow citizens to keep “a critical distance” – something that is not happening in Hong Kong.

Electoral reform was pushed through in 2021 – stating that only “patriots” who “swore loyalty to the Chinese Communist Party” could hold important positions in government or the Legislative Council [LegCo] – Hong Kong’s parliament.

As a result, the council struggles to function, believes Hong Kong-based China commentator Lew Mon-hung, a former member of the Chinese government advisory body, the CPPCC.

“The public think a lot of these patriots are ‘verbal revolutionaries’ or political opportunists – they don’t really represent the people,” he says.

“That’s why ridiculous policies still pass with a huge majority. There is no-one to constrain or oppose, no-one to scrutinise.”

Even patriot Innes Tang says he wants to see the current system challenged.

“I don’t want to see every policy passing with 90% of the vote,” he tells the BBC.

There is a danger the National Security Law will be weaponised, he says, with people saying: “If you don’t agree with me, I accuse you of infringement of the national security law.”

“I don’t agree with this type of stuff,” says Mr Tang.

Hong Kong’s government said: “The improved LegCo is now rid of extremists who wish to obstruct and even paralyse the operation of the government without any intention of entering into constructive dialogue to represent the interests of all Hong Kong people.”

For now, says Mr Tang, he has stopped reporting on people. Balance and stability, he believes, has returned to Hong Kong.

The number of large-scale protests has dwindled to none at all.

In academia, fear of surveillance – and how life might change for someone who infringes the laws – means self-censorship and censorship have become the “order of the day”, says Kenneth Chan.

Pro-democracy parties are no longer represented in the Legislative Council and many have disbanded – including the Democratic Party of Hong Kong, once the most powerful party.

Innes Tang has now set his sights overseas.

“There aren’t any particular issues in Hong Kong now, so I asked myself – shouldn’t I have a look at how I can continue to serve my community and my country?” he says.

“For a non-politician and civilian like me, this is an invaluable opportunity.”

He now works as a representative for one of several pro-Beijing non-profit groups, regularly visiting the UN in Geneva to speak at conventions giving China’s perspective on Hong Kong, human rights and other issues.

Mr Tang is also in the process of establishing a media company in Switzerland, and registering as a member of the press.

For Kenneth Chan in Hong Kong, his future hangs in the balance.

“One third of my friends and students are now in exile, another third of my friends and students are in jail, and I’m sort of… in limbo,” he says.

“Today I’m speaking freely with you… no-one would promise me that I would continue doing it for the rest of my life.”

In a written reply to the BBC, a Hong Kong government spokesperson said that national security is a top priority and inherent right for any country. It “only targets an extremely small minority of people and organisations that pose a threat to national security, while protecting the lives and property of the general public”.

A plane aborted take-off on a Gatwick runway after its co-pilot muddled up his left and right hands, investigators have found.

The Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB) said the error resulted in the aircraft’s brakes catching fire.

The 28 June incident – involving a British Airways flight to Vancouver, Canada – led to a 50-minute runway closure and 23 cancelled departures at the West Sussex airport.

A British Airways spokesperson said: “Safety is always our highest priority and our pilots brought the aircraft to a safe stop.”

Gatwick Airport has been contacted for comment.

A 13-person crew and 334 passengers were on board during the incident, according to the AAIB report.

Investigators said the co-pilot “unintentionally” moved a lever to his left when he was supposed to move a lever to his right instead.

This reduced the Boeing 777 aircraft’s thrust at a time when the aircraft’s commander called for the plane to start pulling up, they said.

According to the investigation’s findings, the co-pilot “momentarily” sped up again before abandoning take-off.

The plane “stopped some distance before the end of the runway” but airport firefighting crews were called to put out a fire on the right-hand landing gear.

There were no reported injuries.

The AAIB said British Airways analysis of the event showed the morning was otherwise “unremarkable” and there were no obvious distractions or workload problems prior to the fire.

The co-pilot, who had over 6,100 hours of flying experience, “expressed surprise” over the mistake and “could not identify a reason for it”, according to the report.

He last flew two weeks before the incident.

British Airways had issued a safety notice reminding pilots to “pause before execution and cognitively consider what the required action is” four days before the incident, the AAIB said.

The agency added that the airline had “included ‘mis-selections’ in a new ‘safety topic’ section of its pre-flight briefing material for crew” and was promoting focus during regular simulator training for pilots.

A fleet of Russian oil tankers which have been used to avoid existing sanctions on oil and gas exports are set to be hit with new restrictions.

Downing Street has said action will be taken against up to 100 vessels which have carried more than £18 billion worth of cargo since the start of 2024.

Sir Keir Starmer is due to make the announcement at a summit of north European leaders known as the Joint Expeditionary Force (JEF) in Oslo, Norway.

The PM has vowed the UK will do everything in its power to “destroy” Russian President Vladimir Putin’s “shadow fleet operation, starve his war machine of oil revenues and protect the subsea infrastructure”.

Following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, many western countries imposed sanctions on Russian energy, by limiting imports and capping the price of its oil.

To get round these penalties, Moscow built up what has been referred to as a “shadow fleet” of tankers whose ownership and movements could be obscured.

Downing Street has accused the operation of “bankrolling the Kremlin’s illegal war in Ukraine”.

The government has referred to the ships as being “decrepit and dangerous” as well as being responsible for “reckless seafaring”. It follows reports of damage to a major undersea cable in the Baltic Sea.

Under the measures, the sanctioned tankers will be banned from British ports and risk being detained in UK waters.

Starmer said every step that increases pressure on Moscow and works towards peace for Ukraine “is another step towards security and prosperity in the UK”.

The JEF consists of ten nations including Denmark, Norway and the Netherlands.

Members of the JEF are also expected to announce further support for Ukraine’s war efforts.

The UK previously imposed sanctions against 133 “shadow” vessels during a meeting of the JEF in December 2024.

Get our flagship newsletter with all the headlines you need to start the day. Sign up here.

After the sorrow of death, the joy of a new beginning.

The warm May sun was still high in the sky when a roar echoed out in the streets surrounding St Peter’s Square.

One street over, startled people looked at each other, then at their phones. Then, they began to run down the narrow alleyways leading to the Vatican. “White smoke, they’re saying white smoke!”, they called out.

By the time they reached the square, a white haze was still hovering over the left hand side of the Apostolic Palace where 133 cardinals had been locked away since the day before, voting to elect the new head of the Catholic Church.

As the evening sunshine streamed through the statues of the apostles on the ledge of St Peter’s Basilica and bells tolled joyously over the square, young and older people zig-zagged through the crowd, and a group of nuns held hands as they swerved journalists and cameras.

• LIVE UPDATES: Robert Prevost becomes first American pope
• Pope Leo’s first public address from the Vatican balcony – watch in full
• Who is the new pope, Robert Prevost?

It was less than three weeks ago that Pope Francis blessed the crowds from the balcony at St Peter’s, and his memory hung over the square on Thursday; almost everyone asked to share their impressions mentioned Francis and the need for the new Pope to follow in his footsteps.

“We just arrived today from America,” one woman named Amanda told the BBC. “It feels like a blessing. We came here for this and here it is.”

“Divine timing!” she joked. Two stylish women in their 20s said they were “about to cry”. “It’s a historic moment, it’s crazy,” one said, adding she hoped the next Pope would be “at least as good as the last one”.

This was a sentiment echoed by many in those last minutes before Pope Leo XIV was announced.

“It doesn’t matter to us where he’s from as long as he follows in on Francis’ footsteps and creates unity for all of us Catholics,” said a French woman as she herded her five children to get closer to the front of the square.

By the time Dominique Mamberti – the proto-deacon tasked with delivering the iconic “Habemus Papam” address to the square – appeared on the balcony, St Peter’s was full to the brim. It fell silent, though, once Robert Francis Prevost’s name was read out.

Those in the know may have identified the Chicago-born 69-year-old cardinal – who worked for many years as a missionary in Peru before being made a bishop there – as a potential pontiff early on.

But many people in the square looked puzzled at first, and the complete lack of phone coverage meant that most couldn’t look him up on the internet – so the first impression most got of Pope Leo XIV came down to the way he introduced himself from the ornate balcony.

Visibly moved at first, and dressed in white and red vestments and speaking in confident – if lightly accented – Italian, he read out a much lengthier speech than the remarks made by his predecessor Francis in 2013.

“I would like this greeting of peace to reach all your hearts and families… and people around the world. May peace be with you,” the new Pope began as the square fell silent.

At other moments, his address was met with frequent warm applause, especially when he mentioned “peace” – which he did on nine occasions – and the late Francis.

A section of the speech delivered in Spanish in which Pope Leo XIV remembered his time in Peru was met with cheers from various pockets of South Americans dotted across the square.

He also insisted on the need for unity, and at the end asked everyone to join together in prayer. When he began reciting Ave Maria, a deep hum rose as the square followed suit, with some praying in their own languages.

The crowd began to slowly amble out of the square shortly after. As people streamed past them, a young couple held each other close, beaming. “I still have goosebumps,” said Carla, from Barcelona.

“The energy is contagious, it’s amazing – it’s our first time here, and for me it’s 100% surreal,” said Juan, who is from Ecuador and had never been to the Vatican before. Asked what his hope for Pope Leo XIV was, he said: “That the Holy Spirit guides him. I hope that means we can all be united together going forward.”

Gemma, a Rome resident, said she hadn’t even heard the name Robert Prevost until she came across it on Instagram this morning. “The reaction of the square wasn’t that warm,” her friend Marco added.

“If he’d been Italian everyone would have kicked off.” “But it was a beautiful evening, a beautiful occasion,” said Gemma. “It was my first conclave. And this new Pope is only 69, so who knows when the next one will be?”

The square emptied. The restaurants around the Vatican filled up with pilgrims, clergy, and tourists. Couples snapped the last selfies outside the basilica.

Over in the Apostolic Palace – now unsealed – Robert Prevost held a moment of private prayer.

Then, for the first time, he re-entered the Sistine Chapel as Leo XIV, the 267th Pope.

Even before his name was announced from the balcony of St Peter’s Basilica, the crowds below were chanting “Viva il Papa” – Long live the Pope.

Robert Francis Prevost, 69, will be the 267th occupant of the throne of St Peter and he will be known as Leo XIV.

He is the first American to fill the role of pope, although he is considered as much a cardinal from Latin America because of the many years he spent as a missionary in Peru.

Born in Chicago in 1955 to parents of Spanish and Franco-Italian descent, Prevost served as an altar boy and was ordained in 1982.

Although he moved to Peru three years later, he returned regularly to the US to serve as a pastor and a prior in his home city.

He has Peruvian nationality and is fondly remembered as a figure who worked with marginalised communities and helped build bridges.

He spent 10 years as a local parish pastor and as a teacher at a seminary in Trujillo in north-western Peru.

• LIVE UPDATES: The first American elected pontiff
• Pope Leo XIV’s first speech in full
• Pope Leo’s first public address from the Vatican balcony – watch in full
• US President Donald Trump calls election of first American pope a ‘great honour’

In his first words as pope, Leo XIV spoke fondly of his predecessor Francis.

“We still hear in our ears the weak but always courageous voice of Pope Francis who blessed us,” he said.

“United and hand in hand with God, let us advance together,” he told cheering crowds.

The Pope also spoke of his role in the Augustinian Order.

In 2014, Francis made him Bishop of Chiclayo in Peru.

He is well known to cardinals because of his high-profile role as prefect of the Dicastery for Bishops in Latin America which has the important task of selecting and supervising bishops.

He became archbishop in January 2023 and within a few months Francis made him a cardinal.

Early attention will focus on Leo XIV’s pronouncements to see whether he will continue his predecessor’s reforms in the Roman Catholic Church.

Prevost is believed to have shared Francis’ views on migrants, the poor and the environment.

A former roommate of his, Reverend John Lydon, described Prevost to the BBC as “outgoing”, “down to earth” and “very concerned with the poor”.

On his personal background, Prevost told Italian network Rai before his election that he grew up in a family of immigrants.

“I was born in the United States… But my grandparents were all immigrants, French, Spanish… I was raised in a very Catholic family, both of my parents were very engaged in the parish,” he said.

Although Prevost was born in the US, the Vatican described him as the second pope from the Americas (Francis was from Argentina).

During his time in Peru, he was unable to escape the sexual abuse scandals that have clouded the Church, even though his diocese has fervently denied he has been involved in any attempted cover-up.

In choosing the name Leo, Prevost has signified a commitment to dynamic social issues, according to experts.

The first pontiff to use the name Leo, whose papacy ended in 461, met Attila the Hun and persuaded him not to attack Rome. The last Pope Leo led the Church from 1878 to 1903 and wrote an influential treatise on workers’ rights.

Former Archbishop of Boston Seán Patrick O’Malley wrote on his blog that the new pontiff “has chosen a name widely associated with the social justice legacy of Pope Leo XIII, who was pontiff at a time of epic upheaval in the world, the time of the industrial revolution, the beginning of Marxism, and widespread immigration”.

The new Pope’s LGBT views are unclear, but some groups, including the conservative College of Cardinals, believe he may be less supportive than Francis.

Leo XIV has shown support for a declaration from Francis to permit blessings for same-sex couples and others in “irregular situations”, although he has added that bishops must interpret such directives in accordance with local contexts and cultures.

Speaking last year about climate change, Cardinal Prevost said that it was time to move “from words to action”.

He called on mankind to build a “relationship of reciprocity” with the environment.

And he has spoken about concrete measures at the Vatican, including the installation of solar panels and the adoption of electric vehicles.

Pope Leo XIV has supported Pope Francis’ decision to allow women to join the Dicastery for Bishops for the first time.

“On several occasions we have seen that their point of view is an enrichment,” he told Vatican News in 2023.

In 2024, he told the Catholic News Service that women’s presence “contributes significantly to the process of discernment in looking for who we hope are the best candidates to serve the Church in episcopal ministry”.

Halfway through Leo XIV’s first speech as pope, which he delivered in Italian, he stopped and asked if he might say a few words in Spanish.

Smiling, he continued: “A greeting to all and in particular to my dear Diocese of Chiclayo, in Peru.”

The first American pope is a citizen of Peru and has spent much of his life there, travelling between the two countries for decades until 2014, when Pope Francis appointed him bishop of the Chiclayo Diocese in the country’s north.

On Thursday, Peruvians rejoiced at the appointment of one of their own to the highest position in the Catholic Church.

Standing near Lima’s cathedral shortly after bells rang out in celebration of the appointment, elementary school teacher Isabel Panez said: “For us Peruvians, it is a source of pride that this is a pope who represents our country.”

Prevost would often say that he had “come from Chicago to Chiclayo – the only difference is a few letters,” Diana Celis, who attended several Masses officiated by the then Bishop Robert Prevost, told the Associated Press news agency.

He reportedly referred to Peru, where around three quarters of people are Catholic, as “mi segunda patria” – my second homeland.

Peru’s president, Dina Boluarte, described Pope Leo as Peruvian “by choice and conviction”.

“The pope is Peruvian; God loves Peru,” she said.

• Follow our live updates
• Pope Leo XIV marks new beginning for Catholic Church
• Continuity the key for Pope seen as unifier in the Church
• Who is the new pope, Robert Prevost?

Born in Chicago in 1955, he is the son of Louis Marius Prevost, of French and Italian descent, and Mildred Martinez, of Spanish descent.

After completing studies in theology in Chicago and in canon law in Rome, the Catholic Church sent him to Peru for the first time.

He arrived at the Augustinian mission in Chulucanas, in the Peruvian department of Piura, in 1985, aged 30, and the following year, joined the mission in Trujillo. For almost three decades, he worked between the US and Peru.

Then, in 2014, Pope Francis appointed Prevost bishop of Chiclayo, a position he assumed the following year, after becoming a Peruvian citizen.

Jose Luis Perez Guadalupe, who was the minister responsible for signing Prevost’s naturalisation, told BBC Mundo that he was “a very attentive and very thoughtful man, who listened more than he spoke.”

These were his first encounters with a country that would come to shape his life.

Janinna Sesa, who met Prevost while she worked for the church’s Caritas nonprofit, told the Associated Press during torrential rains in 2022 he waded through mud to help people in Chiclayo and nearby villages.

He also delivered food and blankets to remote Andean villages, driving a white pickup truck and sleeping on a thin mattress on the floor. There, Sesa said, Prevost ate whatever was offered to him, including the peasant diet consisting of potatoes, cheese and sweet corn.

But, if the opportunity came up, he would enjoy carne asada – one of his favorite dishes – accompanied by a glass of Coca-Cola.

He also had an interest in cars. “He has no problem fixing a broken-down truck until it runs,” Sesa said.

Prevost was the driving force for the purchase of two oxygen-production plants during the coronavirus pandemic, which killed more than 217,000 people across Peru.

“He worked so hard to find help, that there was not only enough for one plant, but for two oxygen plants,” Sesa said.

Edinson Farfán, the Peruvian Bishop of Chiclayo since 2024, said Pope Leo would continue Pope Francis’s legacy of working with the poor and advocating for “a Church with open doors”. He was “very close to Pope Francis”, he said.

“He was undoubtedly deeply influenced by this particular Church of Chiclayo. Chiclayo is a city that greatly values the simple faith of its people. He has a special affection for the diocese.”

“It’s his beloved diocese, it’s his life. He learned here everything he can share and will share with the entire world.”

But not all in the country are proud of his record.

Serious accusations have been made about his handling of sexual abuse cases during his time as Bishop of Chiclayo.

In 2023, three Peruvian women went public with claims that as bishop he failed to investigate their reports of having been abused as teenagers by two priests in Chiclayo, dating back to 2007. They said that when they raised their allegations with the diocese in 2022, no proper inquiry was opened.

Church officials in Chiclayo said that action was taken and the accused priests were put on precautionary suspension, and that the case was referred to the Vatican’s Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, which handles serious abuse cases.

The diocese said it was Rome’s decision to shelve the case without a full canonical trial and that it conducted a preliminary investigation.

These allegations about his leadership are one of the challenges he will face as he now heads the Church worldwide.

Perez Guadalupe said that while Prevost primarily remained focused on church matters in Peru, he was “very attentive to the reality” of the country.

In 2023, when violent anti-government protests following the ousting of then-president Pedro Castillo left 49 dead, Prevost told Peruvian media he felt “much sorrow and much pain”.

That year, Pope Francis called Prevost to Rome to serve as the prefect of the Dicastery for Bishops, the powerful head of the office that vets bishop nominations from around the world and one of the most important jobs in the Catholic Church. He was also appointed president of the Pontifical Commission for Latin America.

Prevost said that he had asked Pope Francis to allow him to remain in Peru longer.

As he heard Prevost was the new pope, Thomas Nicolini, a Peruvian who studies economics in Rome, went to St Peter’s Square.

He told the AP that Chiclayo is, “A beautiful area, but one of the regions that needs lots of hope.”

“So, now I’m expecting that the new pope helps as many people as possible, and tries to reignite, let’s say, the faith young people have lost.”

US President Donald Trump has called the election of the first American pope a “great honour” for the country and said he looks forward to meeting him.

Trump is among the many American political figures applauding the historic appointment of Robert Francis Prevost, who will be known as Pope Leo XIV, to lead the Catholic Church.

“To have the Pope from America is a great honour,” Trump said when asked for reaction to the news.

Pope Leo, 69, was born in Chicago and attended university outside Philadelphia, before becoming a missionary in Peru.

The US has the fourth largest number of Catholics in the world, and congratulations started pouring in soon after the first American pope’s name was announced.

Vice-President JD Vance, who converted to Catholicism in 2019, praised the pope’s election.

“I’m sure millions of American Catholics and other Christians will pray for his successful work leading the Church,” Vance wrote on X.

Former President Joe Biden, a devout Catholic who has spoken about his warm relationship with Pope Francis, also offered his congratulations.

“Habemus papam – May God bless Pope Leo XIV of Illinois,” Biden, the second Catholic president in US history, wrote on social media.

Former President Barack Obama, who launched his political career in Chicago, wrote on X: “Michelle and I send our congratulations to a fellow Chicagoan, His Holiness Pope Leo XIV.”

“This is a historic day for the United States, and we will pray for him as he begins the sacred work of leading the Catholic Church and setting an example for so many, regardless of faith.”

Former President George Bush issued a statement, saying that he and his wife Laura were “delighted” by the news.

“This an historic and hopeful moment for Catholics in America and for the faithful around the world,” he said.

“We join those praying for the success of Pope Leo XIV as he prepares to lead the Catholic church, serve the neediest, and share God’s love.”

Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson also congratulated the new pope and wrote on social media: “May God bless the first American papacy in these historic days.”

Secretary of State Marco Rubio, a Catholic, also extended his congratulations.

“This is a moment of profound significance for the Catholic Church, offering renewed hope and continuity amid the 2025 Jubilee Year to over a billion faithful worldwide,” Rubio said.

“The United States looks forward to deepening our enduring relationship with the Holy See with the first American pontiff.”

As cardinal, it appears Prevost did not shy away from occasionally challenging the views of the Trump administration.

An account under his name reposted a post on social media platform X which was critical of the Trump administration’s deportation of a US resident to El Salvador, and shared a critical comment piece written about a TV interview given by Vance to Fox News.

“JD Vance is wrong: Jesus doesn’t ask us to rank our love for others,” read the post, repeating the headline from the commentary on the National Catholic Reporter website.

The BBC has contacted the Vatican but has not independently confirmed the account, which was created in 2011, belongs to the new pontiff.

• Who is Robert Prevost, the new Pope?
• Watch Pope Leo XIV being unveiled as new pontiff
• Pope Leo’s first public address from the Vatican balcony – watch in full

Meanwhile, in Prevost’s hometown, Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson offered a note of congratulations.

“Everything dope, including the Pope, comes from Chicago! Congratulations to the first American Pope Leo XIV! We hope to welcome you back home soon,” he wrote.

Illinois Governor JB Pritzker called the moment “historic”.

“Hailing from Chicago, Pope Leo XIV ushers in a new chapter that I join those in our state welcoming in at a time when we need compassion, unity, and peace,” he wrote on social media.

The church where Pope Leo XIV attended mass as a child and served as an altar boy is now an empty shell.

Only the stained glass windows remain intact inside the sturdy facade of St Mary’s of the Assumption on the far edge of Chicago’s South Side.

The disrepair is one indication of how the Catholic Church’s power and influence has been ebbing away in America’s big cities.

And yet, around this city there’s palpable excitement, particularly among Catholics, that the new pontiff is not only American – he’s a South Side Chicagoan.

“When they said the new Pope was an American, I flipped out, I said ‘no way’!” said Mary Simons, a French teacher and nearby resident who brought her mother to see St Mary’s.

“The Church seems like it’s getting smaller and smaller in this country,” said Ms Simons. “I’m hoping that this will rejuvenate the church and make it bigger and better.”

A small trickle of Catholics, along with a few non-Catholics, made their way to St Mary’s on Thursday afternoon as the news spread that Pope Leo XIV – until recently, Cardinal Robert Prevost – had been elected by his fellow cardinals in Rome.

While some lamented over the poor state of the neighbourhood church – “It’s shocking to see this” remarked one visitor – several were close to tears as they considered the humble roots of their new leader.

Natalie Payne attended the church and the school associated with it. She hadn’t heard the news but just happened to be driving by when she saw the small crowd outside and stopped to take in the moment.

“We loved this school. It was a very family oriented place and very accepting of difference,” she said. “I was one of the very few black people who attended this school, but I always felt part of the community. It was just a beautiful place.”

Catholics make up about 20% of the US population, according to Pew Research, a number that dropped from 24% at the start of the century. Attendance has fallen and the decline is noticeable in the big industrial cities of the Midwest, in closed schools and shuttered houses of worship like St Mary’s.

Leo XIV grew up in a modest home just a few streets away from here. The Chicago Sun-Times reported his parents – his father was a school administrator and his mother a librarian – bought their home in 1949, paying a mortgage of $42 a month.

His father was of French and Italian decent and his mother had Spanish heritage, according to a Vatican news release.

• Who is Robert Prevost, the new Pope?
• Watch Pope Leo XIV being unveiled as new pontiff
• Pope Leo’s first public address from the Vatican balcony – watch in full
• US President Donald Trump calls election of first American pope a ‘great honour’

Charleen Burnette, one of the Pope’s former classmates, told the BBC she remembers him as a “quiet, kind, gentle, wicked-smart kid”.

“He was always the top of our class, all the time,” she said, recalling how he always knew he wanted to be a priest and would stay late to sweep and dust St Mary’s as a boy.

“He vocalised it. He lived it. He exemplified it,” she said.

In recent years, the Catholic Church has not only weathered declining attendance but also child abuse scandals that continue to resonate today.

The Midwest Augustinians, a religious order in Chicago which Pope Leo once led, only published a list of priests credibly accused of sexual abuse in 2024, after years of public pressure.

As a cardinal, Prevost was criticised after being accused of allowing a priest facing sex abuse allegations to live in an Augustinian building near an elementary school. The priest was later moved and the religious order says it has tried to be transparent.

There is a common feeling here that the church has not fully reckoned with the past but despite that, many Catholics here expressed hope for the new Pope’s reign.

Outside Holy Name Cathedral, the centre of the Catholic Church in downtown Chicago, workers were hanging bunting to prepare for a special mass on Friday morning.

Father Gregory Sakowicz, rector of Holy Name, said he was just about to preside over mass at the cathedral when the news broke.

“When I saw the white smoke on TV, I looked out the window and the sun came out here in Chicago,” he said.

“Later, during holy communion someone told me, ‘Father, the new Pope is Father Robert Prevost from Chicago.’ I was shocked.”

Fr Sakowicz said Pope Leo XIV “will be his own man” but added that he was confident that he would follow in the footsteps of his predecessor and be “a voice for human rights, a voice for the voiceless, concerned with the poor, and concerned for our mother Earth”.

And in this sport-mad city, there’s one question that might nearly match the importance of the new Pope’s theological direction – which of the city’s baseball teams does he root for?

Although there were some reports that he backs the Chicago Cubs, in interviews the new pope’s brother has said he cheers for the White Sox – the team with a passionate South Side fan base. Both teams on X, however, have claimed the new Pope’s support.

“Go White Sox – and go Cubs,” said Fr Sakowicz. “There’s just a lot of enthusiasm and joy around here.

“He might be from Chicago, but he will be a pope for the whole world, not just Chicago, not just the US, not just North America – but the entire world.”

Two weeks after a deadly militant attack on tourists in Indian-administered Kashmir, India has launched a series of strikes on sites in Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir.

The Indian defence ministry said the strikes – named “Operation Sindoor” – were part of a “commitment” to hold “accountable” those responsible for the 22 April attack in Pahalgam, Indian-administered Kashmir, which left 25 Indians and one Nepali national dead.

But Pakistan, which has denied any involvement in that attack, described the strikes as “unprovoked”, with Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif saying the “heinous act of aggression will not go unpunished”.

Sharif on Wednesday said the Pahalgam attack “wasn’t related” to Pakistan, and that his country was “accused for the wrong” reasons.

• Follow the latest updates
• Why India and Pakistan fight over Kashmir
• BBC reports from Muzaffarabad in Pakistan-administered Kashmir

Pakistan’s military said at least 31 people were killed and 57 injured in the strikes on Tuesday night. India’s army said at least 15 civilians were killed and 43 injured by Pakistani shelling on its side of the de facto border.

Pakistan’s military says it shot down five Indian aircraft and a drone. India has yet to respond to these claims.

Late on Wednesday, Sharif said the air force made its defence – which was a “reply from our side to them”.

Delhi said in the early hours of Wednesday morning that nine different locations had been targeted in both Pakistan-administered Kashmir and Pakistan.

It said these sites were “terrorist infrastructure” – places where attacks were “planned and directed”.

It emphasised that it had not hit any Pakistani military facilities, saying its “actions have been focused, measured and non-escalatory in nature”.

In the initial aftermath of the attacks, Pakistan said three different areas were hit: Muzaffarabad and Kotli in Pakistan-administered Kashmir, and Bahawalpur in the Pakistani province of Punjab. Pakistan’s military spokesperson, Lt Gen Ahmed Sharif, later said six locations had been hit.

Pakistan’s Defence Minister Khawaja Asif told GeoTV in the early hours of Wednesday that the strikes hit civilian areas, adding that India’s claim of “targeting terrorist camps” was false.

The strikes come after weeks of rising tension between the nuclear-armed neighbours over the shootings in the picturesque resort town of Pahalgam.

The 22 April attack by a group of militants saw 26 people killed, with survivors saying the militants were singling out Hindu men.

It was the worst attack on civilians in the region in two decades, and the first major attack on civilians since India revoked Article 370, which gave Kashmir semi-autonomous status, in 2019.

Following the decision, the region saw protests but also witnessed militancy wane and a huge increase in the number of tourists.

The killings have sparked widespread anger in India, with Prime Minister Narendra Modi saying the country would hunt the suspects “till the ends of the Earth” and that those who planned and carried it out “will be punished beyond their imagination”.

However, India initially did not name any group it believed was behind the attack in Pahalgam.

But Indian police alleged that two of the attackers were Pakistani nationals, with Delhi accusing Pakistan of supporting militants – a charge Islamabad denies. It says it has nothing to do with the 22 April attacks.

On 7 May, Indian Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri said Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba militant group carried out the attack.

In the two weeks since, both sides had taken tit-for-tat measures against each other – including expelling diplomats, suspending visas and closing border crossings.

But many expected it would escalate to some sort of cross-border strike – as seen after the Pulwama attacks which left 40 Indian paramilitary personnel dead in 2019.

Kashmir is claimed in full by India and Pakistan, but administered only in part by each since they were partitioned following independence from Britain in 1947.

The countries have fought two wars over it.

But more recently, it has been attacks by militants which have brought the two countries to the brink. Indian-administered Kashmir has seen an armed insurgency against Indian rule since 1989, with militants targeting security forces and civilians alike.

In 2016, after 19 Indian soldiers were killed in Uri, India launched “surgical strikes” across the Line of Control – the de facto border between India and Pakistan – targeting militant bases.

In 2019, the Pulwama bombing, which left 40 Indian paramilitary personnel dead, prompted airstrikes deep into Balakot – the first such action inside Pakistan since 1971 – sparking retaliatory raids and an aerial dogfight.

Neither spiralled, but the wider world remains alert to the danger of what could happen if it did. Attempts have been made by various nations and diplomats around the world to prevent this.

UN Secretary-General António Guterres quickly called for “maximum restraint” – a sentiment echoed by the European Union and numerous countries, including Bangladesh.

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer urged “dialogue” and “de-escalation”.

US President Donald Trump – who was one of the first to respond – told reporters at the White House that he hoped the fighting “ends very quickly”. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, meanwhile, said he was keeping a close eye on developments.

In a dramatic overnight operation, India said it launched missile and air strikes on nine sites across Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir, targeting what it called militant positions based on “credible intelligence”.

The strikes, lasting just 25 minutes between 01:05 and 01:30 India time (19:35 and 20:00 GMT on Tuesday), sent shockwaves through the region, with residents jolted awake by thunderous explosions.

Pakistan said only six locations were hit and claimed to have shot down five Indian fighter jets and a drone – a claim India has not confirmed.

Islamabad said 26 people were killed and 46 injured in Indian air strikes and shelling across the Line of Control (LoC) – the de facto border between India and Pakistan. Meanwhile, India’s army reported that 10 civilians were killed by Pakistani shelling on its side of the de facto border.

• Follow the latest updates
• What we know about the air strikes

This sharp escalation comes after last month’s deadly militant attack on tourists in Pahalgam in Indian-administered Kashmir, pushing tensions between the nuclear-armed rivals to dangerous new heights. India says it has clear evidence linking Pakistan-based terrorists and external actors to the attack – a claim Pakistan flatly denies. Islamabad has also pointed out that India has not offered any evidence to support its claim.

In 2016, after 19 Indian soldiers were killed in Uri, India launched “surgical strikes” across the LoC.

In 2019, the Pulwama bombing, which left 40 Indian paramilitary personnel dead, prompted airstrikes deep into Balakot – the first such action inside Pakistan since 1971 – sparking retaliatory raids and an aerial dogfight.

Experts say the retaliation for the Pahalgam attack stands out for its broader scope, targeting the infrastructure of three major Pakistan-based militant groups simultaneously.

India says it struck nine militant targets across Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir, hitting deep into key hubs of Lashkar-e- Taiba (LeT), Jaish-e-Mohammed, and Hizbul Mujahideen.

Among the closest targets were two camps in Sialkot, just 6-18km from the border, according to an Indian spokesperson.

The deepest hit, says India, was a Jaish-e-Mohammed headquarters in Bahawalpur, 100km inside Pakistan. A LeT camp in Muzaffarabad, 30km from the LoC and capital of Pakistan-administered Kashmir, was linked to recent attacks in Indian-administered Kashmir, the spokesperson said.

Pakistan says six locations have been hit, but denies allegations of there being terror camps.

“What’s striking this time is the expansion of India’s targets beyond past patterns. Previously, strikes like Balakot focused on Pakistan-administered Kashmir across the Line of Control – a militarised boundary,” Srinath Raghavan, a Delhi-based historian, told the BBC.

“This time, India has hit into Pakistan’s Punjab, across the International Border, targeting terrorist infrastructure, headquarters, and known locations in Bahawalpur and Muridke linked to Lashkar-e-Taiba. They’ve also struck Jaish-e-Mohammed and Hizbul Mujahideen assets. This suggests a broader, more geographically expansive response, signalling that multiple groups are now in India’s crosshairs – and sending a wider message,” he says.

The India-Pakistan International Border is the officially recognised boundary separating the two countries, stretching from Gujarat to Jammu.

Ajay Bisaria, a former Indian high commissioner to Pakistan, told the BBC that what India did was a “Balakot plus response meant to establish deterrence, targeting known terrorist hubs, but accompanied by a strong de-escalatory message”.

“These strikes were more precise, targeted and more visible than in the past. Therefore, [they are] less deniable by Pakistan,” Mr Bisaria says.

Indian sources say the strikes were aimed at “re-establishing deterrence”.

“The Indian government thinks that the deterrence established in 2019 has worn thin and needs to be re-established,” says Prof Raghavan.

“This seems to mirror Israel’s doctrine that deterrence requires periodic, repeated strikes. But if we assume that hitting back alone will deter terrorism, we risk giving Pakistan every incentive to retaliate – and that can quickly spiral out of control.”

The majority of experts agree that a retaliation from Pakistan is inevitable – and diplomacy will come into play.

“Pakistan’s response is sure to come. The challenge would be to manage the next level of escalation. This is where crisis diplomacy will matter,” says Mr Bisaria.

“Pakistan will be getting advice to exercise restraint. But the key will be the diplomacy after the Pakistani response to ensure that both countries don’t rapidly climb the ladder of escalation.”

• India and Pakistan are in crisis again – here’s how they de-escalated in the past

Pakistan-based experts like Ejaz Hussain, a Lahore-based political and military analyst, say Indian surgical strikes targeting locations such as Muridke and Bahawalpur were “largely anticipated given the prevailing tensions”.

Dr Hussain believes retaliatory strikes are likely.

“Given the Pakistani military’s media rhetoric and stated resolve to settle the scores, retaliatory action, possibly in the form of surgical strikes across the border, appears likely in the coming days,” he told the BBC.

But Dr Hussain worries that surgical strikes on both sides could “escalate into a limited conventional war”.

Christopher Clary of the University at Albany in the US believes given the scale of India’s strikes, “visible damage at key sites”, and reported casualties, Pakistan is highly likely to retaliate.

“Doing otherwise essentially would give India permission to strike Pakistan whenever Delhi feels aggrieved and would run contrary to the Pakistan military’s commitment to retaliating with ‘quid pro quo plus’,” Mr Clary, who studies the politics of South Asia, told the BBC.

“Given India’s stated targets of groups and facilities associated with terrorism and militancy in India, I think it is likely – but far from certain – that Pakistan will confine itself to attacks on Indian military targets,” he said.

Despite the rising tensions, some experts still hold out hope for de-escalation.

“There is a decent chance we escape this crisis with just one round of reciprocal standoff strikes and a period of heightened firing along the Line of Control,” says Mr Clary.

However, the risk of further escalation remains high, making this the “most dangerous” India-Pakistan crisis since 2002 – and even more perilous than the 2016 and 2019 standoffs, he adds.

Experts in Pakistan note that despite a lack of war hysteria leading up to India’s strike, the situation could quickly shift.

“We have a deeply fractured political society, with the country’s most popular leader behind bars. Imran Khan’s imprisonment triggered a strong anti-military public backlash,” says Umer Farooq, an Islamabad-based analyst and a former correspondent of Jane’s Defence Weekly.

“Today, the Pakistani public is far less eager to support the military compared to 2016 or 2019 – the usual wave of war hysteria is noticeably absent. But if public opinion shifts in central Punjab where anti-India feelings are more prevalent, we could see increased civilian pressure on the military to take action. And the military will regain popularity because of this conflict.”

Dr Hussain echoes a similar sentiment.

“I believe the current standoff with India presents an opportunity for the Pakistani military to regain public support, particularly from the urban middle classes who have recently criticised it for perceived political interference,” he says.

“The military’s active defence posture is already being amplified through mainstream and social media, with some outlets claiming that six or seven Indian jets were shot down.

“Although these claims warrant independent verification, they serve to bolster the military’s image among segments of the public that conventionally rally around national defence narratives in times of external threat.”

India is once again walking a fine line between escalation and restraint.

Shortly after the attack in Pahalgam, India swiftly retaliated by closing the main border crossing, suspending a water-sharing treaty, expelling diplomats and halting most visas for Pakistani nationals. Troops on both sides have exchanged small-arms fire, and India barred all Pakistani aircraft from its airspace, mirroring Pakistan’s earlier move. In response, Pakistan suspended a 1972 peace treaty and took its own retaliatory measures.

This mirrors India’s actions after the 2019 Pulwama attack, when it swiftly revoked Pakistan’s most-favoured-nation status, imposed heavy tariffs and suspended key trade and transport links.

The crisis had escalated when India launched air strikes on Balakot, followed by retaliatory Pakistani air raids and the capture of Indian pilot Abhinandan Varthaman, further heightening tensions. However, diplomatic channels eventually led to a de-escalation, with Pakistan releasing the pilot in a goodwill gesture.

“India was willing to give old-fashioned diplomacy another chance…. This, with India having achieved a strategic and military objective and Pakistan having claimed a notion of victory for its domestic audience,” Mr Bisaria told me last week.

In the village of Salamabad in Indian-administered Kashmir on Wednesday morning, ruined homes were still smouldering.

This small settlement lies close to the Line of Control which separates Indian-administered and Pakistan-administered Kashmir, the scene of rapidly escalating tensions in recent weeks that led to strikes from India on sites in Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir on Tuesday night.

The streets of Salamabad were almost completely empty the next morning. Locals said the village was struck by Pakistani shelling.

Most of the residents had fled the bombardment, leaving chickens pecking in their cages in gardens.

Bashir Ahmad, a local shopkeeper who witnessed the destruction, told the BBC that around 02:00 local time (20:30 GMT), “while we were fast asleep, a loud explosion jolted us awake.

Mortar shells had landed near a water dam, and by 03:00 more shells struck several houses, setting them ablaze.

The government issued no warning or advisory about the cross-border shelling, and we have no safety bunkers to take shelter in.”

Salamabad is no stranger to this kind of shelling: until 2021, incidents of cross-border fire were reported regularly.

However, a ceasefire agreement signed between the militaries of both countries saw the number of attacks sharply decrease.

Life returned to normal for most, free of fear – that was, until Wednesday morning.

Uncertainty now hangs over the villages scattered along the Line of Control once more.

Mr Ahmad estimated that only a handful of Salamabad’s 100 or so residents had remained, the rest having left in search of safety from what he described as the most intense shelling in years.

In the village, two homes had been torn apart by mortars.

Through a hole in the wall of one house, some crockery had remained impossibly upright on a shelf – while everything else around lay shattered or burned.

The small homes were no match for the scale of the firepower they encountered overnight.

They had been entirely hollowed out by explosions and fire, their tin roofs buckled above them.

At a hospital 40km away, Badrudin said he was injured in the shelling, along with this eight-year-old son and sister-in-law.

He identified one of the destroyed houses in a picture as his.

He said: “We were all in deep sleep when… a mortar shell landed near our homes. The children were also asleep.

The shelling was intense, we somehow managed to flee.”

Badrudin said he had taken out a loan of ₹3 lakh ($3,540 ; £2,653) to build his home in Salamabad.

“Everything is gone now,” he said. “We’re too afraid to return.”

He continued: “Rebuilding the house will be incredibly difficult—we need the government to step in and help.

We want peace, not war.”

On Wednesday morning, dozens of people gathered on the perimeter of a sprawling complex in the Pakistani city of Muridke to see the damage for themselves.

Overnight, Indian missiles had pounded buildings at this site, which lies not far from the border with India in Pakistan’s Punjab region, and just a short drive from the major city of Lahore.

No one was being allowed into the complex – but even from a distance as BBC reporters peered through the barbed wire fence surrounding it, the damage was unmistakable.

The BBC spoke to people on the ground who witnessed the bombardment first-hand.

“It was the main mosque that got targeted,” one man said. “The sky lit up and it felt like the sky turned red.”

Another said: “A sudden missile appeared and there was a blast. I immediately got out the house.

“I had only reached the mosque near my house when there were three more consecutive blasts. I heard all three, they were really loud.”

When a BBC team arrived in Muridke, security service personnel were closely controlling access to the site.

From a road surrounded by dense housing, the BBC’s team could see a partially collapsed building and rubble spread over a huge area.

Emergency workers were still searching the wreckage for any injured or dead.

This complex houses a hospital, school and mosque, while India said it had hit sites linked to what it calls terror organisations – so why was it targeted? The answer appears to lie in its past.

Until a few years ago, it was originally used by Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), a Pakistan-based militant group which is designated as a terror organisation by the United Nations.

It was later used by Jamaat-ud-Dawa, which observers have described as a front group for LeT.

Both groups have been banned by the Pakistani government, which has since taken over the facilities in Muridke.

But on Tuesday night, this complex was in the crosshairs of an Indian military which has vowed to respond to the killing of tourists in Indian-administered Kashmir last month.

India’s government says its strikes in Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir targeted what it described as terrorist infrastructure. Pakistan’s government has denied any links to the Pahalgam attack.

One man told us the Muridke complex usually houses children from miles around who come to study at the madrasa, though it was largely evacuated a week ago.

Later in the day, camera crews were allowed to access the site and see the damage up close.

The roof of one building had crumpled under the force of an explosion.

Holes had been torn through the walls of another and a large amount of debris was scattered across the ground.

Across this region, people are hoping there is not more debris before long.

Nuclear-armed neighbours India and Pakistan have fought two wars and a limited conflict over Kashmir.

But why do they dispute the territory – and how did it start?

• What we know about India’s strike on Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir
• Indian air strikes – how will Pakistan respond? Four key questions
• LIVE: Tensions escalate as Pakistan vows response to Indian strikes after Pahalgam killings

Kashmir is an ethnically diverse Himalayan region famed for the beauty of its lakes, meadows and snow-capped mountains.

Even before India and Pakistan won their independence from Britain in August 1947, the area was hotly contested.

Under the partition plan provided by the Indian Independence Act, Muslim-majority Kashmir was free to accede to either India or Pakistan.

The maharaja (local ruler), Hari Singh, initially wanted Kashmir to become independent – but in October 1947 chose to join India, in return for its help against an invasion of tribesmen from Pakistan.

• Kashmir profile – Timeline

A war erupted and India asked the United Nations to intervene. The UN recommended holding a plebiscite to settle the question of whether the state would join India or Pakistan. However, the two countries could not agree to a deal to demilitarise the region before the referendum could be held.

In July 1949, India and Pakistan signed an agreement to establish a ceasefire line as recommended by the UN and the region became divided.

A second war followed in 1965. Then in 1999, India fought a brief but bitter conflict with Pakistani-backed forces.

By that time, India and Pakistan were declared nuclear powers. Today, Delhi and Islamabad both claim Kashmir in full, but control only parts of it.

Within Indian-administered Kashmir, opinions about the territory’s rightful allegiance are diverse and strongly held. Many do not want it to be governed by India, or prefer a return to the semi-autonomous status that they had until 2019. Some also want outright independence.

Religion is also an important factor: Indian-administered Kashmir is more than 60% Muslim, making it the only part of India where Muslims are in the majority.

An armed revolt has been waged against Indian rule in the region since 1989, claiming tens of thousands of lives.

India accuses Pakistan of backing militants in Kashmir – a charge its neighbour denies.

In 2019, Indian-administered Kashmir was stripped of its semi-autonomous status by the government in Delhi amid a huge security crackdown.

For several years after the revocation of the region’s special status, militancy waned and tourist visits soared.

In 2016, after 19 Indian soldiers were killed in Uri, India launched “surgical strikes” across the Line of Control – the de facto border between India and Pakistan – targeting alleged militant bases.

In 2019, the Pulwama bombing, which left more than 40 Indian paramilitary personnel dead, prompted Indian airstrikes deep into Balakot – the first such action inside Pakistan since 1971 – sparking retaliatory raids and an aerial dogfight.

Tensions rose again in April 2025 after years of relative calm when militants killed 26 people in an attack on tourists near the resort town of Pahalgam in Indian-administered Kashmir. It was the deadliest attack on civilians in two decades.

India responded two weeks later with missile strikes on targets in Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir, once again raising fears of further escalation and calls for restraint.

Kashmir remains one of the most militarised zones in the world.

India and Pakistan did agree a ceasefire in 2003.

In 2014, India’s current Prime Minister Narendra Modi came to power promising a tough line on Pakistan, but also showed interest in holding peace talks.

Nawaz Sharif, then prime minister of Pakistan, attended Modi’s swearing-in ceremony in Delhi.

But a year later, India blamed Pakistan-based groups for an attack on its airbase in Pathankot in the northern state of Punjab. Modi also cancelled a scheduled visit to the Pakistani capital, Islamabad, for a regional summit in 2017.

Since then, there hasn’t been any progress in talks between the neighbours.

For the past three years, when peers of Australia’s former Liberal Party leader Peter Dutton were grilled over his divisive persona, they’d often profess his celebrity status in the north.

“Peter is one of us… He’s very popular in Queensland,” said the leader of the Nationals, the Liberal’s coalition partner, earlier this year.

But on election night, it was Dutton’s home state that delivered Labor its election win, with the red landslide ousting the veteran MP from his own seat of Dickson.

While votes are still being counted, Labor could pick up as many electorates in Queensland as it did across every other state and territory combined.

And that’s thanks, in no small part, to a new bloc of young voters and women who are disillusioned with the Coalition, and attribute the party’s emphatic loss to the “Dutton effect”.

As 65-year-old coalition voter Sue, who didn’t share her last name, bluntly puts it: “This is where [Dutton’s] from… People know him and they don’t like him.”

The Moreton Bay region, about an hour north of Brisbane, is supposed to be Dutton heartland. Before Australia’s federal election on 3 May, all three seats here were Liberal-held – though only by small leads, with Dutton’s electorate of Dickson having the narrowest in the state.

Dutton’s family have deep roots here, with his dairy farming great-grandparents having settled in the area in the 1860s.

When he first entered parliament 24 years ago, the region was made up of urban pockets and industrial estates surrounded by swathes of semi-rural land. Not quite metropolitan or rural, is how the former police officer described it in his maiden speech as MP.

Now Brisbane is one of the fastest growing cities in Australia, and these outer northern suburbs are one of the main places it is squeezing people in. Residential development has exploded, and more families, priced out of locations closer to the city, have moved in to Moreton Bay.

Full of the “quiet Australians” Dutton said would deliver him the election, outer-suburban neighbourhoods like these were at the heart of the Coalition’s strategy.

The average household in Moreton Bay earns less than both the state and national average, with many of them relying on the health, trade and hospitality sectors for work. The Coalition hoped promises to cut fuel expenses, improve housing affordability and back small businesses would woo voters concerned about the cost of living.

Many Moreton Bay residents, like campaign volunteer Kenneth King, also felt Dutton’s links to the area would give them a boost.

“I’ve known Peter Dutton for a lot of years,” the Dickson local told the BBC on polling day. “He’s always been someone of high character, serious about effective policies and a lot of empathy for ordinary Australians.”

“He’s very well respected in the community… People know him.”

But there’s a difference between being well known and well liked, says Aleysha, a swing voter in the neighbouring electorate of Petrie, who declined to give her surname.

“I don’t know whether he appeals to the everyday person,” the 26-year-old nurse says. “He doesn’t put himself in the people’s shoes.”

Her vote over the years has gone to a range of parties from right across the political spectrum – except the Greens, she adds with a quick laugh.

“I don’t sit with any party. Being a Christian, it’s whatever party aligns closest to my values,” she says, adding that the future of her two young children is the other major consideration.

This election, that meant her vote went to Coalition incumbent Luke Howarth, who she knows personally from her church.

But while she’s praying for a miracle, with the final votes still being counted, she’s not surprised to find Howarth may be on his way out.

She says Labor ran very visible campaigns in the area, but tells the BBC that it was driving past the image of Howarth and his leader on billboards which stuck in her mind.

“Unfortunately I think that’s what did it,” she says.

“Peter Dutton’s face behind him was a huge turnoff – for me personally too.”

Sue, who lives in the same electorate and is generally a conservative voter, says this election she was torn at the ballot box.

“I had a huge hesitation over it,” she says. “I don’t like Albanese; I think he’s like, weak.

“[But] Dutton’s an unattractive personality… He thinks he’s presenting himself as strong, but he presents himself as a bit of a bully.”

“Way back when, he seemed like a really good local member, but as he climbed the ladder, I don’t know, something changed.”

Ultimately Sue also voted for Howarth – and she’s similarly convinced Dutton lost him the seat.

“I spoke to a few friends… some did change their votes because of Peter Dutton,” she says. “People, rightly or wrongly, aligned Dutton with Trump. And that’s very negative for just about any sane person.”

Many of the constituents the BBC spoke to stressed they did not want American style politics here.

Drew Cutler grew up in the seat of Longman, which shares borders with both Dickson and Petrie – and though he no longer lives in the area, the 28-year-old was so invested in the outcome he came back to campaign for Labor.

Won by Coalition MP Terry Young on a margin of 3% last election, it is now too close to call.

Mr Cutler, a former Labor party staffer, believes Labor ran very strong local campaigns. But he also thinks Dutton’s policy flip-flopping and the aura of instability that projected was potent.

That included announcing, and then walking back, public service job cuts and plans to end work-from-home arrangements, as well as a fluctuating stance on electric vehicle taxes.

Such optics were especially damaging, Mr Cutler argues, when contrasted with the image of strong, decisive leadership Dutton tries to convey.

“I almost think the Australian people would have respected him more if he stuck to it… and said, ‘This is what I’m putting forward – if you don’t like it, don’t vote for it’,” Mr Cutler tells the BBC.

Back in Dickson, Rick – a retiree and fresh Liberal Party member – said on election night that he also felt confusion played a role in the party’s defeat, particularly among young people.

“I think people couldn’t understand Dutton’s policies,” he said.

But 30-year-old April, who didn’t provide her last name, says it is Dutton who didn’t understand.

She can’t remember a time when he wasn’t in power in Dickson, and feels that over time he has lost touch with his own constituents and the country more broadly.

For her, the last straw was his instrumental role in the defeat of the Voice to Parliament referendum, which sought to recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in the constitution and simultaneously establish a parliamentary advisory body for them.

“I think he has caused a lot of harm to a lot of minority groups across the scale,” she says.

For others in the electorate though, the last straw was watching Dutton fly to a fundraiser in Sydney as the area in and around Dickson was hit by Cyclone Alfred in February.

April didn’t feel like Labor Party’s offering was strong either, especially on climate action, so she decided to campaign for Ellie Smith, the so-called ‘teal’ independent running in the seat.

Disappointment – borderline embarrassment – that Dutton was from her local area had crystallised into determination: “I felt like it was a duty in a way… our responsibility to get him out.”

Ultimately, the Coalition lost at least six seats to Labor in Queensland – all bar one in Brisbane. And while they are a few votes ahead in Longman as the count continues, they could still lose that too.

Queensland has long been a bit of a political wildcard, and often finds itself in the “spotlight” at federal elections, says Frank Mols.

The University of Queensland politics lecturer points out the state helped deliver Kevin Rudd’s historic election win in 2007 and Scott Morrison’s “miracle” victory in 2019. Last election, as a record number of people across the nation voted for candidates outside the two major parties, Queensland surprised the nation by giving the Greens three seats – up from none.

There are a couple of factors that make the state more “volatile” and likely to deliver upsets, Dr Mols says.

Firstly, it is the only state or territory, except for the island of Tasmania, where more than half of the population live outside the capital city of Brisbane.

“We talk about Queensland always being two elections, one in the south-east corner, and then the rest – and they often get very different patterns.”

There’s also more political fragmentation in the state, Dr Mols says, which combined with Australia’s preferential voting system can make political equations here tighter, and trends harder to predict.

But he – like many of the voters the BBC spoke to – largely puts last weekend’s surprise for the Coalition down to Dutton and his broadly-criticised campaign performance.

While there’s a tendency to attribute success or failure to policy issues, more often its really about voters’ emotional response to candidates and leaders, Dr Mols says.

“If you do the barbecue test, is Dutton a person you would walk up to? Is he somebody you would warm to or gravitate towards?

“You can wonder: was Peter Dutton, in hindsight, the Labor Party’s best asset?”

But Dutton may have had the opposite effect for the Greens Party, which has lost at least two of the three seats it gained in Brisbane in 2022. Their party leader, Adam Bandt, also appears to have been defeated in Melbourne, an electorate he’d held for 15 years.

“Perhaps in desperation, [Dutton] was gravitating towards culture war issues, sort of echoing Trumpian themes, if you like, and that has been punished,” Dr Mols says. “But also the Greens… who were perhaps seen as being at the other end of that shouting match, have not done well.”

Dr Mols also believes that desperation to keep Dutton out may have seen some former Greens voters prioritise Labor this time – though he points out more centrist Teal independents appear to have bucked that trend.

In any case, he doesn’t see the result in Queensland as a groundswell of love for Labor. The state was still the only jurisdiction in Australia where there were more first preference votes for the Coalition than Labor.

“There has to be enough of a swing towards a party, but it’s often that preferencing that actually tilts it over the line,” he says.

“This is more of a Liberal loss.”

For many Coalition voters, that loss is deeply felt. Rick describes it as a “real rout”.

But among others, like Aleysha, there is an inexplicable element of mirth.

“I think it’s quite funny, that he slipped as much as he did,” she says. “And I can’t tell you why.”

When President Donald Trump unveiled sweeping taxes on imports from around the world last month, he said the measures aimed to right America’s trade relationships.

In his new pact with the UK, we got a glimpse of the kind of agreements he might seek to negotiate across the globe.

Both the US and UK have so far offered limited details about the new trade deal, which both say is still being worked out in the weeks ahead.

But anyone hoping the White House will either significantly roll back its tariffs – or win major concessions abroad – seem bound for disappointment.

Under the outline presented on Thursday, the 10% import tax that Trump announced last month on most UK goods will remain intact.

Otherwise, the plans mostly amounted to the White House agreeing to walk back some of the import taxes it has unveiled on strategic sectors, such as cars and steel.

In exchange, the White House said it had won changes – which were unspecified – that would expand opportunities for sales of American beef, ethanol and other agricultural products in the UK.

“The actual substantive items that they negotiated are pretty narrow,” said Stan Veuger, a senior fellow in economic policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute. “In some sense you could say they basically took the status quo, made marginal changes and called it a deal.”

• US and UK agree deal slashing Trump tariffs on cars and metals
• What is in the UK-US tariff deal?
• What tariffs has Trump announced and why?

The Trump administration, which has seen markets panic at its tariff announcements, was eager to sell the announcement as significant, describing it as a “breakthrough”.

In the UK, Sir Keir Starmer, who also has incentive to want to be seen as a solid negotiator, called it “historic”, while noting there was more work to be done.

Steelmakers and car firms in the UK did express relief, saying the tariff rollback would help save jobs.

But it was hardly missed on anyone that despite progress, goods from the UK are still facing higher tariffs than they were a few weeks ago.

In the US, most analysts agreed that substantive benefits would be limited, despite the two sides discussing trade on and off for nearly a decade.

Mr Veuger noted that Trump in his first term was similarly willing to declare victory on deals with China, Mexico and Canada that experts likewise said would have narrow impact.

“I think for Trump the goal really is to have a deal and it doesn’t really matter what it looks like in the substance, ” he said. “It tells me it’s not that hard to get to a deal but it also tells me there’s not that much room to make changes.”

Thursday’s announcements drew an unusually sharp rebuke from American carmakers, which noted that the plans made UK-made cars less expensive to import than many of the models made by their companies, which have operations in Mexico and Canada.

Other analysts pounced on the irony of the president dismissing concerns that tariffs are driving up prices for dolls while he agrees to lower taxes on imported cars for the ultra-wealthy like Rolls-Royces and Bentleys, which are UK companies.

The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association said it welcomed the deal but other groups representing farmers, a key part of Trump’s political base, were notably muted.

The American Farm Bureau Federation called it an “important first step”, while noting “more work is needed”.

“This is a good deal for American farmers … but it is at the end of the day a fairly narrowly-focused framework,” said Lewis Lukens, former acting US Ambassador to the UK and deputy chief of mission to the US embassy in London during part of Trump’s first term.

“It gives Trump a political victory with not too much really to show behind it.”

Republicans, traditionally a free-trade party, were quick to celebrate the achievement.

Rep Adrian Smith, a Republican from Nebraska, who chairs a subcommittee on trade, told the BBC he was “pleased” over the initial trade pact.

“This is a significant step toward eliminating barriers to American products in foreign markets and friendshoring supply chains,” he said, commending the administration for the swift negotiations, though noting he was happy to see details of the deal were still being negotiated “to address additional concerns”.

In a note to clients after the press conference, Paul Ashworth, chief North America economist at Capital Economics, said the announcement indicated “rising desperation” in the White House to ease its tariffs before they caused significant economic damage.

But those economic risks are coming not from the UK, but America’s relationship with China, which sent more than $400bn worth of goods to the US last year, more than six times that of the UK.

Trump has hiked import taxes on Chinese products to at least 145%, prompting Beijing to retaliate with its own duties on American goods.

Trade traffic between the two countries has dropped precipitously since last month, raising fears that the tariffs will lead not only to price rises, as had been widely predicted, but shortages as well.

The two sides are set to have their first talks this weekend, but what will come out of them remain unclear.

Meanwhile, the clock is ticking on a 90-day pause that Trump placed on some of the highest tariffs he had announced last month on partners such as the European Union, Vietnam and Cambodia.

Earlier this week, Trump appeared testy when asked by reporters about his trade negotiations.

“Everyone says, ‘When, when, when are you going to sign deals?'” he said. “I wish they’d … stop asking.”

But it seems unlikely that this announcement with the UK will be the one to get the critics off his back.

This week saw Roman Catholic cardinals meet to choose the next pope, people across Europe mark the 80th anniversary of the end of World War Two, and Donald Trump declare war on foreign films.

But how much attention did you pay to what else has been going on in the world over the past seven days?

Quiz compiled by Ben Fell.

Fancy testing your memory? Try last week’s quiz, or have a go at something from the archives.

It’s going to be a very sexy summer, a touch of romantic, cowboy and rock and roll.

That’s according to Mehdi Sousanne, at least. And he should know. He’s a designer for Zara who helps create the clothes for a brand that’s one of the most successful stories in High Street fashion.

Zara is owned by Inditex, the world’s biggest fashion retailer, which runs a string of store chains including Massimo Dutti and Pull & Bear.

It relies on 1,800 suppliers across the world, but nearly all the clothes are brought to Spain where the company is based, to be despatched to stores in 97 countries.

Zara doesn’t advertise and rarely gives interviews. But as it marks 50 years since the opening of its first store, I’ve come to its vast campus in Galicia to meet the boss and workers for a rare glimpse into how the secretive brand operates.

It’s a time when the company finds itself having to navigate fast-changing markets, with growing competition from ultra-cheap online players Shein and Temu, who ship their goods direct from China, as well as uncertainty surrounding US tariffs.

But Oscar Garcia Maceiras, Inditex’s CEO, says US President Donald Trump’s tariffs won’t disrupt its supply chains or change Zara’s plans to expand further in the US, now its second biggest market.

“Bear in mind that for us, diversification is key. We are producing in almost 50 different markets with non-exclusive suppliers so we are more than used to adapt ourselves to change,” he tells me.

The business has certainly adapted and grown since its first store opened a short drive away in the town of A Coruna.

It now has 350 designers, with the staff coming from some 40 different countries.

“There are no rules in general. It’s all about feelings,” says Mehdi, who works on delivering the key pieces for the season.

He says inspiration can come from anyone ranging from the “street” to the cinema  as well as the catwalks. He likes to sketch his ideas once an all-important mood board has been created.

• Listen as the BBC goes behind the scenes at Zara’s headquarters

In the pattern cutting room, the designs are turned into paper samples, and are pinned on to mannequins. Dozens of seamstresses then run up the first fabric samples on the spot for a first fitting.

Pattern maker Mar Marcote has been with the business 42 years and still uses a magnifying glass to examine each item of clothing before it finally goes into production.

“When you finish the item and see that it looks good, and then sometimes sells out, it’s marvellous,” she says.

Zara is a business that has changed the way we shop.

In the old days, retailers released just two main collections a year, Spring/Summer and Autumn/Winter. For decades, most chains have outsourced manufacturing to lower-cost factories in the far east with the clothes arriving up to six months later.

Zara went against conventional wisdom by sourcing a lot of its clothes closer to home and changing products much more frequently. That meant it could respond much faster to the latest trends and drop new items into stores every week.

Just over half of its clothes are made in Spain, Portugal, Morocco and Turkey. There’s a factory doing small production runs on site at HQ, with another seven nearby, which it also owns.

As a result, it can turn around products in a matter of weeks.

More basic fashion staples are produced with longer lead times in countries like Vietnam and Bangladesh.

Logistics and data are other factors behind its success. Every piece of clothing is packaged and despatched from its distribution centres in Spain, as well as one in the Netherlands.

“What is absolutely critical is the level of accuracy,” says CEO Mr Maceiras.

“It’s something that allows us to make the right decision in the last possible minute, in order to assess properly the appetite from our customers, in order to adapt our fashion proposition to the profile of our customers in different locations.”

In other words, getting the right products to the right shops.

At HQ, product managers then receive real-time data on how clothes are selling in stores worldwide, and – crucially – feedback from customers, which is then shared with designers and buyers, who can adjust the ranges along the season according to demand.

Unlike some other High Street rivals, it only discounts when it stages its twice-yearly sales.

But is Zara starting to lose its shine after posting slower sales growth at the start of this year?

“The key challenge for Inditex is continuing to be relevant in a fashion world that continues to get faster and cheaper,” says William Woods, European retail analyst for Bernstein.

Not only are mainstream rivals like H&M, Mango and Uniqlo trying to catch up, the market has been disrupted by Shein and Temu.

Shein racked up $38bn in global sales last year, just a whisker behind Inditex.

Asked how much of a threat Shein and Temu’s success poses to Zara, Mr Maceiras stresses that its business model doesn’t rely on price.

“Of course, we are looking at providing our customers our products at an affordable price. But for us, it’s critical to provide customers fashion that should be inspirational, with quality, creativity and sustainable.”

Zara has come a long way since its founder Amancio Ortega started the business.

The company is still majority-owned by his family and his daughter Marta is now chairwoman of the group.

Now aged 89, Mr Ortega remains famously reclusive but still pops in, according to Mr Maceiras.

“He’s a presence, a physical or moral presence, absolutely every day.”

From a woman waving a colonial-era flag in a shopping mall, to bakery staff selling cakes with protest symbols on them – dozens of Hongkongers have been reported to the police by one man for what he believes were national security violations.

“We’re in every corner of society, watching, to see if there is anything suspicious which could infringe on the national security law,” former banker Innes Tang tells the BBC World Service.

“If we find these things, we go and report it to the police.”

When the UK returned Hong Kong to China 28 years ago, internationally binding treaties guaranteed the city’s rights and freedoms for 50 years. But the national security law (NSL), imposed by Beijing a year after Hong Kong’s 2019 mass pro-democracy protests, has been criticised for scuttling free speech and press, and for ushering in a new culture of informing.

The law criminalises activities considered to be calls for “secession” (breaking away from China), “subversion” (undermining the power or authority of the government), and collusion with foreign forces.

An additional security law called Article 23, voted in last year, has further tightened restrictions.

With new laws and arrests, there has been limited reporting on Hong Kong’s pro-China “patriots” – the people who are now running and policing the city, as well as the ordinary citizens who openly support them. But the BBC has spent weeks interviewing Innes Tang, 60, a prominent self-described patriot.

He and his volunteers have taken screen grabs from social media of any activities or comments they believe could be in breach of the NSL.

He also established a hotline for tip-offs from the public and encouraged his online followers to share information on the people around them.

Nearly 100 individuals and organisations have been reported to the authorities by him and his followers, he says.

“Does reporting work? We wouldn’t do it if it didn’t,” Mr Tang says. “Many had cases opened by the police… with some resulting in jail terms.”

Mr Tang says he hasn’t investigated alleged law breakers himself, but simply reported incidents he thinks warrant scrutiny – describing it as “proper community-police co-operation”.

Mr Tang is not the only so-called patriot to engage in this kind of surveillance.

Hong Kong’s authorities have set up their own national security hotline, receiving 890,000 tip-offs from November 2020 to February this year – the city’s security bureau told the BBC.

For those who are reported to the authorities, pressure can be relentless.

Since the NSL was enacted in 2020, up until February this year, more than 300 people had been arrested for national security offences. And an estimated 300,000 or more Hongkongers have permanently left the city in recent years.

Pong Yat-ming, the owner of an independent bookshop that hosts public talks, says he often receives inspections from government departments which cite “anonymous complaints”.

He received 10 visits in one 15-day period, he says.

Kenneth Chan, political scientist and university lecturer, who has been involved in the city’s pro-democracy movement since the 1990s, jokes he has “become a bit radioactive these days”.

Some friends, students and colleagues now keep their distance because of his outspoken views, he says. “But I would be the last person to blame the victims. It’s the system.”

In response, Hong Kong’s government said it “attaches great importance to upholding academic freedom and institutional autonomy”. But it adds that academic institutions “have the responsibility to ensure their operations are in compliance with the law and meet the interests of the community at large”.

Innes Tang says he is motivated to report people by a love of Hong Kong, and that his views on China were cultivated when he was young, when the city was still a British colony.

“The colonial policies weren’t really that great,” he says. “The best opportunities were always given to the British and we [the locals] did not really have access.”

Like many of his generation, he nursed a longing to be united with China and taken out of colonial governance. But he says many other Hongkongers at the time were more concerned with their livelihoods than their rights.

“Democracy or freedom. These were all very abstract ideas which we didn’t really understand,” he says.

An average citizen should not become too involved in politics, he says, explaining he only became politically active to restore what he calls “balance” to Hong Kong society following the turbulence of 2019.

He is giving a voice, he says, to what he calls “the silent majority” of Hongkongers who do not support independence from China, nor the disruption created by the protests.

But other Hongkongers consider rallies and demonstrations a longstanding tradition, and one of the only ways to voice public opinion in a city that now does not have a fully democratically elected leadership.

“We are no longer a city of protests,” says Kenneth Chan, who specialises in Eastern European politics. “So what are we? I don’t have the answer yet.”

And patriotism isn’t inherently a negative thing, he says.

It is “a value, maybe even a virtue”, he argues, although it needs to allow citizens to keep “a critical distance” – something that is not happening in Hong Kong.

Electoral reform was pushed through in 2021 – stating that only “patriots” who “swore loyalty to the Chinese Communist Party” could hold important positions in government or the Legislative Council [LegCo] – Hong Kong’s parliament.

As a result, the council struggles to function, believes Hong Kong-based China commentator Lew Mon-hung, a former member of the Chinese government advisory body, the CPPCC.

“The public think a lot of these patriots are ‘verbal revolutionaries’ or political opportunists – they don’t really represent the people,” he says.

“That’s why ridiculous policies still pass with a huge majority. There is no-one to constrain or oppose, no-one to scrutinise.”

Even patriot Innes Tang says he wants to see the current system challenged.

“I don’t want to see every policy passing with 90% of the vote,” he tells the BBC.

There is a danger the National Security Law will be weaponised, he says, with people saying: “If you don’t agree with me, I accuse you of infringement of the national security law.”

“I don’t agree with this type of stuff,” says Mr Tang.

Hong Kong’s government said: “The improved LegCo is now rid of extremists who wish to obstruct and even paralyse the operation of the government without any intention of entering into constructive dialogue to represent the interests of all Hong Kong people.”

For now, says Mr Tang, he has stopped reporting on people. Balance and stability, he believes, has returned to Hong Kong.

The number of large-scale protests has dwindled to none at all.

In academia, fear of surveillance – and how life might change for someone who infringes the laws – means self-censorship and censorship have become the “order of the day”, says Kenneth Chan.

Pro-democracy parties are no longer represented in the Legislative Council and many have disbanded – including the Democratic Party of Hong Kong, once the most powerful party.

Innes Tang has now set his sights overseas.

“There aren’t any particular issues in Hong Kong now, so I asked myself – shouldn’t I have a look at how I can continue to serve my community and my country?” he says.

“For a non-politician and civilian like me, this is an invaluable opportunity.”

He now works as a representative for one of several pro-Beijing non-profit groups, regularly visiting the UN in Geneva to speak at conventions giving China’s perspective on Hong Kong, human rights and other issues.

Mr Tang is also in the process of establishing a media company in Switzerland, and registering as a member of the press.

For Kenneth Chan in Hong Kong, his future hangs in the balance.

“One third of my friends and students are now in exile, another third of my friends and students are in jail, and I’m sort of… in limbo,” he says.

“Today I’m speaking freely with you… no-one would promise me that I would continue doing it for the rest of my life.”

In a written reply to the BBC, a Hong Kong government spokesperson said that national security is a top priority and inherent right for any country. It “only targets an extremely small minority of people and organisations that pose a threat to national security, while protecting the lives and property of the general public”.

US President Donald Trump has appointed Fox News host and former New York prosecutor Jeanine Pirro as interim US attorney for Washington DC.

The announcement comes after Trump withdrew his first pick for the job after he lost key Republican support in the Senate, which votes on such positions.

After Trump’s 2020 loss to Joe Biden, Pirro made false statements about the election that were part of a lawsuit against Fox News by a company that makes voting machines. The case was settled for more than $787m (£594m).

Trump called Pirro “a powerful crusader for victims of crime” in a social media post announcing his selection.

The president did not indicate whether Pirro, 73, would serve permanently in the job, which requires Senate confirmation, or how long her term would last.

In the Truth Social post on Thursday night, Trump noted that she previously served as a Republican district attorney in Westchester, New York, as well as a judge. He also touted her roles on various shows on Fox News, which he called “one of the Highest Rated Shows on Television”.

Pirro has been a close ally of Trump for decades. In one of his last actions during his first term, Trump issued a pardon to her husband, who had been convicted of tax evasion decades earlier.

Pirro replaces current interim US attorney Ed Martin, a former conservative podcaster that Trump appointed this January.

He was replaced after North Carolina Republican Senator Thom Tillis, a key swing vote, said he would refuse to confirm Martin for the role on a permanent basis, saying there was “friction” over how Martin viewed those involved in the 6 January riots at the US Capitol.

Tillis told reporters this week that he had “no tolerance for anybody who entered the building on January 6”.

Martin has been a staunch critic of the investigation into the Capitol riot. While serving in the role on an interim basis, he fired prosecutors who oversaw rioter cases.

Trump said Martin will remain at the US Justice Department and serve as director of the “weaponization working group”, which looks into officials who investigated Trump, the president said in another post on social media.

Since taking office, Trump has issued pardons and ended prosecutions against 6 January rioters who stormed the US Capitol in an effort to block Biden’s election win over Trump in the 2020 election.

Two men have been found guilty of the murder of Cassius Turvey, an Aboriginal schoolboy who was chased down by a vigilante gang and beaten, in a case which outraged Australia.

The 15-year-old Noongar Yamatji boy died of head injuries in October 2022, 10 days after he was brutally assaulted on the outskirts of Perth – prompting vigils and protests nationwide.

Four people were charged with his murder and Jack Steven James Brearley, 24, and Brodie Lee Palmer, 29, were on Thursday found guilty after a 12-week trial.

Mitchell Colin Forth, 27, was instead found guilty of manslaughter, and a woman who was with the trio in the moments before the attack was acquitted.

Speaking outside court, Cassius’ mum Mechelle Turvey said she was “numb with relief” at the verdict after “three months of hell”.

But she added that “justice, to me, will never be served because I don’t have my son, and he’s not coming back”.

The trial was told the attack on Cassius was the culmination of a complex series of tit-for-tat events “that had absolutely nothing to do with him”, according to the Australian Associated Press.

The group had been “hunting for kids” because somebody had damaged Brearley’s car windows, prosecutors said.

“Somebody smashed my car, they’re about to die,” Brearley was heard saying on CCTV footage captured shortly before the incident and played to the court.

There is no suggestion Cassius had any involvement in what happened to the car, but he was among a throng of kids who were confronted by the trio of men while walking along a suburban street after school.

A boy on crutches was assaulted, sending the others scattering through nearby bushland to escape.

Prosecutors alleged the trio caught Cassius and knocked him to the ground, where he was hit on the head at least twice with a short metal pole, leaving him with a brain bleed.

In the days after the attack, Cassius underwent surgeries in hospital, aimed at relieving the pressure on his brain and saving his life. Meanwhile, Brearley was caught on camera boasting about beating the child.

“He was laying in the field and I was just smacking him with a trolley pole so hard, he learnt his lesson,” he was heard saying on a phone call played at the trial, according to a report by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation.

Brearley told the court his assault on Cassius was self-defence, and claimed it was Palmer who had hit him with the metal pole. Palmer said the opposite, blaming Brearley.

Ultimately the jury found both responsible for his murder, and Forth guilty of manslaughter.

The men are due to return to court for sentencing hearing on 26 June.

Outside court, Mrs Turvey embarked on a list of thank yous, including for the trial witnesses, most of whom were “young children that are scarred for life”.

“I’d like to thank all of Australia, people that know us, for all of their love and support,” she added.

Speaking to the BBC the month after his death, Mrs Turvey said her son was beloved in the local community.

Along with two of his friends, he had set up a small business in order to reach out to neighbours and mow lawns. He wanted to change the negative stereotypes about Aboriginal youth in Australia.

“He was funny. He loved posing,” Mechelle Turvey said, showing photos of Cassius smiling.

His killing in 2022 sparked national grief and anger. Thousands of people attended vigils for Cassius in more than two dozen places across the country, with events also being held in the US and New Zealand.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese claimed the attack was “clearly” racially motivated – though this was not advanced as a motive in court – and it reopened a national debate about racial discrimination.

“Australia does have a shocking reputation around the world for this kind of violence,” Human rights lawyer Hannah McGlade told the BBC at the time.

Trans women will no longer be able to use the women’s toilets in the Scottish Parliament building.

Facilities designated as male or female-only would now be interpreted as meaning biological sex, the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body (SPCB) said.

Holyrood is installing new gender neutral toilets which will be open to anyone following the UK Supreme Court’s landmark ruling over the definition of a woman.

Presiding officer Alison Johnstone said the move would ensure “confidence, privacy and dignity” for staff and visitors.

It comes after judges were asked to decide on the proper interpretation of the Equality Act 2010, which applies to service providers across the UK.

The SPCB said it had agreed “practical changes of minimal cost” to toilets and changing facilities following an interim review of Holyrood services.

The presiding officer set out the changes in a letter to MSPs and staff. It said:

• All Scottish Parliament toilets designated as male or female would now be interpreted as meaning biological sex.
• A bank of three existing toilets in the public area of the building would be designated as a gender-neutral facility.
• These will be in addition to female-only toilets, male-only toilets, an accessible toilet and a changing places facility.

The SPCB said it would consult on any further changes needed to meet an updated Equality and Human Rights Commission code of practice expected in coming months.

Ms Johnstone said: “We believe it is important to take these interim steps now not only to ensure we fulfil our legal responsibilities but to give clarity to all those using the building.

“Such clarity is an important element in offering all individuals confidence, privacy and dignity when using our facilities.

“Everyone working in, or visiting, Holyrood should feel welcome in the building and be confident there is a suitable facility for them.”

Last month, Judges at the UK Supreme Court unanimously ruled that a woman is defined by biological sex under equalities law.

It marked the culmination of a long-running legal battle, after the Scottish government argued that transgender people with a gender recognition certificate (GRC) are entitled to the same sex-based protections as biological women.

The new toilets will be available at Holyrood from Monday.

The Scottish Conservatives welcomed the “timely response” to the Supreme Court ruling.

Equalities spokeswoman Tess White said: “If the Scottish Parliament can respond to the Supreme Court judgement so swiftly, there is no excuse for John Swinney to keep dragging his heels.

“He must instruct all public bodies to uphold the law immediately instead of pandering to gender extremists.”

However, the Scottish Trans and Equality Network described the move as “rushed, unworkable and exclusionary”.

The charity has written to the SPCB to ask how the toilet policy will enforced at Holyrood without encroaching on people’s privacy.

Scottish Trans manager Vic Valentine said: “We cannot understand why this decision has been described as one that will bring ‘confidence, privacy and dignity’ to everyone.

“It will not do so for trans people. It will exclude us and segregate us in the heart of Scotland’s democracy.”

A rediscovered and restored version of the pilot episode of Thomas & Friends, the animated children’s steam train series narrated by Sir Ringo Starr, is set to be seen for the first time since 1983.

The original test episode, titled Down The Mine, will appear online on Friday to coincide with the 80th anniversary of the famous tank engine franchise.

The popular character began his adventures in a book published in 1945 which was later adapted into a TV show, which ran properly from 1984 until 2021.

The 40-year-old plus recording of the original pilot – shot on 35mm film – has been dug up and updated digitally, and will be made available to view on YouTube at 18:00 BST on Friday.

Beatles drummer Sir Ringo can be heard narrating in the new footage alongside a slightly different bespoke musical arrangement of the theme tune by longtime series composer Mike O’ Donnell.

Ian McCue, the series producer on the show from 2010 to 2020, told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme on Friday the team had “stumbled across” the old film cans which had been put in storage and “had to piece it together with great love and care.”

“I think that you can see that there’s teething problems that they would have had had they not done that [the pilot],” he explained.

“It was a very smart move to do that and to make sure everything was good for when they started season one.

“So obviously smoke coming from behind Thomas’s face plate, and I know that, having talked to some of the crew that worked on it, they had problems with the radio control devices not getting through the actual engine builds.”

He added: “But I think there’s a sort of a lovely charm and innocence about it, and I think even as a pilot, as a test piece, it still has that lovely, classic, timeless story to it, and the voices, everything is just so delightful.”

Thomas first appeared on ITV before moving to Cartoon Network, Nick Jr, Channel 5 and can now be found on Netflix.

McCue attributes the show’s enduring popularity to its evolution over time while maintaining themes of friendship and teamwork, aligned with its trustworthiness for parents.

“Over the years, it’s built up this amazing fandom, but we keep thinking about our next generation of Thomas fans, and keep it relevant for today,” he said.

“But we always remember the themes, the messages of friendship and teamwork and communication, and just make sure they’re just fun, wholesome adventures and it’s a trusted show.

“I think parents actually enjoy the fact that they could leave their children to watch Thomas without any concern.”

Roberto Stanichi, from toy company Mattel, agreed that Thomas had “brought joy to generations, sharing timeless stories and valuable life lessons”.

“As we celebrate this momentous year, we’re unveiling 40-year-old footage and newly uncovered stories from the vault for the first time ever, offering longtime fans and new audiences the chance to reconnect with the beloved adventures of Thomas & Friends in new and nostalgic ways,” he said.

The franchise will also put original pieces from the brand’s history up for auction, to mark the big birthday celebrations, including artwork and props from the stop-motion scenes that first aired in 1984.

Collectors and fans will have the chance to bid for items signed by celebrities who have voiced characters on the long-running series down the years, including English actors Olivia Colman, Eddie Redmayne and Hugh Bonneville.

The proceeds from the auction – which is open for registration now, with bidding to commence from the 12 May – will be donated to the National Autistic Society.

James Foley, the film director behind two of the Fifty Shades of Grey films, has died aged 71.

Foley also directed three Madonna music videos in the 1980s – Papa Don’t Preach, Live to Tell and True Blue.

A spokesman for the director said he died “peacefully in his sleep earlier this week” at his home in Los Angeles following a “years-long struggle” with brain cancer.

Foley also directed 12 episodes of House of Cards, the Kevin Spacey-starring thriller which was one of Netflix’s earliest original hits.

Although his representative noted Foley’s diagnosis of brain cancer, his official cause of death has not yet been confirmed.

The US director’s debut film, Reckless, was released in 1984 and starred Daryl Hannah and Aidan Quinn.

His other film credits include Glengarry Glen Ross, Fear, Confidence, Perfect Stranger and The Corruptor.

Foley did not direct Fifty Shades of Grey, but did join the franchise to direct both its sequels, Fifty Shades Darker and Fifty Shades Freed, after the departure of Sam Taylor-Johnson following the first film.

The film series, based on the best-selling books by EL James, was a huge box office success and made film stars out of its lead actors Dakota Johnson and Jamie Dornan.

When directing the three music videos for Madonna in 1986, Foley used the pseudonym Peter Percher.

However, he returned to using his own name when he worked with Madonna again the following year on the film Who’s That Girl, which saw the singer play a woman falsely accused of murdering her boyfriend.

Foley also directed episodes of hit TV series such as Twin Peaks, Billions and Hannibal.

The leader of Australia’s third-largest political party, the Greens, has conceded his seat in Melbourne after a tight electoral vote count that lasted several days.

Adam Bandt, who had safely held the seat of Melbourne since 2010, told reporters on Thursday afternoon that he had called Labor candidate Sarah Witty to congratulate her on her victory.

Australia’s centre-left Labor party won Saturday’s federal election by a landslide, decimating the conservative Liberal-National Coalition while also gutting the left-leaning Greens.

While the Greens got the highest vote in Melbourne, Bandt said the main reason for their loss was the preference votes for Liberal and the far-right One Nation party.

Australia uses a preferential voting system, where candidates are ranked in order of preference.

If no candidate wins more than 50% of the vote in the first tally, the votes from the least popular candidates are redistributed, and that process is repeated until someone secures a majority.

“To win in Melbourne we needed to overcome Liberal, Labor and One Nation combined, and it’s an Everest we’ve climbed a few times now, but this time we fell just short,” Bandt said.

“We came very close,” he added, “but we couldn’t quite get there.”

Bandt also cited the so-called Trump effect as a “key defining feature of the election” – the Coalition’s PM candidate Peter Dutton was often compared to the US President, which he rejected but it stuck.

Bandt said that contributed to a five-week “riptide” that saw votes swing away from Liberal and Dutton, and towards Labor.

This same effect also pulled votes away from the Greens, he added: “The riptide from Liberal to Labor had an effect on us as well.”

“People in Melbourne hate Peter Dutton, and with very good reason. They’ve seen his brand of toxic racism for many years… and like me, many wanted him as far away from power as possible.

“My initial take is some votes leaked away from us, as people saw Labor as the best option to stop Dutton.”

Like Bandt, Dutton also lost his seat in the election, adding to his resounding defeat at the polls by incumbent Prime Minister Anthony Albanese.

Bandt, who has been leader of the Greens since 2020, said he wanted to thank the Melbourne community for “regularly giving me the highest vote, including this election, and to thank you for the last 15 years and the chance to do some amazing things together”.

He listed off a string of achievements by the Greens under his leadership, including the party’s pivotal role in the marriage equality plebiscite, the First Nations Voice to Parliament referendum, and advancing “world-leading climate legislation”.

“Fighting the climate crisis is the reason I got into politics, and I want to thank everyone in Melbourne for helping us make a difference,” Bandt said.

He also thanked his party colleagues, noting that he leaves the party with “the vote for the Greens higher than when i started, and our biggest ever representation in parliament”.

Bandt thanked the African and Muslim communities in Melbourne, as well as “everyone that had the courage to speak up against the invasion of Gaza, and spoke up for peace in Palestine”.

Finally, he thanked his wife, Claudia.

“Not only could I have not done this without her, we’ve done it together,” he said.

In his closing remarks, Bandt offered some “free advice to the media”.

“We’re in a climate crisis,” he said. “I really want the media to stop reporting on climate as a political issue, and start thinking of it as if our country were being invaded. We should treat the climate crisis as if there was a war on.”

“Please, please start taking the climate crisis seriously, and holding this government and any future government to account.”

The governor of the Bank of England has said the UK now needs to “rebuild” its trade relationship with the European Union and do “everything we can” to improve long-term trade, after Thursday’s US deal.

Andrew Bailey told the BBC that as a public official he did not take a view on Brexit, but that reversing the post-Brexit hit to UK-EU trade would be “beneficial”.

The government is currently in talks with the EU on its plan to reset its trade and security relationship ahead of a summit later this month.

The US deal has left space for the UK to pursue a veterinary agreement with the EU, including alignment on standards in order to lower post-Brexit red tape on food, farm and fish exports.

As part of a new agreement between the US and the UK, the White House agreed to reduce import taxes on a set number of British cars and allow some steel and aluminium into the country tariff-free.

But it will leave a 10% duty in place on most goods from the UK.

Pushed on what impact a closer relationship between the UK and the EU would have on the economy and inflation, Mr Bailey said: “It would be beneficial – having a more open economy to trade with the European Union. Because there has been a fall-off in goods trade with the EU over recent years.”

He added that it mattered because the EU is the UK’s largest trading partner.

“It is important we do everything we can to ensure that whatever decisions are taken on the Brexit front do not damage the long-term trade position. So I hope that we can use this to start to rebuild that relationship,” Mr Bailey said.

The governor also said that the UK’s deal-making across the world was setting an important example to other countries.

“It demonstrates that trade deals are important. Trade deals can be done, and the trade is important.

“Honestly, it seems an unpromising landscape at times. But I hope that we can use these deals to rebuild the world trading system,” he said.

Sign up for our Politics Essential newsletter to keep up with the inner workings of Westminster and beyond.

The world’s first drone war between nuclear-armed neighbours has erupted in South Asia.

On Thursday, India accused Pakistan of launching waves of drones and missiles at three military bases in Indian territory and Indian-administered Kashmir – an allegation Islamabad swiftly denied.

Pakistan claimed it had shot down 25 Indian drones in recent hours. Delhi remained publicly silent. Experts say the tit-for-tat attacks mark a dangerous new phase in the decades-old rivalry, as both sides exchange not just artillery but unmanned weapons across a volatile border.

As Washington and other global powers urge restraint, the region is teetering on the edge of escalation, with drones – silent, remote and deniable – opening a new chapter in the India-Pakistan conflict.

“The Indo-Pak conflict is moving into a new drone era – one where ‘invisible eyes’ and unmanned precision may determine escalation or restraint. Thus, in South Asia’s contested skies, the side that masters drone warfare won’t just see the battlefield – they’ll shape it,” Jahara Matisek, a professor at the US Naval War College, told the BBC.

• Follow our live updates

Since Wednesday morning, Pakistan says Indian air strikes and cross-border fire have killed 36 people and injured 57 more in Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir. On the other side, India’s army reports at least 16 civilians dead from Pakistani shelling. India insists its missile barrage was retaliation for a deadly militant attack on Indian tourists in Pahalgam last month – an attack Islamabad denies any role in.

Pakistan’s military announced on Thursday that it had shot down 25 Indian drones across various cities, including Karachi, Lahore and Rawalpindi. The drones – reportedly Israeli-made Harop drones – were reportedly intercepted using both technical and weapon-based countermeasures. India claimed to have neutralised several Pakistani air defence radars and systems, including one in Lahore, which Islamabad denied.

Laser-guided missiles and bombs, drones and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) have become pivotal in modern warfare, significantly enhancing the precision and efficiency of military operations. These can relay co-ordinates for airstrikes or, if equipped, directly laser-designate targets, and help immediate engagement.

Drones can be used as decoys or suppression of enemy air defences, flying into contested airspace to trigger enemy radar emissions, which can then be targeted by other munitions like loitering drones or anti-radiation missiles. “This is how Ukraine and Russia both do it in their war. This dual role – targeting and triggering – makes drones a force multiplier in degrading enemy air defences without risking manned aircraft,” says Prof Matisek.

Experts say India’s drone fleet is largely built around Israeli-made reconnaissance UAVs like the IAI Searcher and Heron, along with Harpy and Harop loitering munitions – drones that double as missiles, capable of autonomous reconnaissance and precision strikes. The Harop, in particular, signals a shift toward high-value, precision-targeted warfare, reflecting the growing importance of loitering munitions in modern conflict, experts say.

The Heron, say experts, is India’s “high-altitude eyes in the sky” for both peacetime monitoring and combat operations. The IAI Searcher Mk II is designed for frontline operations, offering up to 18 hours of endurance, a range of 300km (186 miles), and a service ceiling of 7,000m (23,000ft).

While many believe India’s combat drone numbers remain “modest”, a recent $4bn deal to acquire 31 MQ-9B Predator drones – which can can fly for 40 hours and up to an altitude of 40,000ft – from the US marks a major leap in its strike capabilities.

India is also developing swarm drone tactics – deploying large numbers of smaller UAVs to overwhelm and saturate air defences, allowing higher-value assets to penetrate, say experts.

Pakistan’s drone fleet is “extensive and diverse”, comprising both indigenous and imported systems, Ejaz Haider, a Lahore-based defence analyst told the BBC.

He said the inventory includes “over a thousand drones”, featuring models from China, Turkey and domestic manufacturers. Notable platforms include the Chinese CH-4, the Turkish Bayraktar Akinci, and Pakistan’s own Burraq and Shahpar drones. Additionally, Pakistan has developed loitering munitions, enhancing its strike capabilities.

Mr Haider said the Pakistan Air Force (PAF) has been actively integrating unmanned systems into its operations for nearly a decade. A key focus is the development of “loyal wingman” drones – unmanned aerial vehicles designed to operate in co-ordination with manned aircraft, he added.

Prof Matisek believes “Israel’s technical assistance, supplying Harop and Heron drones, has been pivotal for India, while Pakistan’s reliance on Turkish and Chinese platforms highlights an ongoing arms race”.

While the recent drone exchanges between India and Pakistan mark a significant escalation in their rivalry, they differ markedly from the drone-centric warfare observed in the Russia-Ukraine conflict, experts say. There, drones become central to military operations, with both sides deploying thousands of UAVs for surveillance, targeting and direct attacks.

“Deploying drones [in the ongoing conflict] instead of fighter jets or heavy missiles represents a lower-level military option. Drones are less heavily armed than manned aircraft, so in one sense, this is a restrained move. However, if this is merely a prelude to a broader aerial campaign, the calculus changes entirely,” Manoj Joshi, an Indian defence analyst, told the BBC.

Ejaz Haider believes the recent drone activity in Jammu “appears to be a tactical response to immediate provocations, not a full-scale retaliation [by Pakistan]”.

“A true retaliatory strike against India would involve shock and awe. It would likely be more comprehensive, involving multiple platforms – both manned and unmanned – and targeting a broader range of objectives. Such an operation would aim to deliver a decisive impact, signalling a significant escalation beyond the current tit-for-tat exchanges,” Mr Haider says.

While drones have fundamentally reshaped the battlefield in Ukraine, their role in the India-Pakistan conflict remains more limited and symbolic, say experts. Both countries are using their manned air forces to fire missiles at one another as well.

“The drone warfare we’re witnessing may not last long; it could be just the beginning of a larger conflict,” says Mr Joshi.

“This could either signal a de-escalation or an escalation – both possibilities are on the table. We’re at an inflection point; the direction we take from here is uncertain.”

Clearly India is integrating drones into its precision-strike doctrine, enabling stand-off targeting without crossing borders with manned aircraft. However, this evolution also raises critical questions.

“Drones lower the political and operational threshold for action, providing options to surveil and strike while trying to reduce escalation risks,” says Prof Matisek.

“But they also create new escalation dynamics: every drone shot down, every radar blinded, becomes a potential flashpoint in this tense environment between two nuclear powers.”

Even before his name was announced from the balcony of St Peter’s Basilica, the crowds below were chanting “Viva il Papa” – Long live the Pope.

Robert Francis Prevost, 69, will be the 267th occupant of the throne of St Peter and he will be known as Leo XIV.

He is the first American to fill the role of pope, although he is considered as much a cardinal from Latin America because of the many years he spent as a missionary in Peru.

Born in Chicago in 1955 to parents of Spanish and Franco-Italian descent, Prevost served as an altar boy and was ordained in 1982.

Although he moved to Peru three years later, he returned regularly to the US to serve as a pastor and a prior in his home city.

He has Peruvian nationality and is fondly remembered as a figure who worked with marginalised communities and helped build bridges.

He spent 10 years as a local parish pastor and as a teacher at a seminary in Trujillo in north-western Peru.

• LIVE UPDATES: The first American elected pontiff
• Pope Leo XIV’s first speech in full
• Pope Leo’s first public address from the Vatican balcony – watch in full
• US President Donald Trump calls election of first American pope a ‘great honour’

In his first words as pope, Leo XIV spoke fondly of his predecessor Francis.

“We still hear in our ears the weak but always courageous voice of Pope Francis who blessed us,” he said.

“United and hand in hand with God, let us advance together,” he told cheering crowds.

The Pope also spoke of his role in the Augustinian Order.

In 2014, Francis made him Bishop of Chiclayo in Peru.

He is well known to cardinals because of his high-profile role as prefect of the Dicastery for Bishops in Latin America which has the important task of selecting and supervising bishops.

He became archbishop in January 2023 and within a few months Francis made him a cardinal.

Early attention will focus on Leo XIV’s pronouncements to see whether he will continue his predecessor’s reforms in the Roman Catholic Church.

Prevost is believed to have shared Francis’ views on migrants, the poor and the environment.

A former roommate of his, Reverend John Lydon, described Prevost to the BBC as “outgoing”, “down to earth” and “very concerned with the poor”.

On his personal background, Prevost told Italian network Rai before his election that he grew up in a family of immigrants.

“I was born in the United States… But my grandparents were all immigrants, French, Spanish… I was raised in a very Catholic family, both of my parents were very engaged in the parish,” he said.

Although Prevost was born in the US, the Vatican described him as the second pope from the Americas (Francis was from Argentina).

During his time in Peru, he was unable to escape the sexual abuse scandals that have clouded the Church, even though his diocese has fervently denied he has been involved in any attempted cover-up.

In choosing the name Leo, Prevost has signified a commitment to dynamic social issues, according to experts.

The first pontiff to use the name Leo, whose papacy ended in 461, met Attila the Hun and persuaded him not to attack Rome. The last Pope Leo led the Church from 1878 to 1903 and wrote an influential treatise on workers’ rights.

Former Archbishop of Boston Seán Patrick O’Malley wrote on his blog that the new pontiff “has chosen a name widely associated with the social justice legacy of Pope Leo XIII, who was pontiff at a time of epic upheaval in the world, the time of the industrial revolution, the beginning of Marxism, and widespread immigration”.

The new Pope’s LGBT views are unclear, but some groups, including the conservative College of Cardinals, believe he may be less supportive than Francis.

Leo XIV has shown support for a declaration from Francis to permit blessings for same-sex couples and others in “irregular situations”, although he has added that bishops must interpret such directives in accordance with local contexts and cultures.

Speaking last year about climate change, Cardinal Prevost said that it was time to move “from words to action”.

He called on mankind to build a “relationship of reciprocity” with the environment.

And he has spoken about concrete measures at the Vatican, including the installation of solar panels and the adoption of electric vehicles.

Pope Leo XIV has supported Pope Francis’ decision to allow women to join the Dicastery for Bishops for the first time.

“On several occasions we have seen that their point of view is an enrichment,” he told Vatican News in 2023.

In 2024, he told the Catholic News Service that women’s presence “contributes significantly to the process of discernment in looking for who we hope are the best candidates to serve the Church in episcopal ministry”.

Vladimir Putin has led Russia’s Victory Day commemorations with a parade in Red Square and heightened security after days of Ukrainian strikes targeting the capital.

China’s Xi Jinping joined Putin as he told thousands of soldiers and more than 20 international leaders that Russia remembered the lessons of World War Two.

Putin used his speech to tie the war to today’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, and said all of Russia was behind what he called the “special military operation” – now well into its fourth year.

For the first time, a column of trucks carrying various combat drones took part in the Victory Day parade, apparently because of their widescale use in Ukraine.

A unilateral, three-day ceasefire was announced by Russia to coincide with the lavish 80th anniversary event, which Ukraine rejected as a “theatrical show”.

Kyiv has labelled the truce as a farce, accusing Russia of launching thousands of attacks since it came into force at midnight on Wednesday. Russia says it has observed the ceasefire and accuses Ukraine of hundreds of violations.

In the hours before the ceasefire, Ukrainian drone strikes prompted airport closures and disruption for thousands of air passengers in Russia.

Heavy security and restrictions were in place in the centre of Moscow on Friday as Russia marked the Soviet Union’s victory over Nazi Germany.

Before Putin’s address and a one-minute silence, the commander of ground troops, Oleg Salyukov, led 11,000 troops into Red Square, including some 1,500 who had fought in Ukraine. They were then inspected by Defence Minister Andrei Belousov.

Putin insisted that Russia “was and will be an indestructible barrier against Nazism, Russophobia, antisemitism”. The Russian leader has repeatedly and falsely referred to Ukraine’s leadership as Nazis.

“Truth and justice are on our side,” he said, insisting that “the “entire country, society and people support the participants” of the Ukraine war.

READ: Why did Putin’s Russia invade Ukraine?

Russia said 27 world leaders were attending the event, but it was the presence of China’s leader, alongside Putin and more than 100 Chinese soldiers marching on Red Square, that stood out.

China’s Xi Jinping had pride of place, sporting an orange and black St George ribbon, which Russia sees as a symbol of military glory but which has been banned by several neighbouring countries.

Russian state TV spoke of relations between the two countries as being at their highest-ever level, united against the “collective West”.

Russia’s pivot to the east was underlined by military contingents from North Korea, Vietnam and Mongolia, although the North Koreans did not march during the parade.

Thousands of North Koreans have fought against Ukrainian forces in Russia’s Kursk region and Putin made a point of personally greeting some of them on Red Square, hugging one highly decorated officer.

North Korea’s Kim Jong Un visited the Russian embassy in Pyongyang to highlight his country’s increasing ties with Moscow.

Brazil’s Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva and Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro were among the assembled guests, along with Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic and Robert Fico, Slovakia’s prime minister, who is the only European Union leader to travel to Moscow.

EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas had earlier made clear that leaders of EU member states and countries aspiring to join the union should not take part in the event because of Russia’s war in Ukraine. Serbia is an EU candidate country and Vucic said he expected he would face consequences because of his decision to go.

For Putin, the attendance of China’s Xi on Victory Day is seen as a significant achievement, and he praised the “courageous people of China” as he paid tribute to Russia’s allies in World War Two.

Although Chinese forces played a prominent role in fighting against Japan, the government in Taiwan said Beijing and Moscow had distorted history. Taiwan said Chinese communist forces had made “no substantial contribution” in the war, unlike China’s then republican government, which later fled to Taiwan.

Putin and Xi held two rounds of talks before the parade as well as an informal chat on the war in Ukraine, Chinese reports said.

Joining the parade was a wide variety of Russian military hardware, including Yars missile systems, tanks and armoured personnel carriers. Six Su-25 military jets then flew over Red Square to complete the parade.

Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelensky had earlier warned that he could not guarantee the safety of anyone attending the event and has urged heads of state not to travel to Moscow.

Mykhailo Samus, a Ukrainian military analyst and director of the New Geopolitics Research Network, told the BBC he believed that Ukraine would forego attacking the parade, largely because of the presence of foreign leaders.

But should Ukraine choose to do so, it would constitute a legitimate military target, Mr Samus said.

During his evening address on Thursday, Zelensky said that Ukraine was “ready for a full ceasefire starting right now”.

“But it must be real,” he said in a video on X. “No missile or drone strikes, no hundreds of assaults on the front.”

He called on Russia to support the ceasefire and “prove their willingness to end the war”.

Ukraine has accused Russia of violating its own truce thousands of times since it was supposed to come into effect on Wednesday night.

On the second day of the truce, Ukraine said there had been nearly 200 clashes along the front line, eighteen Russian air strikes and almost four thousand instances of shelling by Russian troops.

In Prymorske, a village in the Zaporizhzhia region, a woman was reportedly killed after a Russian drone struck her car.

Russia’s defence ministry has said that all groups of Russian forces in Ukraine “completely ceased combat operations and remained on the previously occupied lines and positions”. However, they were reacting in a “mirror-like manner” to violations by Ukrainian forces.

Zelensky has repeatedly dismissed Putin’s proposal as a “game” and called for a longer truce of at least 30 days, something that is supported by Ukraine’s allies in Europe and the US.

He said he had spoken with US President Donald Trump to reiterate his readiness for a “long and lasting peace” and talks “in any format”. He said he had told Trump that a 30-day ceasefire was a “real indicator” of moving towards peace.

Writing on his social media platform Truth Social on Thursday, the US president reiterated the call for an unconditional ceasefire and warned of further sanctions for any party failing to sign up to it.

Cardinal Robert Prevost has been elected pope and will be known as Pope Leo XIV.

The 69-year-old is the first American to become a pontiff and will lead members of the Catholic Church’s global community of 1.4bn people.

Born in Chicago, he is seen as a reformer and worked for many years as a missionary in Peru before being made an archbishop there.

He also has Peruvian nationality and is fondly remembered as a figure who worked with marginalised communities and helped build bridges in the local Church.

One of the first acts of a new pope is to choose a new name, changing their baptismal one.

The decision is part of a longstanding tradition but it has not always been like that.

For more than 500 years, popes used their own names.

This then changed to symbolic names in order to simplify their given names or to refer to previous pontiffs.

• Live: Follow the latest updates after new Pope chosen
• Profile: Who is Robert Prevost, the new Pope Leo XIV?
• Watch: Oh my God, it’s Rob! – Pope’s brother speaks of joy
• Analysis: Continuity the key for Pope seen as unifier in the Church

Over the years, popes have often chosen the names of their immediate or distant predecessors out of respect or admiration and to signal the desire to follow in their footsteps and continue the most relevant pontificates.

For example, Pope Francis said his name honoured St Francis of Assisi, and that he was inspired by his Brazilian friend Cardinal Claudio Hummes.

The new Pope has not yet specified why he has decided to be known as Pope Leo XIV.

There could be many reasons for it, but the name Leo has been used by many popes over the years.

Pope Leo I, also known as St Leo the Great, was pontiff between 440 and 461 AD.

He was the 45th pope in history and became known for his commitment to peace.

According to legend, the miraculous apparition of Saints Peter and Paul during the meeting between Pope Leo I and Attila the king of the Huns in 452 AD made the latter desist from invading Italy.

The scene was then depicted by Raphael in a fresco.

The last pope to choose the name Leo was Pope Leo XIII, an Italian whose baptismal name was Vincenzo Gioacchino Pecci.

Elected in 1878, he was the 256th occupant of the throne of St Peter and led the Catholic Church until his death in 1903.

He is remembered as a pope who was dedicated to social policies and social justice.

He is particularly known for issuing an encyclical – a letter sent to bishops of the Church – called “Rerum Novarum”, a Latin expression which means “Of New Things”.

The encyclical included topics such as workers’ rights and social justice.

Leo is among some of the most popular papal names.

The most commonly used name has been John, first chosen in 523 by Saint John I, Pope and martyr.

The last pope to choose this name was Italian Angelo Giuseppe Roncalli, elected Pope John XXIII in 1958, who was proclaimed Saint by Pope Francis in 2014.

“I’m pretty sure we hung out in Brixton. Hopefully I didn’t embarrass myself.”

Luke Pritchard, the eternally youthful lead singer of The Kooks, is reintroducing himself to fellow indie survivor and Hard-Fi frontman, Richard Archer.

Both admit the 2000s, when they each sold millions of records, are a bit of a blur.

“But I think I’d remember if you’d done something odd,” reassures Archer, all chiselled good looks and friendly bonhomie.

“It’s weird, because we were all part of the same scene but, when you’re on tour, everyone’s like planets, orbiting around but missing each other.”

The Kooks and The ‘Fi were at the epicentre of the last great indie boom – a scene that kicked off in 2002 when The Libertines jolted British guitar music out of its post-Britpop slump.

Over the next half-decade, they joined acts like Franz Ferdinand, Kaiser Chiefs and Razorlight as they surfed a wave to the top of the charts.

Angular riffs, clever-clever lyrics and big, hooky choruses were the order of the day.

By 2006, seven of the UK’s 10 best-selling new albums were by guitar bands, including the Arctic Monkeys’ incendiary debut, Whatever People Say I Am, That’s What I’m Not, and The Kooks’ Inside In/Inside Out.

But the party couldn’t last forever.

In 2008, The Word magazine coined the phrase “indie landfill” to describe a seemingly endless parade of identikit bloke-bands cluttering the airwaves.

Where were they all coming from? Why couldn’t you tell them apart? Why where they all called “The Something”?

Almost overnight, radio stations ditched indie for a new generation of forward-thinking pop (Lady Gaga, Florence + The Machine) and club-centric hip-hop (Black Eyed Peas, Dizzee Rascal).

“It did suddenly seem that four boys in a band became very un-hip,” says Archer.

“The opportunities dried up in England,” agrees Pritchard. “We were playing smaller venues and the vibe just wasn’t exciting any more.”

“It got to a point where we were just exhausted,” Archer continues. “It felt like we were screaming into the void. So we stopped and tried other things.”

In the 2010s, Hard-Fi’s guitarist Ross Phillips retrained as a tiler, while Archer formed the short-lived blues band OffWorld.

But when he streamed an acoustic set of Hard-Fi songs during Covid, the response was big enough to tempt the band back on stage. A one-off gig at London’s Forum sold out in minutes.

“The response was just so warm. I was quite taken aback by it,” says Archer.

The show led to a full reunion. This summer, the band will release a 20th anniversary edition of their class-conscious, Mercury Prize-nominated debut, Stars of CCTV, while preparing a long-delayed fourth album.

The Kooks, meanwhile, never went away, recording a clutch of more experimental albums that blended drum loops, pastoral pop and even Ethiopian jazz influences.

But today, the band are bigger than ever after hits like Naïve and Ooh La found a new audience on TikTok.

Later this year, they will headline the O2 Arena for the first time, with18 to 24-year-olds making up 45% of the audience.

How do they explain this sudden revival?

“We’re at that point where teenagers start going back to listen to the music their parents grew up with,” Pritchard observes.

“In the 90s, we did it too, going back and discovering Nick Drake, so there’s a circular nature to it. The scene, and even the fashion, has come around again.”

But there’s something else, too. Songs like The Kooks’ She Moves In Her Own Way and Hard-Fi’s Hard To Beat have something that went missing in the 2010s – choruses you can sing until you’re hoarse.

“Yeah, that anthemic thing was removed from guitar music,” agrees Pritchard. “People started consuming music on earbuds, so they connected with the introspective stuff.

“But when we were gathering a little fanbase in Brighton, we’d play all these small clubs and you’d filter the setlist by whether people could sing along to the hook.”

Archer recalls the grind of those early tours. In their first year, he reckons, Hard-Fi were on the road for “almost 365 days”.

But with one grassroots venue closing every fortnight in the UK, it’s getting harder to book tours and road-test songs.

“What worries me is, if you’re a new artist now, do you have the opportunity to go out there and make mistakes and fix them?” says Archer.

A shrinking live scene isn’t the only upheaval in the industry.

The Kooks’ debut album sold 1.5 million copies in 2006 – making it the fifth biggest record of the year. Compare that with 2024, when the best-selling album in the UK (Taylor Swift’s Tortured Poets Department) only sold 600,000 copies.

Streams have cannibalised sales, turning every artist into a cult act. It doesn’t help that opportunities for promoting music have dried up.

The only music TV show left standing is Later… With Jools Holland, while weekly music magazines like the NME are no more – not that everyone laments its demise.

“We were never the best friends with the NME,” laughs Archer.

“Who was?” asks Pritchard. “There were two or three anointed bands and the rest of us were cast out.”

Are there any reviews seared into their memories?

“No, I’ve done a lot of work on that,” Pritchard jokes. “But I definitely was more sensitive than I should have been.”

“How can you not be, though?” asks Archer. “They’re criticising something you’ve sweated blood and tears over.”

While compiling the anniversary edition of Stars of CCTV, he found an old clipping where a critic said the band’s fans didn’t understand real music.

“I kept it,” he says, “so I could get revenge later.”

“You should frame it and put it in the loo,” Pritchard suggests.

“Then I’d just be angry every time I have a dump.”

But the music press was powerful in the 2000s. Both frontmen recall feeling pressure to live up to the NME’s ideal of a gobby frontman.

Archer, a thoughtful and introspective character, was even provoked into saying he wanted to be the biggest star in the world.

“I don’t see the point in being just another indie band,” he boasted in one interview. “What’s the point of being parochial and small-time? I’m in competition with Eminem.”

“You had to be super-confident and say provocative things,” Pritchard reflects now.

“But what I learned is that a lot of songwriters are introspective, insular people – and when you throw them in front of a camera, it’s quite challenging.”

With hindsight, both men emerged from the 2000s relatively unscathed, and share a newfound appreciation for their early records.

Pritchard, in particular, is revisiting the breathless pop of The Kooks’ first two albums on their new record Never/Know, released this week.

“I felt like I slightly lost my identity [because] I’d been collaborating with outside producers so much,” he says.

“So I went back and played all the records we were listening to when we started – not to repeat ourselves, but to get a firm hand on the identity again.”

The result is an album that’s perfectly timed for summer road trips and sun-soaked festival sets, replete with buoyant melodies and timeless guitar grooves.

Archer is in a similar place, with a new album inspired by a CD-Rom of old demos an ex-girlfriend sent to him last year.

So, have the bands got a five-year plan?

“Definitely – but it’s locked up in my safe,” laughs Pritchard. “I think it’s good to have goals!”

“Do you really?” asks Archer, with a concerned frown.

“I literally don’t know what I’m going to have for lunch.”

US President Donald Trump has hinted that US tariffs on goods from China may come down as top trade officials from the world’s two biggest economies are set to hold talks.

“You can’t get any higher. It’s at 145, so we know it’s coming down,” he said, referring to the new import taxes of up to 145% imposed on China since he returned to the White House.

Trump made the comments during an event to unveil a tariffs deal with the UK – the first such agreement since he hit countries around the world with steep levies in April.

The meeting in Switzerland this weekend is the strongest signal yet that the two sides are ready to deescalate a trade war that has sent shockwaves through financial markets.

“I think it’s a very friendly meeting. They look forward to doing it in an elegant way,” Trump said of the talks with China.

China’s Vice Foreign Minister Hua Chunying also struck a confident note ahead of the talks, saying Beijing has “full confidence” in its ability to manage trade issues with the US.

Officials in both Washington and Beijing are “under growing economic pressure”, Dan Wang from political risk consultancy Eurasia Group told the BBC.

“The recent signals from both sides suggest a transactional de-escalation is on the table”, she added.

The announcement earlier this week of the talks was welcomed as an important first step towards easing tensions but analysts have warned that this marks the start of what are likely to be lengthy negotiations.

“The systemic frictions between the US and China will not be resolved any time soon,” said former US trade negotiator, Stephen Olson.

Any cuts to tariffs as a result of this meeting are likely to be “minor”, he added.

The initial negotiations will be led by US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and China’s Vice Premier and economic tsar He Lifeng.

But “I think everyone recognises that any final deal will require the active engagement of both presidents,” Mr Olson said.

Another trade expert said that even if the new tariffs imposed by Trump were lifted, the two countries would still have major issues to overcome.

“A realistic goal is probably at best a pullback from the sky-high bilateral tariffs but that would still leave in place high tariff barriers and various other restrictions”, the former head of the International Monetary Fund’s (IMF) China division, Eswar Prasad told BBC News.

On Friday, official figures for April showed China’s exports to the US fell by more than 20% compared to a year earlier. But at the same time its total exports rose by a better-than-expected 8.1%.

The talks between China and the US are set to take place just two days after the UK became the first country to strike a tariffs deal with the Trump administration.

The US has agreed to reduce import taxes on a set number of British cars and allow some steel and aluminium into the country tariff-free, as part of a new agreement.

It also offers relief for other key UK industries from some of the new tariffs announced by Trump since his inauguration in January.

Countries around the world are scrambling to make similar deals before steep US import taxes are due to take effect next month.

Trump announced what he called “reciprocal tariffs” on dozens of countries in April but paused them shortly afterwards for 90 days to give their governments time to negotiate with his administration.

Businesses based in the US will also be watching events in Switzerland closely.

Wild Rye, a women’s outdoor clothing firm based in the state of Idaho, has manufacturing stations in China and has been severely affected by the tariffs.

The cost of shipping goods has jumped significantly, the firm’s chief executive, Cassie Abel, told the BBC’s Today programme.

“We have a purchase order that’s incoming, which is around $700,000 [of goods] that’s now costing £1.2m in levies up from £200,000,” she said.

Ms Abel added she was now looking to sell parts of her business to try to raise cash.

Follow the twists and turns of Trump’s second term with North America correspondent Anthony Zurcher’s weekly US Politics Unspun newsletter. Readers in the UK can sign up here. Those outside the UK can sign up here.

India has accused Pakistan of attacking three of its military bases with drones and missiles, a claim which has been denied by Islamabad.

The Indian Army said it had foiled Pakistan’s attempts to attack its bases in Jammu and Udhampur, in Indian-administered Kashmir, and Pathankot, in India’s Punjab state.

Blasts were reported on Thursday evening in Jammu city in Indian-administered Kashmir as the region went into a blackout.

Pakistan’s defence minister told the BBC they were not behind the attack.

“We deny it, we have not mounted anything so far,” Khawaja Asif told the BBC, adding: “We will not strike and then deny”.

Earlier on Thursday, India said it had struck Pakistan’s air defences and “neutralised” Islamabad’s attempts to hit military targets in India on Wednesday night.

Pakistan called that action another “act of aggression”, following Indian missile strikes on Wednesday on targets in Pakistan and Pakistani-administered Kashmir.

India’s strikes on Wednesday sparked a chorus of calls for de-escalation from the international community with the UN and world leaders calling for calm.

The attacks and incidents of shelling along the border have fanned fears of wider conflict erupting between the nuclear-armed states.

It is being viewed as the worst confrontation between the two countries in more than two decades.

India said it hit nine “terrorist infrastructure” sites on Wednesday in retaliation for a militant attack on tourists in Indian-administered Kashmir last month.

Pakistan has strongly denied Indian claims that it backed the militants who killed 26 civilians in the mountainous town of Pahalgam.

It was the bloodiest attack on civilians in the region for years, sending tensions soaring. Most of the victims were Indian tourists.

Indian-administered Kashmir has seen a decades-long insurgency against Indian rule which has claimed thousands of lives.

Kashmir has been a flashpoint between the countries since they became independent after British India was partitioned in 1947. Both claim Kashmir and have fought two wars over it.

There were calls for restraint from around the world after India launched “Operation Sindoor” early on Wednesday.

But on Thursday both sides accused each other of further military action.

Pakistan’s military spokesman said drones sent by India had been engaged in multiple locations.

“Last night, India showed another act of aggression by sending drones to multiple locations,” Lt Gen Ahmed Sharif Chaudhry said. “These locations are Lahore, Gujranwala, Chakwal, Rawalpindi, Attock, Bahawalpur, Miano, Chor and near Karachi.”

He said one civilian had been killed in Sindh province and four troops injured in Lahore.

The US consulate in Lahore told its staff to shelter in the building.

India said its latest action had been taken in response to Pakistan’s attempts to “engage a number of military targets in northern and western India” overnight.

“It has been reliably learnt that an Air Defence system at Lahore has been neutralised,” a Defence Ministry statement said. Pakistan denied the claim.

There was no independent confirmation of the two countries’ versions of events.

Later in the day India’s foreign secretary Vikram Misri told a news conference in Delhi: “Our intention has not been to escalate matters, we are only responding to the original escalation.”

Meanwhile, casualty numbers continue to rise. Pakistan says 31 people have been killed and 57 injured by Indian air strikes in Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir, and firing along the Line of Control, since Wednesday morning.

India’s army said the number of people killed by Pakistani firing in the disputed Kashmir region had risen to 16, including three women and five children.

India initially did not name any group it believed was behind the attack in Pahalgam but on 7 May it accused the Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba militant group of carrying it out.

Indian police have alleged that two of the attackers were Pakistani nationals, a claim denied by Islamabad. It says it has nothing to do with the 22 April attacks.

In a late-night address on Wednesday, Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif vowed to avenge those killed in India’s strikes.

He repeated Pakistan’s claim that it had shot down five Indian fighter jets, saying that was a “crushing response”. India has not commented on that claim.

Following the reports of Thursday’s explosions in Jammu, local media cited Indian military sources on Thursday in reporting that blasts across the Jammu region were also reported in the towns of Akhnoor, Samba and Kathua.

Daniel Graham and Adam Carruthers have been found guilty of cutting down the iconic Sycamore Gap tree. The deliberate felling of the tree on Hadrian’s Wall in Northumberland angered people around the world. For the man who was first on the scene, it was a moment that changed his life forever.

Park ranger Gary Pickles was in shock.

Where once had stood arguably England’s favourite tree, there was now just air.

When the call had come through earlier that morning, Gary had thought it was a prank.

His working day on 28 September 2023 had barely started when a farmer called his office to report the tree was down.

“I doubted a farmer would be telling us a silly story so I thought ‘oh my god, I think this might be true’.”

The team of park rangers were alerted by email and Gary got in his van to drive to the tree.

With every passing minute of the short journey, his anxiety levels increased.

“As I got nearer and nearer, I just thought ‘it’s gone, it’s gone’.”

He’d arrived at the road adjacent to the tree and had to “double take” as he saw it for the first time lying on its side.

“It was shock,” said Gary, who was met with a gaping hole in the landscape.

At this stage, he presumed the tree had been damaged in Storm Agnes, which had brought strong winds overnight.

“When you look and it’s gone, it’s just….oh my god,” he said.

“It’s a landmark. It’s a piece of the landscape.”

Gary needed to investigate further. He parked his van in a nearby car park and rushed on foot to the fallen tree.

The sadness he was feeling soon turned to anger and panic.

“When I got there I realised it had been chopped down and not blown down.

“There was a clean cut so that escalated it up.

“Once you realise it’s been chopped down, then it’s going to become a massive worldwide story.”

The seriousness of the developing situation quickly became apparent.

Gary hastily reported back to Northumberland National Park’s headquarters that it appeared that the tree had been cut down deliberately. At this stage there was no time to consider who by or why.

Just after 09:00 BST, the National Park alerted colleagues at the National Trust, including general manager Andrew Poad.

“My personal phone started lighting up. Messages were coming through on my laptop.

“Once I realised it was a deliberate act, crisis mode kicked in,” said Andrew, whose priority was to personally inform people before they saw it on social media.

“It was like ringing people up to tell them that someone had passed away.

“On the day I was using the expression ‘it’s like losing a loved one’. We all went through that grief.

“There were numerous members of staff in tears.”

Viral photographs shared on social media showed the tree on its side, as the PR teams at the National Park and the National Trust frantically collaborated on an official response.

“Within the hour it was global, effectively,” Andrew said.

Shortly before 11:00, a statement from the organisations confirmed the tree had been cut down.

At around midday, Northumbria Police announced it was being treated as “a deliberate act of vandalism”.

Local journalists were already carrying out interviews at the scene, before reporters from around the world turned the grassy mound opposite the stump into a “sea of camera tripods”.

“It is the largest press story that the National Trust has ever dealt with,” Andrew said.

“It was one of the things that surprised us. The sheer scale of the global reach of the interest really took us back a bit.”

The usual calming sound of the vast countryside was drowned out by the clicks of cameras and the engines of broadcast trucks.

“We knew it was popular, but we didn’t know how popular,” Andrew said.

The international interest also surprised Gary.

“My sister lives in France, my brother is in America, and by dinner time they’d both rung me, so it was global news at such a fast rate.”

Senior management from the National Park and the National Trust spent the afternoon at the fallen tree, speaking to the crowds of emotional walkers and journalists.

Reporters gathered shocking footage of the trunk draped over a now damaged Hadrian’s Wall.

This idyllic, tranquil spot that had brought peace to so many was now a crime scene wrapped in blue and white police tape. Forensic officers in white suits also gathered DNA from the stump.

Eighteen months on from its felling, Andrew and Gary regularly reflect on the day that north-east England lost “a massive local landmark.”

“It’s just senseless. Who or what were they trying to get at?” said Andrew.

“It’s still a huge part of my life dealing with this. It’s a big gap in all our lives, never mind the landscape.”

US President Donald Trump has appointed Fox News host and former New York prosecutor Jeanine Pirro as interim US attorney for Washington DC.

The announcement comes after Trump withdrew his first pick for the job after he lost key Republican support in the Senate, which votes on such positions.

After Trump’s 2020 loss to Joe Biden, Pirro made false statements about the election that were part of a lawsuit against Fox News by a company that makes voting machines. The case was settled for more than $787m (£594m).

Trump called Pirro “a powerful crusader for victims of crime” in a social media post announcing his selection.

The president did not indicate whether Pirro, 73, would serve permanently in the job, which requires Senate confirmation, or how long her term would last.

In the Truth Social post on Thursday night, Trump noted that she previously served as a Republican district attorney in Westchester, New York, as well as a judge. He also touted her roles on various shows on Fox News, which he called “one of the Highest Rated Shows on Television”.

Pirro has been a close ally of Trump for decades. In one of his last actions during his first term, Trump issued a pardon to her husband, who had been convicted of tax evasion decades earlier.

Pirro replaces current interim US attorney Ed Martin, a former conservative podcaster that Trump appointed this January.

He was replaced after North Carolina Republican Senator Thom Tillis, a key swing vote, said he would refuse to confirm Martin for the role on a permanent basis, saying there was “friction” over how Martin viewed those involved in the 6 January riots at the US Capitol.

Tillis told reporters this week that he had “no tolerance for anybody who entered the building on January 6”.

Martin has been a staunch critic of the investigation into the Capitol riot. While serving in the role on an interim basis, he fired prosecutors who oversaw rioter cases.

Trump said Martin will remain at the US Justice Department and serve as director of the “weaponization working group”, which looks into officials who investigated Trump, the president said in another post on social media.

Since taking office, Trump has issued pardons and ended prosecutions against 6 January rioters who stormed the US Capitol in an effort to block Biden’s election win over Trump in the 2020 election.

Two weeks after a deadly militant attack on tourists in Indian-administered Kashmir, India has launched a series of strikes on sites in Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir.

The Indian defence ministry said the strikes – named “Operation Sindoor” – were part of a “commitment” to hold “accountable” those responsible for the 22 April attack in Pahalgam, Indian-administered Kashmir, which left 25 Indians and one Nepali national dead.

But Pakistan, which has denied any involvement in that attack, described the strikes as “unprovoked”, with Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif saying the “heinous act of aggression will not go unpunished”.

Sharif on Wednesday said the Pahalgam attack “wasn’t related” to Pakistan, and that his country was “accused for the wrong” reasons.

• Follow the latest updates
• Why India and Pakistan fight over Kashmir
• BBC reports from Muzaffarabad in Pakistan-administered Kashmir

Pakistan’s military said at least 31 people were killed and 57 injured in the strikes on Tuesday night. India’s army said at least 15 civilians were killed and 43 injured by Pakistani shelling on its side of the de facto border.

Pakistan’s military says it shot down five Indian aircraft and a drone. India has yet to respond to these claims.

Late on Wednesday, Sharif said the air force made its defence – which was a “reply from our side to them”.

Delhi said in the early hours of Wednesday morning that nine different locations had been targeted in both Pakistan-administered Kashmir and Pakistan.

It said these sites were “terrorist infrastructure” – places where attacks were “planned and directed”.

It emphasised that it had not hit any Pakistani military facilities, saying its “actions have been focused, measured and non-escalatory in nature”.

In the initial aftermath of the attacks, Pakistan said three different areas were hit: Muzaffarabad and Kotli in Pakistan-administered Kashmir, and Bahawalpur in the Pakistani province of Punjab. Pakistan’s military spokesperson, Lt Gen Ahmed Sharif, later said six locations had been hit.

Pakistan’s Defence Minister Khawaja Asif told GeoTV in the early hours of Wednesday that the strikes hit civilian areas, adding that India’s claim of “targeting terrorist camps” was false.

The strikes come after weeks of rising tension between the nuclear-armed neighbours over the shootings in the picturesque resort town of Pahalgam.

The 22 April attack by a group of militants saw 26 people killed, with survivors saying the militants were singling out Hindu men.

It was the worst attack on civilians in the region in two decades, and the first major attack on civilians since India revoked Article 370, which gave Kashmir semi-autonomous status, in 2019.

Following the decision, the region saw protests but also witnessed militancy wane and a huge increase in the number of tourists.

The killings have sparked widespread anger in India, with Prime Minister Narendra Modi saying the country would hunt the suspects “till the ends of the Earth” and that those who planned and carried it out “will be punished beyond their imagination”.

However, India initially did not name any group it believed was behind the attack in Pahalgam.

But Indian police alleged that two of the attackers were Pakistani nationals, with Delhi accusing Pakistan of supporting militants – a charge Islamabad denies. It says it has nothing to do with the 22 April attacks.

On 7 May, Indian Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri said Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba militant group carried out the attack.

In the two weeks since, both sides had taken tit-for-tat measures against each other – including expelling diplomats, suspending visas and closing border crossings.

But many expected it would escalate to some sort of cross-border strike – as seen after the Pulwama attacks which left 40 Indian paramilitary personnel dead in 2019.

Kashmir is claimed in full by India and Pakistan, but administered only in part by each since they were partitioned following independence from Britain in 1947.

The countries have fought two wars over it.

But more recently, it has been attacks by militants which have brought the two countries to the brink. Indian-administered Kashmir has seen an armed insurgency against Indian rule since 1989, with militants targeting security forces and civilians alike.

In 2016, after 19 Indian soldiers were killed in Uri, India launched “surgical strikes” across the Line of Control – the de facto border between India and Pakistan – targeting militant bases.

In 2019, the Pulwama bombing, which left 40 Indian paramilitary personnel dead, prompted airstrikes deep into Balakot – the first such action inside Pakistan since 1971 – sparking retaliatory raids and an aerial dogfight.

Neither spiralled, but the wider world remains alert to the danger of what could happen if it did. Attempts have been made by various nations and diplomats around the world to prevent this.

UN Secretary-General António Guterres quickly called for “maximum restraint” – a sentiment echoed by the European Union and numerous countries, including Bangladesh.

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer urged “dialogue” and “de-escalation”.

US President Donald Trump – who was one of the first to respond – told reporters at the White House that he hoped the fighting “ends very quickly”. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, meanwhile, said he was keeping a close eye on developments.