Israeli-American hostage Edan Alexander has been reunited with his family in Israel after being held captive by Hamas in Gaza for 19 months.

The 21-year-old had been serving in the Israeli army on the border of Gaza when he was captured by Hamas militants on 7 October 2023.

On Monday, Israel paused its military operations in Gaza for a few hours to facilitate the transfer. A senior Hamas official told the BBC the release was intended as a goodwill gesture and as part of efforts to reach a new ceasefire deal ahead of US President Donald Trump’s visit to the Middle East on Tuesday.

Mr Alexander is thought to be the last US citizen held by Hamas who was still alive.

President Trump offered “congratulations” to his family on his release.

Television pictures show Edan Alexander smiling as he embraces his parents and siblings at an Israeli military base.

In a statement, his family thanked the US president but also urged the Israeli government and negotiators to continue working to free the 58 remaining hostages.

Mr Alexander is the first hostage to be freed by Hamas since Israel restarted its military offensive on 18 March, after a two-month ceasefire came to an end.

On Monday, he was seen with masked Hamas fighters as they handed him over to Red Cross workers in the southern Gaza city of Khan Younis.

He was then transferred to Israeli authorities in Gaza before being reunited with his family in southern Israel. The Israeli military said it provided a “safe corridor” for Mr Alexander’s release.

A video shared on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s X account showed Yael Alexander speaking to her son over the phone.

“You are strong. You are protected. You are home,” she said in the video.

Netanyahu called Mr Alexander’s return a “very moving moment” – and thanked Trump for his support.

The release had been made possible because of military pressure on Hamas and “the political pressure exerted by President Trump”, Netanyahu said.

He added that Israel intended to continue with plans to intensify its military actions in Gaza and that there would be no ceasefire.

Hamas had earlier said Mr Alexander’s release was intended to facilitate a deal for the entry of humanitarian aid into the enclave.

Israel has blocked the entry of all food, medication and other humanitarian supplies into Gaza for 70 days, which aid agencies say amounts to a policy of starvation and could be a war crime, and renewed its aerial bombardment and other military operations there in mid-March.

Hamas has previously said it will only agree to a deal that includes the end of the war. This has been repeatedly rejected by Netanyahu.

Trump is due to arrive in the Middle East on Tuesday, and Israel has vowed to expand its military offensive against Hamas if no deal is reached by the end of his visit.

Israeli officials have said the plans for their expanded offensive include seizing all of Gaza indefinitely, forcibly displacing Palestinians to the south, and taking over aid distribution with private companies despite opposition from the UN and its humanitarian partners, who say they will not co-operate because it appears to “weaponise” aid.

Israel is due to send representatives to Qatar on Thursday to discuss a proposal on further hostage releases.

Qatar and Egypt said that Mr Alexander’s release was an encouraging sign of potential new truce talks.

Born in Tel Aviv but raised in New Jersey, Mr Alexander had been serving in an elite infantry unit on the Gaza border when he was captured by Hamas militants during the 7 October 2003 attack.

About 1,200 people were killed and 251 hostages taken. Some 58 hostages remain, up to 24 of whom are believed to be alive.

Five of the captives held in Gaza are believed to have US citizenship. Mr Alexander is thought to be the last American still alive.

Israel’s military campaign has killed 52,829 people in Gaza, according to the Hamas-run health ministry, including 2,720 Palestinians killed since March.

China’s defiance as it faced down US President Donald Trump’s tariffs has been a defining image of this trade war.

It has prompted viral memes of Trump waiting for the Chinese leader to call.

“We will not back down,” has been an almost daily message from Beijing’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs. As the tariffs and the rhetoric from Washington escalated, China dug its heels in.

Even as Chinese officials headed to Switzerland for talks, a state-run social media account published a cartoon of the US Treasury secretary pushing an empty shopping trolley.

There were even conflicting versions of who initiated the talks in Geneva.

But after two days of “robust” talks, the situation appears to have changed.

So, is this a major turning point for Washington and Beijing? The answer is yes and no.

• Faisal Islam: US and China step back from beyond brink
• ‘We don’t care’: A defiant China looks beyond Trump’s America

“The consensus from both delegations this weekend is neither side wants a decoupling,” said US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent during a press conference in Geneva.

“And what had occurred with these very high tariffs… was the equivalent of an embargo, and neither side wants that. We do want trade.”

Economists admit that this agreement is better than expected.

“I thought tariffs would be cut to somewhere around 50%,” Zhiwei Zhang, chief economist at Pinpoint Asset Management in Hong Kong, told Reuters news agency.

But in fact, US tariffs on Chinese imports will now fall to 30%, while Chinese tariffs on US goods will drop to 10%.

“Obviously, this is very positive news for economies in both countries and for the global economy, and makes investors much less concerned about the damage to global supply chains in the short term,” he added.

Trump hailed the progress on Sunday on his Truth Social site: “Many things discussed, much agreed to. A total reset negotiated in a friendly, but constructive, manner.”

Beijing has also softened its tone considerably– and perhaps for good reason.

China can take the pain of an economic war with America – to an extent. It is the lead trade partner for more than 100 other countries.

But officials have become increasingly concerned about the impact the tariffs could have on an economy that is already struggling to deal with a property crisis, stubbornly high youth unemployment and low consumer confidence.

Factory output has slowed and there are reports that some companies are having to lay off workers as production lines of US-bound goods grind to a halt, bringing trade to a standstill.

Data on Saturday showed China’s consumer price index dropped 0.1 percent in April, the third month in a row of decline as consumers hold back from spending and businesses drop prices to compete for customers.

The Chinese Commerce Ministry said on Monday that the agreement reached with the US was an important step to “resolve differences” and “lay the foundation to bridge differences and deepen cooperation”.

Such a positive statement from Beijing would have seemed inconceivable just a month ago.

The two sides have also agreed to more talks, or an “economic and trade consultation mechanism”, as Beijing puts it.

But Trump’s characterisation of a “total reset” in relations may be overly optimistic as there is a slight sting in the tail in Beijing’s statement.

The Commerce Ministry ended with a reminder of who it sees as being in the wrong.

“We hope that the US will continue to work with China to meet each other halfway based on this meeting, thoroughly correct the wrong practice of unilateral tariff increases,” said the spokesperson.

Chinese state media also had a warning for Washington. Xinhua News Agency’s commentary claimed China’s “goodwill and patience has its limits, and it will never be used on those who repress and blackmail us without pause or have no qualms about going back on their word”.

Leaders in Beijing will want to portray an image of strength both to its own people and to the international community. They will want to appear as if they have not budged an inch. The message from China is that it is being responsible and rational and doing what it can to avoid a global recession.

• Xi’s real test is not Trump’s trade war

“This is a victory for conscience and rationality,” said Zhang Yun from the School of International Relations at Nanjing University.

“The talks also established the necessary framework for continued dialogue and negotiations in the future.”

This “victory” is only for 90 days. The tariffs are only paused temporarily to allow for negotiations.

It will allow some trade to flow, and it will soothe worried markets.

But the root of the problem still exists. China still sells far more to the United States than it buys. And there are other, far thornier differences to unpick, from Chinese government subsidies, to key industries, to geopolitical tensions in the Taiwan Strait and beyond.

The fight for a more balanced trade relationship is far from over – it has simply moved.

The frontline has shifted from China’s factory floors and American supermarkets to negotiating tables in both Beijing and Washington.

Share markets jumped on Monday after President Trump said weekend talks had resulted in a “total reset” in trade terms between the US and China, a move which goes some way to defuse the high stakes stand-off between the two countries.

The talks in Switzerland resulted in significant cuts to the tit-for-tat tariffs that had been stacked up since January on both sides.

The US will lower those tariffs from 145% to 30%, while China’s retaliatory tariffs on US goods will drop to 10% from 125%.

President Trump told reporters, that, as some of the levies have been suspended rather than cancelled altogether, they might rise again in three months time, if no further progress was made.

However, he said he did not expect them to return to the previous 145% peak.

“We’re not looking to hurt China,” Trump said after the agreement was announced, adding that China was “being hurt very badly”.

“They were closing up factories. They were having a lot of unrest, and they were very happy to be able to do something with us.”

He said he expected to speak to Chinese President Xi Jinping “maybe at the end of the week”.

• What does the US-China tariff deal mean?

Investors welcomed the de-escalation. The S&P 500 index jumped more than 3.2% after the announcement, while the Dow climbed 2.8% and the Nasdaq had surged 4.3% by the end of the day.

The gains left the indexes roughly where they started the year, fully recovered from the losses they sustained in the aftermath of the 2 April tariffs announcement, dubbed “Liberation Day” by the Trump administration.

Framed as a campaign to give Americans a fairer deal from international trade, the US announced a universal baseline tariff on all imports to the US.

Around 60 trading partners, which the White House described as the “worst offenders”, were subjected to higher rates than others, and this included China.

Beijing retaliated with tariffs of its own, which led to levies being ratcheted up on both sides, sending shares sharply lower.

Under the new agreement, the US is reducing the “reciprocal” tariff on Chinese goods that it announced on “Liberation day” to 10%. But it said the higher levy rate was being suspended for 90 days, rather than removed permanently.

The US is also keeping in place the extra 20% tariff aimed at putting pressure on Beijing to do more to curb the illegal trade in fentanyl, a powerful opioid drug.

For its part, China is also reducing to 10% the retaliation tariffs they put in place in response to Trump’s “Liberation day” announcement, again suspended for three months.

China has also agreed to “suspend or remove” all non-tariff measures against the US.

Pre-existing tariffs, including higher sector-specific tariffs on things like steel and cars, remain in place.

However, additional retaliatory tariffs, that were added subsequently, have been cancelled altogether on both sides.

The retreat comes as the first impacts from the tariff-war were beginning to show, with US ports reporting a sharp drop in the number of ships scheduled to arrive from China.

Factory output has slowed in China, and there are reports of firms laying off workers, as US orders dried up.

China’s commerce ministry said the agreement was an important step to “resolve differences” which would help to “deepen co-operation”.

• Faisal Islam: US and China step back from brink
• Laura Bicker: China has come to the table – but this fight is far from over

Tat Kei, a Chinese exporter of personal care appliances to the US, whose factory employs 200 people in Shenzhen, welcomed the announcement, but said he still feared what else might be to come.

“President Trump is going to be here for the next three-and-a-half years. I don’t think this is going to be the end of it… not by a long shot,” he told the BBC.

Elaine Li, head of Greater China at Atlas Ways, which offers services for Chinese enterprises’ global development, also said she believed many Chinese firms would treat the reprieve as temporary.

“For businesses, the best they can do is build a moat around their company before the next round of tariffs arrives,” she said.

On Wall Street Target, Home Depot and Nike were among companies that saw their share price rise sharply on the news. Tech firms including Nvidia, Amazon, Apple and Facebook-owner Meta also moved sharply higher.

European stocks rose on Monday, and earlier Hong Kong’s benchmark Hang Seng Index had ended the day up 3%.

The deal has boosted shares in shipping companies, with Denmark’s Maersk up more than 12% and Germany’s Hapag-Lloyd jumping 14%.

Maersk told the BBC the US-China agreement was “a step in the right direction” and that it now hoped for “a permanent deal that can create the long-term predictability our customers need.”

In the US, the National Retail Federation (NRF) said it was encouraged by the “constructive” negotiations.

“This temporary pause is a critical first step to provide some short-term relief for retailers and other businesses that are in the midst of ordering merchandise for the winter holiday season,” said NRF president Matthew Shay.

The International Chamber of Commerce said the deal sent a clear signal that the US and China both wanted to avoid a “hard decoupling”.

“Ultimately, we hope this weekend’s agreement lays the foundation to lift the cloud of trade policy uncertainty that continues to weigh on investment, hiring, and demand across the world,” said deputy secretary-general, Andrew Wilson.

The gold price – which has benefited from its safe-haven status in recent weeks given the disruption caused by the tariffs – fell 3.1% to $3,223.57 an ounce.

I grew up in Nepal’s capital watching the Himalayas. Ever since I left, I’ve missed sweeping, panoramic views of some of the highest mountain peaks on Earth.

Each time I visit Kathmandu, I hope to catch a glimpse of the dramatic mountain range. But these days, there’s usually no luck.

The main culprit is severe air pollution that hangs as haze above the region.

And it’s happening even during the spring and autumn months, which once offered clear skies.

Just last April, the international flight I was in had to circle in the sky nearly 20 times before landing in Kathmandu, because of the hazy weather impacting visibility at the airport.

The hotel I checked in at was at a reasonable height from which mountains are visible on a clear day – but there was no such day during my two-week stay.

Even from the major vantage point of Nagarkot, just outside Kathmandu, all that could be seen was haze, as if the mountains did not exist.

“I no longer brand the place for views of ‘sunrise, sunset and Himalayas’ as I did in the past,” said Yogendra Shakya, who has been operating a hotel at Nagarkot since 1996.

“Since you can’t have those things mostly now because of the haze, I have rebranded it with history and culture as there are those tourism products as well here.”

During an earlier trip a year ago, I was hopeful I would be able to see the mighty Himalayan peaks on a trek in the mesmerising Annapurna region – but had hardly any luck there either.

Scientists say hazy conditions in the region are becoming increasingly intense and lasting longer, reducing visibility significantly.

Haze is formed by a combination of pollutants like dust and smoke particles from fires, reducing visibility to less than 5,000m (16,400ft). It remains stagnant in the sky during the dry season – which now lasts longer due to climate change.

June to September is the region’s rainy season, when Monsoon clouds rather than haze keep the mountains covered and visibility low.

Traditionally, March to May and October to November were the best times for business because that was when skies remained clear and visibility was best.

But with rising temperatures and a lack of rain, and worsening air pollution, the spring months are now seeing thick haze with low visibility. Those conditions are beginning as early as December.

Lucky Chhetri, a pioneering female trekking guide in Nepal, said hazy conditions had led to a 40% decrease in business.

“In one case last year, we had to compensate a group of trekkers as our guides could not show them the Himalayas due to the hazy conditions,” she added

An Australian tourist who has visited Nepal more than a dozen times since 1986 described not seeing the mountains as a “major let-down”.

“It wasn’t like this 10 years ago but now the haze seems to have taken over and it is extraordinarily disappointing for visitors like me,” said John Carrol.

Krishna KC, the provincial chair of the Trekking Agents Association of Nepal in the western Gandaki province, says the trekking industry is in deep trouble.

“Our member trekking operators are getting depressed because no sighting of the Himalayas means no business. Many of them are even considering changing professions,” he told the BBC.

On the Indian side, near the central Himalayas, hoteliers and tour operators say haze is now denser and returns quicker than before.

“We have long dry spells and then a heavy downpour, unlike in the past. So with infrequent rain the haze persists for much longer,” said Malika Virdi, who heads a community-run tourism business in the state of Uttarakhand.

However, Ms Virdi says tourists are persistent – with many who didn’t catch the mountain range returning to try their luck again.

The western Himalayas in Pakistan have been relatively less affected by the haze because the mountains are relatively far from cities.

But locals say that even the ranges that were once easily visible from places like Peshawar and Gilgit are often no longer seen.

“The sheet of haze remains hanging for a longer period and we don’t see the mountains that we could in the past,” said Asif Shuja, the former head of Pakistan’s environmental protection agency.

South Asian cities regularly top lists of places with highest levels of air pollution in the world.

Public health across the region has been badly impacted by the toxic air, which frequently causes travel disruption and school closures.

Vehicular and industrial emissions, dust from infrastructure construction and dry gravel roads as well as the open burning of waste are major sources of air pollution year-round.

This is compounded by soot from massive forest fires – which are increasing due to a longer dry season – and the burning of crop residues after the harvest by farmers in northern India, Pakistan and Nepal.

Weather conditions keeping warmer air above cooler air trap these pollutants and limit vertical air movement – preventing pollution from dispersing.

“Hazes and dust storms are increasing in South Asia, and this trend is projected to continue due to climate change and other factors,” Dr Someshwor Das from the South Asia Meteorological Association told the BBC.

In 2024, the number of hazy days recorded at the airport in Pokhara, a major tourism hub in western Nepal, was 168 – up from 23 in 2020 and 84 in 2021, according to Nepal’s department of hydrology and meteorology.

Experts believe the Himalayas are probably the worst affected mountain range in the world given their location in a populous and polluted region.

This could mean the scintillating view of the Himalayas could now largely be limited to photographs, paintings and postcards.

“We are left to do business with guilt when we are unable to show our clients the mountains that they pay us for,” said trekking leader Ms Chhetri.

“And there is nothing we can do about the haze.”

Former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte, who is detained at The Hague over his drug war that killed thousands, has been elected mayor of his family’s stronghold, according to early, partial results.

Two of his most loyal aides – long-time assistant Christopher “Bong” Go and Ronald “Bato” dela Rosa, the one-time police chief in charge of enforcing his drug war – have been re-elected to the country’s senate.

But the midterm election, dominated by a spectacular feud between the Duterte and Marcos dynasties, has also thrown up some unexpected results.

The fate of Duterte’s daughter, Vice-President Sara Duterte, remains in the balance as counting continues.

Sara Duterte – who is widely expected to run for president in 2028 – is facing the prospect of a ban from politics should a jury made up of the country’s senate vote to impeach her.

It meant the midterms – which saw 18,000 seats contested, from local officials to governors and senators – became a proxy war between her supporters and her one-time ally, President Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr.

Candidates supporting either dynasty went head-to-head, with Duterte’s camp seeking the nine senate votes she needs to avoid impeachment.

But an unofficial tally of 68% of the vote suggests it is unclear which way it has gone.

Marcos Jr’s endorsements appear to not have worked as predicted by opinion polls – only one of his candidates, broadcaster Erwin Tulfo, made the top five in the unofficial count.

The rest of the top five was made up of the two Duterte aides and two independents while there is a tight race for the rest of the winning circle of 12.

The vice-president, meanwhile, remains widely popular despite her political troubles, and the president will be leaving office in 2028.

Results so far show the Duterte’s have managed to retain their powerbase in the south of the country – just two months after the 80-year-old populist leader was arrested at Manila Airport and flown to the Netherlands on the same day to face the International Criminal Court.

It was his arrest – approved by Marcos Jr – which pushed the rivalry between his daughter and the current president to boiling point, a few weeks after the president’s allies in the House of Representatives voted to impeach Vice-President Duterte.

The older Duterte was widely expected to win as mayor, given the family has held the post since the mid-1980s.

Duterte himself led Davao, a sprawling southern metropolis, for two decades before he was elected president in 2016. There, he showcased his drug war that he credited for the city’s success, and won him the support of millions far beyond its borders.

His youngest son, Sebastian, the incumbent mayor, was elected vice-mayor, meaning he can discharge his father’s duties in his absence. Another Duterte son, Paolo, was re-elected as congressman. His grandchildren won local posts.

Duterte’s name remained on the ballot as he has not been convicted of any crime. He beat the scion of a smaller rival political family.

Maintaining a political base in Davao city in the south is crucial for the Dutertes – it is where they get the most voter support.

The election was not just a battle between the two families, however.

Monday’s vote saw long queues under temperatures of 33C (91F) and sporadic reports of violence and vote machines malfunctioning.

Like past elections, song-and-dance, showbusiness-style campaigns played out on stage and on social media, underscoring the country’s personality and celebrity politics that sometimes overshadow more pressing issues such as corruption, high cost of living and creaking infrastructure.

India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi has said his country will respond strongly to what he describes as a future “terrorist attack”, after four days of military exchanges with neighbouring Pakistan.

“This is not an era of war, but this is also not an era of terror,” Modi said in his first public address since days of intense shelling and aerial incursions, carried out by both sides, began.

These followed a militant attack in Indian-administered Kashmir that killed 26 people, for which India blamed a Pakistan-based group. Islamabad has strongly denied backing the group in question.

The US-brokered ceasefire agreed between the nuclear-armed neighbours at the weekend appears to have held so far.

Both nations say they remain vigilant.

“If another terrorist attack against India is carried out, a strong response will be given,” Modi said in his speech on Monday.

• ANALYSIS: How backchannels and US mediators pulled India and Pakistan back from the brink

“Terror and trade talks cannot happen together,” he remarked. This was most likely a reference to comments from US President Donald Trump, who said he had told India and Pakistan his administration would only trade with them if they end the conflict.

“Water and blood cannot flow together,” Modi added, this time referring to the suspension of a water treaty between India and Pakistan.

His comments come after Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif on Saturday said that his country had “acted as a responsible state”, adding: “Our honour, our dignity and our self-respect are more precious to us than our lives.”

He said he believed the water issue with India would be resolved through peaceful negotiations.

Earlier on Monday, top military officials from India and Pakistan discussed finer details of the ceasefire agreed between them over the weekend.

According to the Indian army, the two sides spoke about the need to refrain from any aggressive action.

“It was also agreed that both sides consider immediate measures to ensure troop reduction from the borders and forward areas,” it said in a statement.

India also announced it was reopening 32 airports for civilians that it had earlier said would remain closed until Thursday due to safety concerns.

The recent tensions were the latest in the decades-long rivalry between India and Pakistan, who have fought two wars over Kashmir, a Himalayan region which they claim in full but administer in part.

The hostilities threatened to turn into a fully-fledged war as they appeared unwilling to back down for days.

Both countries have said that dozens of people from both sides died over the four days of fighting last week, partly due to heavy shelling near the de facto border.

Announcing the ceasefire on Saturday, Trump said “it was time to stop the current aggression that could have led to the death and destruction of so many, and so much”.

Both India and Pakistan declared military victory after it came into effect.

On 7 May, India reported striking nine targets inside Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir in response to the 22 April deadly militant attack in the picturesque Pahalgam valley.

In the days after the first strike, India and Pakistan accused each other of cross-border shelling and claimed to have shot down rival drones and aircraft in their airspace.

As the conflict escalated, both nations said they had struck the rival’s military bases.

Indian officials reported striking 11 Pakistan Air Force bases, including one in Rawalpindi, near the capital Islamabad. India also claimed Pakistan lost 35-40 men at the Line of Control – the de facto border – during the conflict and that its air force lost a few aircraft.

Pakistan has accepted that some Indian projectiles landed at its air force bases.

Indian defence forces have also said that they struck nine armed group training facilities in Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir, killing more than 100 militants.

The Pakistan military, in turn, claims it targeted about 26 military facilities in India and that its drones hovered over the capital, Delhi.

India has confirmed that some Pakistani projectiles landed up at its air force bases, though it did not comment on the claim about Delhi.

Pakistan also claims to have shot down five Indian aircraft, including three French Rafales – India has not acknowledged this or commented on the number, though it said on Sunday that “losses are a part of combat”.

Pakistan denied the claims that an Indian pilot was in its custody after she ejected following an aircraft crash. India has also said that “all our pilots are back home”.

Australia’s Liberal Party has for the first time chosen a woman as its leader, with Sussan Ley to take over from Peter Dutton after he led the party to a bruising election loss.

Ley, from the moderate faction of the party, beat Angus Taylor – who ran on a promise to restore conservative values – by four votes.

At the election on 3 May, the Liberal-National coalition, currently Australia’s main opposition party, suffered what many are calling the worst defeat in its history.

Pundits and MPs have blamed the result on polarising leaders, a messy campaign and “Trumpian” policies, which alienated women and young people in particular.

Ley’s appointment comes as Prime Minister Anthony Albanese was sworn in at Government House on Tuesday, following his Labor Party’s landslide election win.

According to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Labor has won at least 93 seats – increasing their majority by 16 – while the Coalition has 41 electorates, down from 58. Some seats are still too close to call.

Ley has held the massive regional New South Wales seat of Farrer since 2001 and has served as a senior minister in a variety of portfolios – making her one of the Liberal Party’s most experienced hands. She was also the party deputy under Dutton.

Ted O’Brien, a Queensland MP who was the energy spokesman in charge of selling the coalition’s controversial nuclear power proposal, was elected Ley’s deputy.

Both are expected to address the media later on Tuesday, but Ley has previously said she wanted to help the party rebuild its relationship with Australians.

“Many Australians, including women and younger Australians, feel neglected by the Liberal Party,” she said when announcing her desire to lead.

“We need to listen and we need to change. The Liberal Party must respect modern Australia, reflect modern Australia and represent modern Australia.”

Speaking after the party room vote, former minister Linda Reynolds said: “Australia spoke very clearly to the Liberal Party and we’ve listened and we’ve acted.”

The junior coalition partner, the Nationals, re-elected leader David Littleproud on Monday, after he too was challenged by a hardline conservative colleague.

Albanese’s new cabinet was also sworn in on Tuesday.

The biggest changes include former Labor deputy Tanya Plibersek swapping from the environment portfolio to social services, and former communications minister Michelle Rowland becoming attorney general.

Former Attorney General Mark Dreyfus and Ed Husic – the first Muslim to become an Australian government minister – were both removed from the frontbench.

“I have got people who are, I think, in the best positions and that’s across the board,” Albanese said when announcing the positions on Monday.

Born in Nigeria to English parents, Ley grew up in the United Arab Emirates before moving to Australia at age 13.

“Travelling, and being at boarding school on my own, I think you either sink or swim,” Ley said in a previous interview. “Obviously, I was someone who decided very early on in life that I wasn’t going to sink.”

It was as a young woman that she changed her name from Susan to Sussan, inspired by numerology – an ancient belief that numbers have a mystical impact on people’s lives.

“I read about this numerology theory that if you add the numbers that match the letters in your name you can change your personality,” she told The Australian.

“I worked out that if you added an ‘s’ I would have an incredibly exciting, interesting life and nothing would ever be boring. It’s that simple.”

“And once I’d added the ‘s’ it was really hard to take it away.”

As an adult she has had a “wonderfully varied” career path, Ley says, obtaining degrees in economics and accounting while raising three young children, earning a commercial pilot licence, and working in the outback mustering livestock.

Elected in 2001 to represent an area the size of New Zealand, Ley was promoted to Health Minister under Malcom Turnbull in 2014, but resigned two years later amid an expenses scandal.

Ley apologised after using a taxpayer-funded trip to purchase an apartment on Queensland’s Gold Coast.

She re-joined the frontbench in 2019 after Scott Morrison’s “miracle” election win, as the Minister for Environment.

In that role, she was taken to court by a group who claimed she had a duty of care towards children to protect them from harm caused by climate change. Eight teenagers and an 87-year-old nun convinced a court that the government had a legal duty towards them when assessing fossil fuel projects, but the landmark decision was later overturned.

Ley has also drawn headlines for her comments about Palestinians. She was a co-chair of the Parliamentary Friends of Palestine, an informal cross-party group which aimed to raise the experiences of Palestinian people and has spoken in the chamber in support of Palestinian autonomy.

However, speaking after the vote on Tuesday, one of her colleagues Andrew Wallace said she has “seen the light on Israel in recent years”.

Sean “Diddy” Combs used fame and violence to sexually abuse women, prosecutors have said in opening statements at the hip-hop mogul’s trial, while the rapper’s attorneys defended his “swinger” lifestyle.

The 55-year-old has pleaded not guilty to charges including racketeering, sex trafficking and transportation to engage in prostitution.

The court also heard from prosecutors’ first witnesses, including a security guard from a hotel where Mr Combs is seen in a now-viral video beating his ex-girlfriend in 2016.

His testimony was followed by a man who said Mr Combs abused his ex-girlfriend during paid sexual encounters with the couple.

After seating a panel of 12 jurors and six alternates on Monday morning, the government and Mr Combs’ lawyers outlined their cases.

Prosecutor Emily Johnson accused Mr Combs of using his celebrity status and a “loyal” inner circle of employees to sexually abuse women and run a criminal enterprise.

• What is Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs charged with and how will his trial unfold?

She focused on the two central alleged victims in the case – Mr Combs’ former girlfriend, Cassandra Ventura, and another unnamed former girlfriend.

Prosecutors told the court that Mr Combs had used violence and threatened Ms Ventura’s music career to force her to perform non-consensual, humiliating sexual acts with male prostitutes during so-called “freak-offs” filmed by Mr Combs.

The defendant “had the power to ruin her [Ms Ventura’s] life”, Ms Johnson said.

As prosecutors described the allegations against Mr Combs, he sat in a grey sweater and trousers with a blank stare and his hands folded on his lap.

At the heart of the government’s case is a surveillance video that shows Mr Combs beating Ms Ventura and dragging her by the hair in a Los Angeles hotel hallway in 2016.

Lawyers for Mr Combs said the video was evidence of Mr Combs’ “flawed” character, but not of a larger criminal enterprise. “Domestic violence is not sex trafficking,” said Teny Geragos, Mr Combs’ attorney.

Ms Geragos said Mr Combs has a “bit of a different sex life” – and shifted the focus to the women accusing him, calling them “capable, strong women” who chose to stay with the rapper.

They had “the freedom to make the choices that they made”, Ms Geragos argued.

Prosecutors’ first witness, a former security guard named Israel Florez, worked at the hotel, the site of a surveillance video showing Mr Combs attacking his ex-girlfriend. The clip, which CNN released last year, was played for jurors on Monday.

Mr Florez told jurors that morning on 5 March 2016 at the InterContinental Hotel in Los Angeles he received a call about a “woman in distress” on the sixth floor.

He said he found Mr Combs there in a towel, slouched on a chair with a “devilish” look on his face, and a broken vase on the floor. Ms Ventura sat cowering in the corner with her face covered, Mr Florez said.

Mr Florez told prosecutors that Ms Ventura kept saying she wanted to leave, but Mr Combs told her she could not.

He testified that Ms Ventura had a purple eye, but did not want to call police and she eventually left in a black SUV.

Mr Florez alleged that later, to “make it go away”, Mr Combs tried to hand him a wad of cash, but he declined.

Attorneys for Mr Combs tried to poke holes in Mr Florez’s claims, asking why he did not include certain details – like Ms Ventura’s purple eye – in an incident report he filed afterwards.

His testimony was followed by Daniel Phillip, a former manager of male strippers, who said he met Mr Combs and Ms Ventura after his boss asked him to fill in as a stripper for a bachelorette party.

But, Mr Phillip said, he was greeted at a hotel instead by Ms Ventura, who told him it was her birthday and her husband wanted to give her a gift.

Mr Phillip told the court he would go on to have sex with Ms Ventura on several occasions – encounters that lasted as long as 10 hours, sometimes under the influence of drugs – as Mr Combs watched and filmed.

He alleged that he witnessed Mr Combs attack Ms Ventura at least twice, including one time when he dragged her by her hair as she screamed “I’m sorry”.

Mr Combs then came back in the room with Ms Ventura and asked the two to have sex again in front of him, Mr Phillip said.

“I was shocked,” he said. “It came out of nowhere. I was terrified.”

Mr Phillip claimed on the stand that he did not call the police for fear that Mr Combs was “someone with unlimited power” and that he could “lose his life” for reporting it.

The trial is scheduled to continue on Tuesday when Ms Ventura is expected to testify.

At the crowded courthouse on Monday, Mr Combs’ children – including his daughters – were seen holding hands. His mother also was photographed walking out of court along with his publicist.

A group of 59 white South Africans has arrived in the US, where they are to be granted refugee status.

President Donald Trump has said the refugee applications for the country’s Afrikaner minority had been expedited as they were victims of “racial discrimination”.

The South African government said the group were not suffering any such persecution that would merit refugee status.

The Trump administration has halted all other refugee admissions, including for applicants from warzones. Human Rights Watch described the move as a cruel racial twist, saying that thousands of people – many black and Afghan refugees – had been denied refuge in the US.

The group of white South Africans, who landed at Dulles airport near Washington DC on Monday, received a warm welcome from US authorities.

Some held young children and waved small American flags in the arrival area adorned with red, white and blue balloons on the walls.

The processing of refugees in the US often takes months, even years, but this group has been fast tracked. UNHCR – the United Nations refugee agency – confirmed to the BBC it wasn’t involved in the vetting, as is usually the case.

Asked directly on Monday why the Afrikaners’ refugee applications had been processed faster than other groups, Trump said a “genocide” was taking place and that “white farmers” specifically were being targeted.

“Farmers are being killed, they happen to be white, but whether they’re white or black makes no difference to me.”

But South African President Cyril Ramaphosa said he told Trump during a phone call the US assessment of the situation was “not true”.

“A refugee is someone who has to leave their country out of fear of political persecution, religious persecution, or economic persecution,” Ramaphosa said. “And they don’t fit that bill.”

In response to a question from the BBC at Dulles airport, Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau said: “It is not surprising, unfortunately, that a country from which refugees come does not concede that they are refugees.”

The US has criticised domestic South African policy, accusing the government of seizing land from white farmers without any compensation.

In January President Ramaphosa signed a controversial law allowing the government to seize privately owned land without compensation in certain circumstances, when it is deemed “equitable and in the public interest”.

But the government says no land has yet been seized under the act.

There has been frustration in South Africa over the slow pace of land reform in the three decades since the end of the racist apartheid system.

While black South Africans make up more than 90% of the population, they only hold 4% of all privately owned land, according to a 2017 report.

One of Trump’s closest advisers, South African-born Elon Musk, has previously said there was a “genocide of white people” in South Africa and accused the government of passing “racist ownership laws”.

The claims of a genocide of white people have been widely discredited.

In a statement to the BBC, Gregory Meeks, ranking Democratic member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said the Trump administration’s refugee resettlement was “not just a racist dog whistle, it’s a politically motivated rewrite of history”.

The Episcopal Church said it would no longer work with the federal government on refugee settlement because of the “preferential treatment” granted for the Afrikaners.

Melissa Keaney, a lawyer with the International Refugee Assistance project, told the BBC the White House’s decision to fast-track the Afrikaners’ arrival amounted to “a lot of hypocrisy and unequal treatment”.

Her organisation is suing the Trump administration after it indefinitely suspended the US Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) in January. She said that policy had left over 120,000 conditionally approved refugees in limbo.

• Racially charged row between Musk and South Africa over Starlink
• What’s really driving Trump’s fury with South Africa?

Afrikaner author Max du Preez told the BBC’s Newsday radio programme that claims of persecution of white South Africans were a “total absurdity” and “based on nothing”.

Figures from the South African police show that in 2024, 44 murders were recorded on farms and smaller plots of agricultural land, with eight of those killed being farmers.

South Africa does not report on crime statistics broken down by race but a majority of the country’s farmers are white, while other people living on farms, such as workers, are mostly black.

Bilateral relations between the US and South Africa have been strained since President Trump first tasked his administration with resettling Afrikaners, a group with mostly Dutch ancestry, in the US.

In March, South Africa’s ambassador to the US, Ebrahim Rasool, was expelled after accusing President Trump of using “white victimhood as a dog whistle”, leading to the US accusing Mr Rasool of “race-baiting”.

The US has also criticised South Africa for taking an “aggressive” position against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), where Pretoria has accused Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government of genocide against Palestinians – a claim the Israelis strongly reject.

President Trump’s openness to accepting Afrikaner refugees comes as the US has engaged in a wider crackdown on migrants and asylum seekers from other countries.

• Almost 70,000 South Africans interested in US asylum
• Is it checkmate for South Africa after Trump threats?
• US cuts send South Africa’s HIV treatment ‘off a cliff’

Kim Kardashian is due to appear in court in Paris later today as a witness in a burglary case dating back to 2016, when she was held up at gunpoint and had millions of dollars’ worth of jewellery taken from her.

The reality TV star and business woman, 44, is expected to take the stand in the afternoon to give her version of events of the burglary, which saw her tied up and held at gunpoint in a luxury suite where she was staying during Paris Fashion Week.

Jewels worth millions of dollars were taken from her, including a $4m (£2.9m) diamond engagement from then-husband Kanye West.

Ten people are on trial, which began last month.

On Monday, witness Abderrahmane Ouatiki, the night receptionist who says he was marched up to Kardashian’s hotel suite and made to translate the burglars’ demands, said the American star was “completely hysterical” and “in a state of complete terror” as a “very nervous” man pointed a gun at her.

“He was very aggressive and she was utterly terrified,” said Ouatiki.

He added he too had feared for his life as the burglar was acting erratic and was clearly irritated by Kardashian’s screaming.

Three people reportedly kept watch in the reception of the exclusive Hotel de Pourtalès in central Paris while two other men forced Ouatiki to take them to Kardashian’s suite, where they demanded she give him the ring and also stole other jewels for a total of $9m.

The men were arrested three months later alongside several other people thought to be accessories to the crime.

Twelve were eventually due to appear in court, although one died in March and another has been excused due to health reasons. Of the remaining 10, all but two deny any involvement in the burglary. The jewels were never found but police think they were broken up and sold on.

French media have dubbed the defendants the “grandpa robbers” as several are in their 70s. Many also have serious health problems. One is undergoing chemotherapy, while another had visible tremors.

The alleged ringleader, Aomar Ait Khedache, 68, was questioned last week but is deaf and mute and had to write his answers down with a pen and paper which were projected on to a screen.

Since the trial opened on 28 April, prosecutors have sought to dispel the image of hapless elderly burglars – who reportedly did not know their victims was a hugely famous celebrity.

“They may have made mistakes but they were still a decent team,” said the lead investigator of the Brigade de Répression du Banditisme (Banditry Repression Brigade) special unit last week.

He noted that the burglars tied up Kardashian’s feet and ankles with cable ties and stuck tape on her mouth, and they took a car to park near the scene of the crime and used burner phones.

“That was well done,” he said. “They pulled it off, because they managed to flog the goods and palm off a $4m ring in Antwerp, which isn’t that easy,” he added.

In his testimony, Ouatiki also painted a frightening picture of one of the burglars who he said was wielding a gun and was “stressed and shouting… You feel that’s someone that can be very dangerous.”

Ouatiki acted as an interpreter between the man and Kardashian and said he did his best to “calm things down as I didn’t know what he was capable of”.

When the burglars tied up Kardashian and took her to the bathroom, she was only wearing a bathrobe and the belt came undone, the court heard. Asked by Kardashian’s lawyer Léonore Hennerick to describe the moment, Ouatiki declined to go into detail. “You have to respect the victim, I think,” he said.

Referencing that moment in an emotional interview in 2020, Kardashian told American journalist David Letterman that she thought she was going to be sexually assaulted.

“I was like, ‘Okay, this is the time I’m going to get raped’,” she said.

She added that she feared for her life and that she was worried for her sister Khloe, who was out at a club: “I’m gonna be dead in the room and she’s gonna be traumatised for the rest of her life.”

Instead, the burglars grabbed her ring as well as various other jewels, phone and €1,000 in cash and ran off. Kardashian was quickly able to untie herself and her bodyguard arrived shortly after. She gave a statement to police in the early hours of 3 October and immediately flew back to the US.

For his part, Ouatiki – an Algerian national who at the time was a PhD student in semiotics – said he suffered greatly from speculation in the media that he may have been in on the heist.

“The suspicion was very heavy to bear,” he told the court.

Ouatiki told French media he lost his student status shortly after the heist and had to go back to Algeria, where he was diagnosed with PTSD.

“It was a catastrophe, my life fell apart,” he told Le Point.

On Tuesday morning, Simone Bretter, Kardashian’s friend and stylist, will take the stand. She was staying in the same suite during the heist but was on a different floor and hid when she realised burglars had broken in.

Almost 500 journalists are accredited and Kardashian’s testimony is set to attract huge media attention.

“Testifying will allow her to reclaim agency in this situation and rewrite the ending,” said Jeetendr Sehdev, celebrity expert and the author of The Kim Kardashian Principle.

“In 2016 she was the punchline. But in 2025 testifying is going to turn her into the narrator,” he told the BBC.

Listen to Theo read this article

“What you have there is about £250,000 worth of gold,” Emma Siebenborn says as she shows me a faded plastic tub filled with old, shabby jewellery – rings, charm bracelets, necklaces and orphaned earrings.

Emma is the strategies director of Hatton Garden Metals, a family-run gold dealership in London’s Hatton Garden jewellery district, and this unprepossessing tub of bric-a-brac is a small sample of what they buy over the counter each day. It is, in effect, gold scrap, which will be melted down and recycled.

Also on the table, rather more elegantly presented in a suede-lined tray, is a selection of gold coins and bars. The largest bar is about the size and thickness of a mobile phone. It weighs a hefty 1kg, and it’s worth about £80,000.

The coins include biscuit-sized Britannias, each containing precisely one ounce of 24 carat bullion, as well as smaller Sovereigns. These are all available to buy – and the recent surge in gold prices has led to a surge in demand.

Zoe Lyons, who is Emma’s sister and the managing director, has never seen anything like it – often she finds would-be sellers queuing in the street. “There’s excitement and buzz in the market but also nervousness and trepidation,” she tells me.

“There’s anxiety about which way the market is going to go next, and when you get those emotions, ultimately it creates quite big trades.”

At MNR jewellers a couple of streets away, a salesman agrees: “Demand for gold has increased, definitely,” he says.

Gold is certainly on a roll. Its price has increased by more than 40% over the past year. In late April it rose above $3,500 (£2,630) per troy ounce (a measurement for precious metals). This marked an all-time record, even allowing for inflation, exceeding the previous peak reached in January 1980. Back then the dollar price was $850, or $3,493 in today’s money.

Economists have attributed this to a variety of factors. Principal among them has been the unpredictable changes in US trade policy, introduced by the Trump administration, the effects of which have shaken the markets. Gold, by contrast, is seen by many as a solid investment. Fears about geopolitical uncertainty have only added to its allure. Many investors have come to appreciate the relative stability offered by a commodity once dismissed by the billionaire Warren Buffett as “lifeless” and “neither of much use nor procreative”.

“It’s the kind of conditions that we consider a bit of a perfect storm for gold,” explains Louise Street, senior markets analyst at the World Gold Council, a trade association funded by the mining industry.

“It’s the focus on potential inflationary pressures. Recessionary risks are rising, you’ve seen the IMF [International Monetary Fund] downgrading economic forecasts very recently…”

But what goes up can also come down. While gold has a reputation as a stable asset, it is not immune to price fluctuations. In fact, in the past, major surges in the price have been followed by significant falls.

So what is the risk this could happen again, leaving many of today’s eager investors nursing big losses?

Helped by its relative rarity, gold has been seen as an intrinsic store of value for centuries. The global supply is limited. Only around 216,265 tonnes have ever been mined, according to the World Gold Council, (the total is currently increasing by about 3,500 tonnes per year). This means that it is widely perceived as a “safe haven” asset that will retain its value.

As an investment, however, it has both advantages and disadvantages.

Unlike shares, it will never pay a dividend. Unlike bonds, it will not provide a steady, predictable income, and its industrial applications are relatively limited.

The draw, however, is that it is a physical product that exists outside of the banking system. It is also used as an insurance policy against inflation: while currencies tend to lose value over time, gold does not.

“Gold can’t be printed by central banks, and it can’t be conjured out of thin air,” says Russ Mould, investment director at stockbroker AJ Bell. “In recent times, a big policy response from authorities when there’s been a crisis has been: slash interest rates, boost money supply, quantitative easing, print money. Gold is seen as a haven from that, and therefore a store of value.”

There has recently been a significant rise in demand for gold from so-called Exchange Traded Funds, investment vehicles that hold an asset such as gold themselves, while investors can buy and sell shares in the fund.

They are popular with large institutional investors – and their actions have helped to push up the price.

When gold hit its previous record in January 1980, the Soviet Union had just invaded Afghanistan. Oil prices were surging, driving up inflation in developed economies, and investors were looking to protect their wealth. The price also rose sharply in the aftermath of the global financial crisis, leading to another peak in 2011.

The recent increases appear to owe a great deal to the way markets have responded to the confusion triggered by the Trump administration.

The most recent surge came after US President Donald Trump launched an online attack on Jerome Powell, the chair of the Federal Reserve. Calling for immediate interest rate cuts, he described Mr Powell as a “major loser” for failing to reduce the cost of borrowing quickly enough.

His comments were interpreted by some as an attack on the independence of the US central bank. Share markets fell, as did the value of the dollar compared to other major currencies – and gold hit its most recent record.

But gold’s recent strength is not wholly explained by the Trump factor.

The price has been on a steep upward curve since late 2022, partly, according to Louise Street, because of central banks. “[They] have been net buyers of gold, to add to their official reserves, for the past 15 years,” she explains. “But we saw that really accelerate in the past three years.”

Central banks have collectively bought more than 1,000 tonnes of gold each year since 2022, up from an average of 481 tonnes a year between 2010 and 2021. Poland, Turkey, India, Azerbaijan and China were among the leading buyers last year.

Analysts say central banks may themselves have been trying to build up buffers at a time of growing economic and geopolitical uncertainty.

According to Daan Struyven, co-head of global commodities research at Goldman Sachs: “In 2022 the reserves of the Russian Central Bank got frozen in the context of the invasion of Ukraine, and reserve managers of global central banks around the world realised, ‘Maybe my reserves aren’t safe either, what if I buy gold and hold it in my own vaults?’

“And so we have seen this big structural fivefold increase in demand for gold from central banks”.

Simon French, chief economist and head of research at investment firm Panmure Liberum also believes that independence from dollar-based banking systems has been a major driver for central banks. “I would look at China, but also Russia, their central bank is a big buyer of gold, also Turkey.

“There are a number of countries who fear weaponisation of the dollar system and potentially the Euro system,” he says.

“If they are not aligning themselves with the US or the Western view, on diplomatic grounds, on military grounds… having an asset in their central bank that is not controlled by their military or political foes is quite an attractive feature.”

Another factor may now be helping to drive the gold market upwards: FOMO, or fear of missing out. With new all-time records being set, it has filtered through into everyday conversation in some quarters.

Zoe Lyons believes that this is the case in Hatton Garden. “[People] want a piece of the golden pie,” she says, “and they’re willing to do that through buying physical gold.”

The big question, though, is what happens next. Some experts believe the upward trend will continue, fuelled by unpredictable US policy, inflationary pressures and central bank buying. Indeed Goldman Sachs has forecast gold will reach $3,700/oz (£2,800/oz) by the end of 2025 and $4,000 (£3,000) by mid 2026.

But it adds that in the event of a recession in the US or an escalation of the trade war it could even hit $4,500 (£3,400) later this year.

“The US stock market is 200 times bigger than the gold market, so even a small move out of the big stock market or the big bond market would mean a big percent increase in the much smaller gold market,” explains Daan Struyven.

In other words, it wouldn’t take a huge amount of turbulence in major investment markets to drive gold upwards.

Yet others are concerned that the price of gold has risen so far, so fast that a market bubble is forming – and bubbles can burst.

Back in 1980, for example, the dramatic spike in the gold price was followed by an equally remarkable correction, dropping from $850 (£640) in late January to just $485 (£365) in early April. By mid-June the following year, it stood at just $297 (£224) – a decline of 65% from its peak.

The peak in 2011, meanwhile, was followed by a sharp dip, then a period of volatility. Within four months it had dropped by 18%. After plateauing for a while, it continued to fall, reaching a low point in mid-2013 that was 35% down from its highest.

The question that remains is, could something similar happen now?

Some analysts do think prices will ultimately fall significantly. Jon Mills, an industry expert at Morningstar, made headlines in March when he suggested the cost of an ounce of gold could drop to just $1,820 over the next few years.

His view was that as mining firms increased their production and more recycled gold entered the market, the supply would increase. At the same time central banks would ease off their buying spree, while other short-term pressures stimulating demand would subside, bringing prices down.

Those forecasts have since been revised upwards slightly, largely because of increased mining costs.

Daan Stryven disagrees. He believes there could be a short-term dip, but prices will generally continue to rise. “If we were to get a Ukraine peace deal, or a rapid trade de-escalation, I think hedge funds would be willing to take some of their money out of gold and put it into risky assets, such as the stock market…

“So you could see temporary dips. But we are quite confident that in this highly uncertain geopolitical setup, where central banks want safer reserve holdings, that they will continue to push demand higher over the medium term.”

Russ Mould believes there will, at the very least, be a lull in the upwards trend. “Given that it has had such a stunning run, it would be logical to expect it to have a pause for breath at some stage,” he says.

But he believes that if there is a sharp economic slowdown and interest rates are slashed, the gold price could go higher in the long run.

One problem for investors is working out whether the recent record price for gold was simply a staging point in a continued upward climb – to more than $4,000 for example – or the peak.

Simon French at Panmure Liberum believes the peak may now be very close, and people piling into the market now in the hope of making big money are likely to be disappointed. Others have warned that those recently lured into buying gold by hype and headlines could lose out if the market goes into reverse.

“Short-term speculating can backfire, even though there will be a temptation to hang on to the coat-tails of the record run upwards,” is how Susannah Streeter, head of money and markets at Hargreaves Lansdown, has put it.

“Investors considering investing in gold should do so as part of a diversified portfolio – they shouldn’t put all their eggs in a golden basket.”

Inside a laboratory nestled above the mist of the forests of south Dakota, scientists are searching for the answer to one of science’s biggest questions: why does the Universe exist?

They are in a race for the answer with a separate team of Japanese scientists – who are several years ahead.

The current theories of astronomy can’t explain why the planets stars and galaxies came into existence. Both teams are building detectors that study a sub-atomic particle called a neutrino in the hope of finding answers.

US scientists are hoping the answer lies deep underground, in the aptly named Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment (Dune).

The scientists travel 1,500 metres below the surface into three vast underground caverns. Such is the scale that construction crews and their bulldozers seem like small plastic toys by comparison.

Dune’s science director Dr Jaret Heise describes the giant caves as “cathedrals to science”.

Dr Heise has been involved the construction of these caverns for nearly ten years. They seal Dune off from the noise and radiation from the world above. Now, Dune is now ready for the next stage.

“We are poised to build the detector that will change our understanding of the Universe with instruments that will be deployed by a collaboration of 1,500 scientists who are eager to answer the question of why we exist,” he says.

When the Universe was created two kinds of particles were created: matter – from which stars, planets and everything around us are made – and, in equal amounts, antimatter, matter’s exact opposite.

Theoretically the two should have cancelled each other out, leaving nothing but a big burst of energy. And yet, here we – as matter – are.

Scientists believe that the answer to understanding why matter won – and we exist – lies in studying a particle called the neutrino and its antimatter opposite, the anti-neutrino.

They will be firing beams of both kinds of particles from deep underground in Illinois to the detectors at South Dakota, 800 miles away.

This is because as they travel, neutrinos and anti-neutrinos change ever so slightly.

The scientists want to find out whether those changes are different for the neutrinos and anti-neutrinos. If they are, it could lead them to the answer of why matter and anti-matter don’t cancel each other out.

Dune is an international collaboration, involving 1,400 scientists from thirty countries. Among them is Dr Kate Shaw from Sussex University, who told me that the discoveries in store will be “transformative” to our understanding of the Universe and humanity’s view of itself.

“It is really exciting that we are here now with the technology, with the engineering, with the computer software skills to really be able to attack these big questions,” she said.

Half a world away, Japanese scientists are using shining golden globes to search for the same answers. In all their splendour, look like a temple to science. The scientists are building Hyper K – which will be a bigger and better version of their existing neutrino detector, Super K.

The Japanese-led team will be ready to turn on their neutrino beam in less than two years, several years earlier than the American project. Just like Dune, Hyper K is an international collaboration. Dr Mark Scott of Imperial College, London believes his team is in pole position to make one of the biggest ever discoveries about the origin of the Universe.

“We switch on earlier and we have a larger detector, so we should have more sensitivity sooner than Dune,” he says.

Having both experiments running together means that scientists will learn more than they would with just one, but, he says, “I would like to get there first!”

But Dr Linda Cremonesi, of Queen Mary University of London, who works for the US project, says that getting there first may not give the Japanese-led team the full picture of what is really going on.

“There is an element of a race, but Hyper K does not have yet all of the ingredients that they need to understand if neutrinos and anti-neutrinos behave differently”.

The race may be on, but the first results are only expected in a few years’ time. The question of just what happened at the beginning of time to bring us into existence remains a mystery – for now.

Scarlett Johansson, Jennifer Lawrence and Tom Cruise are among the Hollywood stars who are expected to hit the red carpet at this year’s Cannes Film Festival, which starts on Tuesday.

Cannes is one of the most prestigious festivals in the film calendar, and gives premieres to productions that often go on to earn awards and acclaim.

Here are five things to keep a critical eye out for on the French Riviera.

In recent years, Cannes has re-established itself as the main launchpad for award contenders.

Anora won the Palme d’Or at Cannes last May before going on to win best picture at the this year’s Oscars. Four of the last five Palme d’Or winners have subsequently been nominated for best picture.

This year’s jury is led by French screen star Juliette Binoche and includes fellow actors Halle Berry and Jeremy Strong.

Contenders for the Palme d’Or this year include Scottish director Lynne Ramsay’s adaptation of Ariana Harwicz’s novel Die My Love, which stars Lawrence and Robert Pattinson.

English actor Josh O’Connor – known for portraying a tennis player in Challengers and Prince Charles in The Crown – stars in two films in competition, including The History of Sound opposite Paul Mescal, and The Mastermind, playing an amateur art thief.

Wes Anderson’s new film The Phoenician Scheme has the most star-studded line-up at Cannes this year, with Johansson, Benicio Del Toro, Tom Hanks and Benedict Cumberbatch all featuring, as well as Riz Ahmed, Bryan Cranston and Richard Ayoade.

Joaquin Phoenix and Emma Stone appear in Eddington, a pandemic-era dark comedy Western from Ari Aster.

Director Richard Linklater’s Nouvelle Vague is described as telling the story of the making of Jean Luc Godard’s 1960 classic Breathless, in the same style and spirit as the original.

Black Widow star Johansson has stepped behind the camera and will premiere her directorial debut, Eleanor the Great, about a 94-year-woman who is unexpectedly thrust into the spotlight.

Fellow US actress Kristin Stewart will also bring a film she has directed – The Chronology of Water is adapted from writer Lidia Yuknavitch’s memoir of the same name.

Meanwhile, British star Harris Dickinson is another actor moving behind the camera, with Urchin telling the story of a rough sleeper in London who struggles to turn his life around.

Their films will all compete in the festival’s secondary Un Certain Regard strand.

Elsewhere, Hollywood legend Robert De Niro will collect the honorary Palme d’Or.

Spike Lee’s fifth film with Denzel Washington, Highest 2 Lowest, will get its premiere out of competition. It’s a reinterpretation of Japanese film-maker Akira Kurosawa’s 1963 crime thriller High and Low, “played out on the mean streets of modern day New York City”.

Jodie Foster plays a psychiatrist who investigates the apparent murder of one of her patients in Vie Privée (A Private Life), a French-language comedy that is also being screened out of competition.

And Cruise will attend the premiere of the final instalment of Mission: Impossible… should he choose to accept the invitation.

Notable documentaries this year include Put Your Soul On Your Hand And Walk, about Palestinian war photojournalist Fatima Hassouna, who was killed along with her family in an Israeli strike on her home in Gaza last month – on the day after the festival announced its line-up.

The anger over her death has increased interest in the feature.

Another film, Once Upon a Time In Gaza, by Palestinian twins Tarzan and Arab Nasser, will be shown in the Un Certain Regard section.

Other documentaries in the line-up include a hotly-awaited film about WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, The Six-Billion-Dollar Man, which was pulled from the Sundance Film Festival earlier this year.

Meanwhile, a documentary about U2 frontman Bono is also on the festival bill, alongside one about 1984 novelist George Orwell.

The opening day could be overshadowed by the arrival of the verdict in Gerard Depardieu’s sexual assault trial.

The international star of French cinema, 76, was accused of assaulting two women on a film-set in 2021, which he denies.

The issue of alleged sexual violence in the film industry is a hot topic – a French parliamentary inquiry criticised “endemic” abuse last month, while on Monday screen legend Brigitte Bardot defended two accused actors, including Depardieu, saying they should be allowed to “get on with their lives”.

Those aren’t the only external events that will make their presence felt on La Croisette .

Film stars and industry deal-makers may also have a word or two to say on the red carpet about US President Donald Trump’s plan to impose 100% tariffs on foreign-made films.

French Culture Minister Rachida Dati recently said the imposition of any such tariffs would lead to “the American industry being penalised, not ours”.

When the Philippines voted on Monday, Sara Duterte’s name was not on the ballot.

But the results of the election, which includes 12 senate races, impacts her political future.

It affects both her role as the Philippines’ current vice-president and any hopes she might have of running for the country’s presidency one day, as she faces the prospect of a ban from politics – decided by lawmakers in the Senate.

The 46-year-old is the eldest daughter of the Philippines’ former President Rodrigo Duterte. She trained as a lawyer before entering politics in 2007, when she was elected as her father’s vice-mayor in their family’s hometown Davao.

Rodrigo Duterte has described her as the “alpha” character of the family, who always gets her way.

The younger Duterte was filmed in 2011 punching a court official in the face after he refused her request, leading one local news outlet to bestow the nickname of “the slugger” upon her.

She and her father are known to share similar traits, as well as a passion for riding big motorbikes. Sara is said to be her father’s favourite child, though she has also said they share a “love-hate relationship”.

One cable from the US embassy in Manila in 2009, leaked by Wikileaks, described her as “a tough-minded individual who, like her father, is difficult to engage”.

• Follow live updates: Millions vote in Philippines midterms as Marcos-Duterte feud heats up

Born in 1978, Sara is Rodrigo Duterte’s second child with his first wife, flight attendant Elizabeth Zimmerman.

In 1999 she graduated with a major in BS Respiratory Therapy. During her inauguration as vice-president in 2022, she said that in her youth she was “consumed by a dream to become a doctor” but was “directed toward another way”.

In 2005 she graduated with a law degree and passed the Philippine Bar Examination. But it wasn’t long before her father expressed his wish for her to enter politics as his running mate in mayoral elections – hoping that if and when he ran for president, Sara would help protect his mayoral legacy.

Rodrigo would only go ahead with his presidential bid once Sara had agreed to succeed him as mayor of Davao – and in 2010, at 32, she succeeded her father to become the city’s first female mayor.

In response to many people’s apparent confusion as to how they should address her, Sara Duterte ended her inaugural address with a specific appeal: “call me Inday Sara”.

“Inday”, an honorific in the south, means a respected elder woman. It also played into the Duterte’s optics: of a family from the regional south facing off against imperial Manila.

In Manila, “inday” was previously used to refer to house help from the south – but Sara reclaimed the term. Now even her father calls her by that name.

It was in 2021 that Sara decided to make her way to national politics.

The next year she ran on a joint ticket with the scion of another political dynasty – Ferdinand Marcos Jr. He was going for the top job, with Duterte as his deputy.

The assumption was that she would then be in a prime position to contest the next presidential election in 2028, as presidents are limited only to one six-year term in the Philippines.

The strategy proved effective and the duo won by a landslide. But then it quickly started to unravel.

Cracks started to emerge in their alliance even before the euphoria of their election win faded. Duterte publicly expressed her preference to be defence secretary but she was instead handed the education portfolio.

The House of Representatives soon after scrutinised Duterte’s request for confidential funds – millions of pesos that she could spend without stringent documentation.

Then, Rodrigo Duterte spoke at a late night rally, accusing President Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos of being a junkie and a weak leader.

Soon after, First Lady Liza Marcos snubbed Sara Duterte at an event, in full view of news cameras. She admitted that it was intentional, saying Duterte should not have stayed silent in the background while her father accused the president of drug use.

After Duterte resigned from the cabinet in July last year, her language became increasingly inflammatory.

She said she had “talked to someone” to “go kill” Marcos, his wife and his cousin, who is also the speaker of the House. She also told reporters her relationship with Marcos had become toxic and she dreamed of cutting off his head.

Such remarks are shocking for someone who is not acquainted with Philippine politics. But Duterte’s strong personality has only endeared her to the public and she remains popular in the south, as well as among the millions of overseas Filipino workers.

But in February this year, lawmakers in the lower house of parliament voted to impeach Duterte, accusing her of misusing public funds and threatening to have President Marcos assassinated.

She will be tried by the Senate and, if found guilty, removed from office and banned from running in future elections.

Duterte has denied the charges and alleges she is the victim of a political vendetta.

Another blow came in March when her father was arrested and extradited to the Hague over the thousands of killings during his war on drugs. She then flew to the Netherlands to meet him while he was in custody.

He is still in jail, awaiting trial, but has been elected mayor of Davao in one of several local races that also took place on Monday.

Rodrigo Duterte’s arrest was a big part of his daughter’s campaign for her senate picks, with Sara and the candidates often chanting “bring him home”.

Those candidates included two key family loyalists who look set to win their seats, according to early, partial results.

This would be an important victory for Sara, because the composition of the house determines whether or not she will be impeached.

For her to be impeached, two-thirds of the Senate would need to vote for it.

But Monday’s results, which include some surprise wins, make it harder to predict the outcome of the trial.

For now, Sara Duterte’s fate hangs in the balance.

The US-China trade war could be letting up, with the world’s two largest economies beginning talks in Switzerland.

Top trade officials from both sides met on Saturday in the first high-level meeting since US President Donald Trump hit China with tariffs in January.

Beijing retaliated immediately and a tense stand-off ensued as the two countries heaped levies on each other. New US tariffs on Chinese imports stand at 145%, and some US exports to China face duties of 125%.

There have been weeks of stern, and sometimes fiery, rhetoric where each side sought to paint the other as the more desperate party.

And yet this weekend they face each other over the negotiating table.

So why now?

Despite multiple rounds of tit-for-tat tariffs, both sides have been sending signals that they want to break the deadlock. Except it wasn’t clear who would blink first.

“Neither side wants to appear to be backing down,” said Stephen Olson, senior visiting fellow at Singapore’s ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute and a former US trade negotiator.

“The talks are taking place now because both countries have judged that they can move forward without appearing to have caved in to the other side.”

Still, China’s foreign ministry spokesperson Lin Jian emphasised on Wednesday that “the talks are being held at the request of the US”.

And the commerce ministry framed it as a favour to Washington, saying it was answering the “calls of US businesses and consumers”.

The Trump administration, however, claims it’s Chinese officials who “want to do business very much” because “their economy is collapsing”.

“They said we initiated? Well, I think they ought to go back and study their files,” Trump said at the White House on Wednesday.

But as the talks drew closer, the president struck a more diplomatic note: “We can all play games. Who made the first call, who didn’t make the – it doesn’t matter,” he told reporters on Thursday. “It only matters what happens in that room.”

The timing is also key for Beijing because it’s during Xi’s visit to Moscow. He was a guest of honour on Friday at Moscow’s Victory Day parade to commemorate the 80th anniversary of the World War Two victory over Nazi Germany.

Xi stood alongside leaders from across the Global South – a reminder to Trump’s administration that China not only has other options for trade, but it is also presenting itself as an alternative global leader.

This allows Beijing to project strength even as it heads to the negotiating table.

Trump insists that the tariffs will make America stronger, and Beijing has vowed to “fight till the end”- but the fact is the levies are hurting both countries.

Factory output in China has taken a hit, according to government data. Manufacturing activity in April dipped to the lowest level since December 2023. And a survey by news outlet Caixin this week showed that services activity has reached a seven-month low.

The BBC found that Chinese exporters have been reeling from the steep tariffs, with stock piling up in warehouses, even as they strike a defiant note and look for markets beyond the US.

“I think [China] realises that a deal is better than no deal,” says Bert Hofman, a professor at the East Asian Institute in National University Singapore.

“So they’ve taken a pragmatic view and said, ‘OK, well we need to get these talks going.'”

And so with the major May Day holiday in China over, officials in Beijing have decided the time is right to talk.

On the other side, the uncertainty caused by tariffs led to the US economy contracting for the first time in three years.

And industries that have long depended on Chinese-made goods are especially worried. A Los Angeles toy company owner told the BBC that they were “looking at the total implosion of the supply chain”.

Trump himself has acknowledged that US consumers will feel the sting.

American children may “have two dolls instead of 30 dolls”, he said at a cabinet meeting this month, “and maybe the two dolls will cost a couple bucks more than they would normally”.

Trump’s approval ratings have also slid over fears of inflation and a possible recession, with more than 60% of Americans saying he was focusing too much on tariffs.

“Both countries are feeling pressure to provide a bit of reassurance to increasingly nervous markets, businesses, and domestic constituencies,” Mr Olson says.

“A couple of days of meetings in Geneva will serve that purpose.”

While the talks have been met with optimism, a deal may take a while to materialise.

The talks will mostly be about “touching base”, Mr Hofman said, adding that this could look like an “exchange of positions” and, if things go well, “an agenda [will be] set for future talks”.

The negotiations on the whole are expected to take months, much like what happened during Trump’s first term.

After nearly two years of tit-for-tat tariffs, the US and China signed a “phase one” deal in early 2020 to suspend or reduce some levies. Even then, it did not include thornier issues, such as Chinese government subsidies for key industries or a timeline for scrapping the remaining tariffs.

In fact, many of them stayed in place through Joe Biden’s presidency, and Trump’s latest tariffs add to those older levies.

What could emerge this time is a “phase one deal on steroids”, Mr Olson said: that is, it would go beyond the earlier deal and try to address flashpoints. There are many, from the illegal fentanyl trade which Washington wants China to crack down harder on to Beijing’s relationship with Moscow.

But all of that is far down the line, experts warn.

“The systemic frictions that bedevil the US-China trade relationship will not be solved any time soon,” Mr Olson adds.

“Geneva will only produce anodyne statements about ‘frank dialogues’ and the desire to keep talking.”

After 40 years, with 40,000 people killed, and without securing a Kurdish homeland, the banned Kurdistan Workers Party, the PKK, is ending its war against the Turkish state.

This signals the end of one of the longest conflicts in the world – a historic moment for Turkey, its Kurdish minority, and neighbouring countries into which the conflict has spilled over.

A spokesman for President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s ruling party said it was an important step towards a country free of terror.

But what will the PKK get for disarming and disbanding? So far the government has made no promises – publicly at least.

Sheltering inside a tea shop from a sudden violent hail storm that battered the ancient city of Diyabakir, Necmettin Bilmez, 65, a driver, was sceptical about what might follow.

“They [the government] have been tricking us for thousands of years,” he said.

“When I get an ID card in my pocket saying I am Kurdish, I will believe everything will be solved. Otherwise, I don’t believe in this.”

Sitting nearby on a small woven stool, Mehmet Ek, 80, had a different view.

“This has come late,” he said.

“I wish it had happened ten years ago. But still anyone from any side who will stop this bloodshed, I salute them,” he said, tipping the top of his flat cap.

“This conflict is brother on brother. The one who dies in the mountains [PKK] is ours and the soldier [from the government] is ours.

“We are all losing, Turks and Kurds.”

He wants an amnesty for PKK fighters – like many here – and the release of jailed Kurdish politicians.

“If all that happens it will be a beautiful peace,” he said.

In this majority Kurdish city in south-eastern Turkey – the de facto Kurdish capital – we found a muted response to PKK’s announcement.

The city has been scarred and reshaped by the conflict.

Turkish forces and the PKK battled in the heart of Diyarbakir in 2015. You can still see the rubble of buildings flattened by the Turkish army.

Many local people told us they welcomed peace, or the idea of it, and wanted no more deaths – Turkish or Kurdish.

“No one has achieved anything,” said Ibrahim Nazlican, 63, drinking tea in the shade of the towering city walls, which have guarded Diyarbakir since Roman times.

“There is nothing but harm and loss, on this side and on that side. There are no winners.”

The conflict has ranged from the mountains of northern Iraq – which became PKK headquarters in recent years – to Turkey’s biggest cities.

Outside an Istanbul football stadium in 2016, a PKK affiliate carried out a double bombing killing 38 police officers and 8 civilians. Many Kurds and Turks are hoping this is the end of a dark chapter, which has claimed 40,000 lives

The PKK decision lay down its arms followed a call in February by its jailed leader, Abdullah Ocalan, who said there was “no alternative to democracy”.

For now, the 76-year-old remains in his cell in an island prison off of Istanbul, where he has been held since 1999.

To his supporters, he remains a heroic figure who has put their cause on a global agenda. They want him released.

Menice, 47, is among them. She insisted his release was the key to a new dawn for the Kurds, who account for up to 20% of the Turkish population.

“We want peace, but if our leader is not free, we will never be free,” she said.

“If he is free, we will all be free and the Kurdish problem will be solved.”

She is surrounded by family photos of loved ones who have died fighting for the PKK – which is classed as a terrorist organisation by Turkey, the UK, the US and the EU.

She has lost five relatives including her brother and her oldest son Zindan.

He joined the PKK at 17, and was dead at 25, killed in a Turkish airstrike three years ago.

Menice’s eyes fill with tears as she tells us how he used to help her with the housework.

His path may have been mapped out from birth.

“We named him Zindan [meaning cell] because his father was in prison when he was born,” she told us.

One large photograph hangs on the wall shows Zindan alongside his brother, Berxwendan, who followed his footsteps “up the mountain” to the PKK, when he reached the age of 17.

Berxwenden is now 23. His mother did not know if he was alive or dead until he sent his family a photo of himself during Ramadan in March.

Menice is hoping her surviving son may now come back.

“I hope Berxwendan and his friends will come home. As a mother, I want peace. Let there be no killings. Hasn’t there been enough suffering for everyone?”

But does she believe that there can be peace between Turkey and the Kurds?

“I believe in us, in Ocalan, and our nation [the Kurds],” she said firmly.

“The enemy [the Turkish authorities] has forced us not to believe in them.”

However, pro-Kurdish political parties have some leverage.

Erdogan needs their support to enable him to run for a third term as president in elections due in 2028.

For its part, the PKK has been hit hard by the Turkish military in recent years with leaders and fighters hunted down in drone warfare.

And regional change, in Iran and Syria, means the militant group and its affiliates have less freedom to operate.

Both sides have their reasons for doing a deal now. That may be grounds for hope.

US President Donald Trump has signed an executive order that aims to reduce high prescription drug prices – but its details and long-term effects are far from clear.

Citing figures that patients in other countries pay much less than Americans for pharmaceuticals, Trump said he would order drug companies to reduce their prices inside the US.

He touted the move as “one of the most consequential” executive orders in US history, claiming prices would fall “almost immediately, by 30% to 80%”.

But experts are highly sceptical of the claims, and stock market moves indicate that investors think they will have little immediate effect.

The US has a particularly complex healthcare system – including a large private insurance industry, employer subsides, and publicly funded insurance programmes for the elderly and poor, known as Medicare and Medicaid respectively.

In many other developed countries, more centralised systems mean that officials can negotiate blanket rates for drugs, and in some cases refuse to buy if they deem the price too high.

In 2021, the US Government Accounting Office made a comparison with Australia, Canada and France, and found that prescription drugs were on average two to four times more expensive in the US.

Politicians from both US political parties have taken aim at the costs. During Monday’s White House announcement, Health Secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr noted that prices had been a preoccupation of Democrats and a main target in socialist Senator Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaigns.

Both Trump in his first term and former President Joe Biden tried to tackle the issue, particularly the cost of life-saving drugs such as insulin, but US prices remain stubbornly high.

Speaking at the White House on Monday, Trump and his health officials blamed the lack of progress on pharmaceutical lobbying efforts and large donations to members of Congress.

“The drug lobby is the strongest lobby,” Trump told reporters. “But starting today, the United States will no longer subsidise the health care of foreign countries, which is what we were doing.”

It should also be noted that Trump’s trade tariffs – which he has consistently used to threaten other countries – could increase costs even further. Trump has previously said he will tax drugs imported into the US.

Trump’s order is much wider than previous efforts to bring down costs – however, many details are yet to be worked out.

The wording directs US officials to make sure that deals over drug costs made by foreign countries do not result in “unreasonable or discriminatory” price hikes for Americans.

But what exactly is covered by those terms is unclear – as is the question of what measures the White House would take if “unreasonable” practices are discovered.

The White House also wants drug companies to sell more products directly to consumers – cutting out insurance companies and pharmaceutical benefit managers – and look into importing drugs from foreign countries where they are sold at lower prices. That idea has previously hit stumbling blocks over safety and trade rules.

An official said that Monday’s order was the start of negotiations between the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and industry.

The order also proposed that the US be given Most Favoured Nation (MFN) status – meaning drug companies would be asked to match the lowest price for a drug abroad when selling to US consumers.

“Big pharma will either abide by this principle voluntarily or we’ll use the power of the federal government to ensure that we are paying the same price as other countries,” Trump told reporters.

It was unclear what mechanism the White House would use to punish drug companies that refuse to voluntarily comply.

Drug prices are very opaque, according to Alan Sager, a professor of health policy at Boston University. Drug manufacturers could easily argue that they were complying with the order by touting the price discounts that they already routinely provide on very high listed retail prices, he told the BBC.

“Will they act? Maybe. Will they claim they act? Sure,” Prof Sager said.

“Whether this will signal a durable and meaningful cut in extraordinarily high US drug prices is very unclear,” he said. “This is rhetoric, not reality.”

Trump’s preview of the announcement hit share prices of major drug makers, such as Pfizer, Eli Lilly and the UK’s GSK.

But they staged a quick recovery, rallying after the administration shared the scope of its plans – an indication that investors do not expect the moves to have a major impact.

To try to retain their profits in the US, drugs companies could simply pull out of other nations in which they are selling their products more cheaply, according to researchers Darius Lakdawalla and Dana Goldman at the University of Southern California.

The researchers also said that foreign governments routinely underestimated the true value of drugs to patients, and that “shifting to a European pricing model in the US would lead to shorter, less healthy lives for Americans”.

Meanwhile, it is unclear how lower prescription drug prices would fit into Kennedy’s “Make America Healthy Again” agenda. The health secretary has consistently emphasised diet and exercise as the key to improving Americans’ health – and has criticised the proliferation of many pharmaceutical products, including vaccines and drugs to treat mental illness.

However, any potential reduction in drug prices is likely to be popular with Americans – as polls consistently show that high costs are a top concern when it comes to the US healthcare system.

C Michael White, a pharmacy professor at the University of Connecticut, said that the results of the Trump administration’s actions on drug prices “will be minimal for many Americans” but that any attempts towards greater transparency and lower costs “are a positive step in the right direction”.

But the order is expected to face challenges from the pharmaceutical industry in courts and Congress.

Industry groups are largely opposed to the executive order and say it will be counterproductive – potentially choking off the supply of drugs and funds for research while doing little to quell high costs.

Stephen J Ubl, president of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, said in a statement that “importing foreign prices from socialist countries would be a bad deal” for American patients.

John F Crowley, president of the Biotechnology Innovation Organization, called MFN status “a deeply flawed proposal that would devastate our nation’s small- and mid-size biotech companies” by potentially choking off funding for research.

“Patients and families are not a bargaining chip in a trade war, but that’s exactly how they are being treated – first through proposed tariffs on our nation’s medicines, now with foreign reference pricing in the name of fairness.”

But Alan Sager, the Boston University professor, was sceptical about the industry’s arguments. He pointed out that the money used to research a drug was spent before any profits were made, and suggested that there might be other ways to fund research – such as large cash prizes for cures for specific diseases.

Prof Sager suggested that real action to drive down drug prices would depend on the president’s attention span.

“Given the president’s apparent public vacillation on many topics, it just isn’t clear that he’ll stay with this problem or that he’ll be willing and able to act effectively,” he said.

Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr has been dealt an unexpected blow in the midterms, with his Senate candidates set to pick up fewer seats than expected, according to early results.

The election was a showdown between Marcos and his Vice-President Sara Duterte, daughter of former president Rodrigo Duterte.

The pair, who represent the country’s most powerful families, won the 2022 election together – but their alliance has since collapsed.

Monday’s election, which included multiple races from the council to the Congress, was an important test for 67-year-old Marcos, the son of an ousted dictator who rebranded his father’s reign to make a comeback in the 2022 election.

Born in 1957 to Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos, Bongbong was just eight years old when his father became president. He was the second of three children, and the only son. The couple later adopted another girl.

Bongbong’s father, a former lawyer, served in the Congress and Senate, while his mother was a singer and former beauty pageant winner. Both would achieve notoriety – as the family amassed enormous wealth under a brutal regime, they became synonymous with excess and corruption.

During his first term between 1965 and 1969, Ferdinand Marcos Sr was fairly popular, and was re-elected by a landslide. But in 1972, a year before his second term was due to end, he declared martial law.

What followed was more than a decade of dictatorship, during which the country’s foreign debt grew, prices soared and ordinary Filipinos struggled to make ends meet. It was also a period of repression as opposition figures and critics were jailed, disappeared or killed.

Through it all, Marcos Sr was grooming his son for leadership.

Bongbong’s childhood bedroom in llocos Norte, the family’s stronghold in the north, which is now a museum, has a portrait of him wearing a golden crown and riding a white stallion.

But the elder Marcos was also worried about whether his son would step up to the role. A diary entry from 1972 read: “Bongbong is our principal worry. He is too carefree and lazy”.

Marcos enrolled in Oxford University to study Philosophy, Politics and Economics, but it was later revealed that he did not graduate with a bachelor’s degree as he claimed.

Oxford said in 2021 that he was awarded a special diploma in social studies in 1978. That too, local media reports alleged, was the result of lobbying by Philippine diplomats in the UK after Marcos Jr failed his exams.

He returned home and joined politics, becoming the vice-governor and then governor of Ilocos Norte.

But the political career his parents had envisioned for him would be cut short by a revolution in 1986.

An economic crisis had already triggered unrest – but the assassination of a prominent opposition leader brought tens of thousands onto the streets.

A sustained campaign eventually convinced a significant faction of the army to withdraw its support for the Marcos regime, and hastened its downfall.

The family fled to Hawaii with whatever valuables they could bring, but left behind enough proof of the lavish lives they had led.

Protesters who stormed the presidential palace found fanciful oil portraits of the family, a jacuzzi with gold-plated fixtures and the now-infamous 3,000 pairs of designer shoes owned by Imelda Marcos.

The family is accused of plundering an estimated $10bn of public money while in power. By the time Marcos Sr died in exile in 1989, his was a tarnished name.

And yet, some three decades later, his son was able to whitewash that past enough to win the presidential election.

After they returned to the Philippines in the 1990s, Marcos became a provincial governor, congressman and senator, before running – and winning – the presidential race in 2022.

Social media was a big part of this rebranding, winning Marcos new supporters – especially among the younger generation in a country where the median age is around 25.

On Facebook, the Marcos family legacy has been rewritten, with propaganda posts claiming that Marcos Sr’s regime was actually a “golden period” for the country.

On TikTok, a martial law anthem from the Marcos Sr era became the soundtrack to a cute challenge for Gen Z users, who would record older family members marching to the beat.

As his popularity grew, Marcos launched his presidential bid with Sara Duterte running for vice-president. She vowed to work with Bongbong to unify the country and make it “rise again”.

They called themselves the “uniTeam”, and combined the two families’ powerful bases: the Dutertes in the south, and the Marcos’s in the north.

It paid off. Marcos won with a thumping 31 million votes, more than double the total of his closest rival.

“Judge me not by my ancestors, but by my actions,” Marcos said as victory became apparent, vowing to “be a president for all Filipinos”.

Three years into his presidency, Marcos has brought Manila closer to the US and increasingly confronted an assertive China in the South China Sea – a key departure from Duterte’s presidency.

That wasn’t the only thing that caused a crack in his alliance with Sara Duterte, which eventually descended into a public spat.

He gave her the Education portfolio, when she had openly sought the more powerful Defence portfolio. His allies in Congress then initiated impeachment proceedings against her over alleged misuse of state funds.

And Marcos cleared the way for her father to be arrested and taken to the Hague for his role in a deadly war on drugs that killed thousands.

Marcos, experts say, took a big risk by picking a fight with the Dutertes – for it to pay off, control of the senate was crucial.

But the midterm results complicate his chances – and his political future.

French cinema star Gérard Depardieu faces a suspended prison term and registration as a sex-offender if he is convicted today of assault.

At his trial six weeks ago, the court heard testimony from two women who said the 76-year-old actor groped them during work on a film set in Paris in 2021. Depardieu denies the allegations.

In his summing-up before the judge on 27 March, prosecutor Laurent Guy said: “It’s perfectly possible to be an excellent actor and a great father – and still commit a crime.

“You are not here to pass judgment on French cinema. You are here to judge Gérard Depardieu, just as you would any other citizen.”

The prosecutor asked for a suspended prison term of 18 months, as well as a €20,000 (£16,850) fine and registration on the sex-offenders’ list.

Claude Vincent, representing one of the two women plaintiffs, described Depardieu as a “misogynist” and a “case-study in sexism”.

But for the defence, Jérémie Assous demanded an acquittal and called the plaintiffs’ team “more militants than lawyers”.

“They cannot bear that there should even be a defence. They think any defence is a supplementary assault,” he told the court.

The alleged assaults took place in September 2021 when Depardieu was making a film called Les Volets Verts (The Green Shutters) about an ageing actor coming to terms with his declining powers.

It was the first time the actor appeared in court on sexual assault charges. Several other women have made similar allegations in the media, and an alleged rape case could come to trial.

The first plaintiff – a set decorator – told the court that after a minor argument with Depardieu, he caught her between his legs and held her by the hips.

The second woman – an assistant director – said the actor touched her buttocks and breasts through her clothes on three separate occasions.

Depardieu denied the allegations, saying only that he might have touched the women accidentally or to keep his balance.

At the end of the hearings, Depardieu said: “My name has been dragged through the mud by lies and insults.

“A trial can be a very special experience for an actor. Seeing all this anger, the police, the press. It’s like being in a science fiction film, except it’s not science fiction. It’s life.”

He thanked the prosecution and defence teams for giving him insights into how courts operate. “These lessons may be an inspiration for me one day if I get to play a lawyer,” he said.

Depardieu said he had not worked as an actor for three years since the sexual allegations against him began to circulate.

However earlier this month it was reported he had begun work in the Azores on a film directed by his friend, the actress Fanny Ardant. Depardieu is playing a magician on a mysterious island, according to media reports.

Ardant appeared with Depardieu in Les Volets Verts and spoke in his defence at the trial.

“Genius – in whatever form it takes – carries within it an element of the extravagant, the untamed, the dangerous. (Depardieu) is the monster and the saint,” she said.

Another veteran French actress took Depardieu’s side on Monday. In a rare interview with French television, Brigitte Bardot, 90, deplored how “talented people who touch the buttocks of a girl are consigned to the deepest dungeon.”

“Feminism isn’t my thing,” Bardot said. “Personally, I like men.”

The Swiss city of Basel is going into party mode this weekend, as it prepares to welcome the Eurovision Song Contest.

It’s been 36 years since Switzerland last hosted the contest, after Celine Dion won in 1988, so the wait to roll out Eurovision’s famous turquoise carpet has been long.

Switzerland hosted the first ever Eurovision at Lugano in 1956, but its record since Dion’s victory in Dublin has been mixed.

Between 2007 and 2010, and again between 2015 and 2018, its entries failed to even qualify for the final. Swiss singer Nemo finally won last year with The Code.

Perhaps because of that, Basel is determined to make this contest memorable for all the right reasons. At 1.3km (0.8 miles), its turquoise carpet will be Eurovision’s longest ever, stretching from Basel town hall, across the river Rhine all the way to the Eurovision village.

The head of Basel’s government, Conradin Cramer, believes his city of just 175,000 residents is the natural home for Eurovision’s estimated half a million visitors.

Because of its borders with both France and Germany, Basel is “the heart of Europe”, he says. What’s more, he points out, the city has a long humanist tradition; when other cities in medieval Europe were cracking down on free thinkers, Basel welcomed them.

So Basel, with its geographic location and its history of tolerance, and Eurovision with its tradition of inclusivity and diversity are, he says “the perfect match”.

Last year’s contest in Malmo attracted thousands of pro-Palestinian demonstrators and further protests against the war in Gaza are expected in Basel too.

Police have not yet released their plans to manage this, but have said that everyone should have the right to express their opinion, as long they stay within the law, and do not risk the safety of others.

Throughout the contest they say 1,300 officers will be on duty. Basel has also unveiled a security operation to ensure visitors can enjoy the song contest safely. They are promising “mobile awareness teams”, safe retreats for victims of violence or hostility and a 24-hour hotline. The concept, which Basel officials describe as unique, aims to prevent violence, sexual assault or harassment, and racist aggression and insults.

The awareness teams, recognisable by their pink jackets, will be available 24 hours a day across the city. Basel’s security director Stephanie Eymann said the teams were a “low-threshold” measure to give visitors a chance to report harassment or assaults, and seek protection, even if some might not want to approach the police.

The entire town appears to have embraced the event, with turquoise welcome flags now waving from every lamp post. Tickets for the contest itself sold out in minutes, but Basel is promising that there will be “something for everyone”, ticket or no ticket, and most of it will be free.

“There will be concerts all over the city, there will be art projects,” says tourism director Letizia Elia. Basel has 40 museums and galleries in a space of just 37 square kilometres, a record for a European city, and they are all getting involved.

An exhibition featuring works by Andy Warhol, Mark Rothko, Wassily Kandinsky, and Pablo Picasso has opened at the Beyeler Foundation, where Swiss artist Ugo Rondinone’s We are Poems rainbow sculpture sits on the roof. There’s also a Glitz and Glam exhibition at Basel’s museum of natural history.

The celebrations have spread across Switzerland, with competitions across the country for the best school band – the top four will get a spot on stage in Basel.

But hosting an event like Eurovision is never hitch-free, and this one is no exception. The final choice of Basel as a venue was only made at the end of August last year, allowing just over seven months to organise everything.

Then came objections from evangelical Christian groups, who claimed Eurovision undermined traditional family values and that performers regularly sang about satanism and the occult. They gathered enough signatures to force a referendum aimed at banning public money for the event.

But on 24 November voters gave a huge yes to the song contest; with 66.6% approving Basel’s budget of almost $40m. Conradin Cramer had expected a referendum, because “that’s how Switzerland works, it’s perfectly fine.” But he was still delighted at the size of the vote in favour: “It shows this is a city where people really want to do this.”

He is very conscious that the global debate around diversity and inclusion has changed in the year since Swiss singer Nemo became the first non-binary person to win Eurovision.

The overriding message of Basel, Mr Cramer says, is “everyone is welcome”.

On-stage and in the dressing rooms though, things are stricter. EBU, which runs the contest itself, has stuck to its rules saying performers can only bring their own national flags onstage or into the green rooms. This means that they will not be able to fly the Pride flag or that of any other gender identity or sexuality.

Fans, however, will be able to bring whatever flags they like into the arena.

Last year Swiss winner Nemo did wave a non-binary flag during the performance, but said they had to ‘smuggle’ the flag in. This year LGBTQ+ groups say they are disappointed the EBU has not relaxed the rules.

“Banning our symbols is a slap in the face for the LGBTIQ community’, said Swiss group Pink Cross. “It sends the wrong message at a time when queer communities across Europe are facing increasing hostility.”

EBU has said that the guidelines were designed to create clarity and balance explaining: “Eurovision needs no flag to demonstrate its alliance and celebration of the LGBTQ+ community.”

Across the Atlantic, Donald Trump’s administration is actively removing government support for diversity and inclusion measures, and he is asking partnered European institutions (including some Swiss universities) to do the same.

That’s why Basel, says Mr Cramer, should take a stand, even if the EBU will not.

“These are our European values. People and nations are coming together in a friendly championship. Whoever you are, if you are young, if you are not that young, if you are straight, if you are gay, if you are female, male, or if you are non-binary, this is all perfectly fine. And I think this is not just what Basel stands for, this is what Europe should stand for.”

So if everyone is welcome, how do they get there? The host country being Switzerland, punctual transport is catered for. Swiss railways is laying on hundreds of extra trains. In Basel, the trams will run 24 hours a day.

And, for those who are really in Eurovision mode, there is even a karaoke tram, where passengers can take a free 90-minute journey right across town, all the while singing their hearts out.

A former Royal Marine has reached the summit of Mount Everest after swimming, cycling and running more than 8,000 miles.

Mitch Hutchcraft started by swimming the English Channel on 15 September and the 240-day challenge concluded when he topped the world’s highest mountain on Sunday at 07:30 BST.

His team said it was the world’s longest ever ascent of Everest from sea to summit.

The 31-year-old, from Ramsey in Cambridgeshire, said the achievement was “more magical than I could have ever dreamed”.

“Although I lost my dad 11 years ago, he was with me every step of the way,” said Hutchcraft, speaking to his team over the phone after summiting.

“It’s been tough. Really tough. The most difficult thing I’ve ever done.

“But I couldn’t be happier and more proud of finishing this epic adventure.”

After swimming the 35km width (21 miles) of the Channel from Dover, Hutchcraft cycled about 12,000 km (7,456 miles) from Europe to Digha in India.

He then ran 900km (559 miles) to Kathmandu in Nepal, before starting his 360km (223-mile) trek to Everest basecamp.

Hutchcraft, who now lives in Torquay in Devon, said he had dreamed of completing the climb since he was eight years old.

“Never in a million years did I think this would be how I’d get here,” he said.

“I just want it to inspire others to believe that whatever they’re dreaming, however small, they just need to get out there and smash it.”

In his previous challenges, Hutchcraft has rowed 3,000 miles (4,800km) across the Atlantic and cycled 5,000km (3,100 miles) across North America.

Hutchcraft, who has had a full knee reconstruction, was once told the surgery would make it impossible to even join the military, let alone complete a challenge of this magnitude.

He has been raising money for SAVSIM, a wildlife conservation organisation, dedicated to providing mental health support to veterans and others suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder and similar issues.

He said: “For me this is so much more than just a dream to make history, it is also the chance to raise funds and awareness for an amazing non-profit organisation very close to my heart and give back to veteran mental health and wildlife conservation.”

His father died suddenly when he was 20, which became a driving force in his decision to join the Royal Marines.

He served six years until 2021.

His challenge, named Project Limitless, is being filmed by a production team and is due to officially end when he returns to basecamp – which he was due to do by Monday morning.

Crates containing documents from Nazi Germany have been rediscovered in the basement of Argentina’s Supreme Court.

The unusual find was made as workers were clearing the building’s basement ahead of its archives being moved to a newly created museum.

The documents were sent by the German embassy in Tokyo and arrived in Argentina on 20 June 1941 inside 83 diplomatic pouches aboard a Japanese steamship, according to information gathered by court officials.

They ended up in the Supreme Court that same year after they were confiscated by Argentine customs officials who had opened five pouches at random and found Nazi propaganda material inside.

They were rediscovered last week by workers who were intrigued by a number of wooden champagne crates they stumbled upon while moving archival material from the Supreme Court’s basement.

“Upon opening one of the boxes, we identified material intended to consolidate and propagate Adolf Hitler’s ideology in Argentina during [World War Two],” the court said about the find.

The crates were quickly moved to a secure office in the building and court officials alerted the Buenos Aires Holocaust Museum to their existence and asked for its help in creating an inventory of all their contents.

Photos published by the court show the experts sifting through black-and-white photos and membership booklets bearing swastikas on their covers.

Historians hope the documents will yield clues to the Nazis’ financial networks and their international ties.

In a statement, Argentina’s Supreme Court revealed the information it had managed to piece together so far.

It said the documents, which arrived in Argentina on board the Nan-a-Maru steamship from Tokyo in June 1941, had been declared as “personal effects” by the German embassy in Buenos Aires at the time.

However, Argentine custom officials were suspicious because of the size of the shipment and alerted the Argentine foreign minister, fearing it could contain material which could endanger Argentina’s neutral stance in World War Two at the time.

Five of the pouches were opened at random and found to contain postcards, photographs and Nazi propaganda material.

The German embassy in Buenos Aires requested that the pouches be sent back to its embassy in Tokyo – from where they had been sent in the first place – but an Argentine judge ordered in September 1941 that all of the 83 pouches be seized.

Argentina’s Supreme Court was tasked with the decision as to what to do with them next but it appears no decision was made before 1944 – when Argentina broke relations with the Axis powers – explaining how the crates ended up gathering dust in the court’s basement for decades.

After the end of World War Two, Argentina – under the leadership of Juan Perón – became a place of refuge for a number of high-ranking Nazis, including Adolf Eichmann and Josef Mengele.

In 2000, President Fernando de la Rúa officially apologised for his country’s role in harbouring Nazi war criminals.

Pope Leo XIV has called for the release of imprisoned journalists in his first address to members of the media at the Vatican.

He expressed solidarity with journalists who were jailed “for seeking and reporting the truth” and said their suffering “challenges the conscience of nations and the international community”.

Press freedom must be defended, he said. The media must ensure that the “precious gift” of free speech is protected.

The Committee to Protect Journalists said 361 journalists were in jail in 2024.

Pope Leo, who was chosen as the new leader of the Catholic Church on Thursday, also highlighted the role journalists can play in bringing attention to injustice and poverty in the world.

He urged the media to focus on reporting the truth instead of taking part in partisan divisions, and not to give space to “fanaticism and hatred.”

Speaking in the Vatican’s Paul VI audience hall, he said “the way we communicate is of fundamental importance: we must say ‘no’ to the war of words and images, we must reject the paradigm of war.”

“We do not need loud, forceful communication,” he said, “but rather communication that is capable of listening and of gathering the voices of the weak who have no voice.”

The new pope also raised concerns about artificial intelligence, telling the assembled media they should use AI with “responsibility and discernment.”

Reporters should ensure that AI can be used for the “benefit of all of humanity,” he said.

Leo XIV spoke mainly in Italian, but opened with a quip in English about the huge round of applause he received when he walked into the room.

“Thank you for this wonderful reception,” he said.

“They say that when they clap at the beginning, it doesn’t matter much. If you’re still awake at the end and still want to applaud, thank you very much.”

Three Belgian soldiers have been hurt in a shooting incident during a military training exercise in Scotland.

Belgium’s defence ministry said approximately 10 other soldiers also sustained hearing damage during the incident.

The defence ministry declined to say where in Scotland the incident took place, but last week it was reported around 600 Belgian armed forces personnel were in Moray for a large-scale operation called Red Condor.

Two of the injured soldiers are now in a stable condition, with one expected to undergo surgery in Scotland before being repatriated to Belgium.

The third soldier who went to hospital sustained minor injuries and has since been discharged.

A spokesman for Belgium’s defence ministry said: “The incident took place during a planned training exercise. An investigation has been launched to determine the exact circumstances.

“The families of the injured personnel have been informed.”

A top general who failed to report evidence of alleged SAS war crimes in Afghanistan later oversaw the rejection of hundreds of UK resettlement applications from Afghan commandos who served with the elite regiment, BBC Panorama can reveal.

Gen Sir Gwyn Jenkins led UK Special Forces (UKSF) in Afghanistan at a time when alleged war crimes were committed. He later appointed a UKSF officer under his command, who had also served in Afghanistan, to assess the Afghan commando applications after special forces headquarters was given a controversial veto over them.

Thousands of applications from individuals with credible evidence of service with Afghan Special Forces, including the units known as the Triples, were then rejected, leaving many of the former commandos at the mercy of the Taliban.

The rejections are controversial because they came at a time when a judge-led public inquiry in the UK had begun investigating the SAS for alleged war crimes on operations on which the Triples were present.

If the Afghan commandos were in the UK, they could be called as witnesses – but the inquiry has no power to compel testimony from foreign nationals who are overseas.

Some of those denied visas were subsequently tortured and killed by the Taliban, according to former colleagues, family members and lawyers.

According to internal emails and testimony from within the Ministry of Defence (MoD), obtained by Panorama, the UK Special Forces officer appointed by Gen Jenkins stood over civil service caseworkers from the resettlement scheme and instructed them to reject the Triples applications, one after another, on what sources described as spurious grounds.

A senior government source close to the process told the BBC that the UK Special Forces officer “would never have acted without direction”, adding that “everything would have gone through Gwyn Jenkins”.

At the time, in 2021-22, Gen Jenkins was the head of all UK Special Forces. He is now the chief strategic adviser to the Defence Secretary John Healey and is tipped to take over as First Sea Lord – the head of the Royal Navy.

Gen Jenkins was made aware of allegations that the SAS was committing extrajudicial killings in Afghanistan, but he failed to report the allegations to military police – Panorama has previously revealed – despite a legal obligation to do so. The suspected unlawful killings continued.

Panorama has now heard eyewitness testimony from veterans who served in UK Special Forces detailing alleged war crimes stretching over more than a decade and involving the SBS as well as the SAS.

Gen Jenkins did not respond to the BBC’s request for comment on this story. The MoD responded on his behalf. It said in a statement that there is no evidence it has tried to prevent former Afghan troops giving evidence to the Inquiry and that “anyone can provide evidence… no matter where in the world they are”.

The MoD added that it was “fully committed to delivering on our pledge to relocate and resettle eligible Afghans and their families to the UK”.

“Each resettlement application is decided on its own merits against the criteria outlined in the ARAP [Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy] and immigration rules,” the statement said.

The rejections of the Triples applications left caseworkers from the ARAP scheme questioning the validity of the process, given that many of the applications contained compelling evidence of service alongside British special forces.

One applicant was rejected even though they had submitted photos of themselves serving alongside Gen Jenkins.

Hundreds of rejections have since been overturned following a government review.

A letter obtained by Panorama shows that concerns were raised among cabinet ministers in January 2024 over the existence of the UK Special Forces’ veto over the Triples applications.

The then Veterans Minister Johnny Mercer wrote to senior Conservatives to say the role of UKSF in denying the applications was “deeply inappropriate” and “a significant conflict of interest, that should be obvious to all”.

He had been compelled to write, he added, because he had been shown evidence “that 5 members of these units have been killed having been rejected for resettlement”.

Mr Mercer, who served alongside the SBS in Afghanistan before becoming an MP, went on to warn that the role of UKSF in the process had a “very high chance of being exposed by the Afghan Inquiry”, which could “lead to serious questions of all those Ministers involved in the process”.

The Triples units – so-called because their designations were CF 333 and ATF 444 – were set up, trained, and paid by UK Special Forces and supported the SAS and SBS on operations targeting Taliban leaders in Afghanistan.

When the country fell to the Taliban in 2021, they were judged to be in grave danger of reprisal and were entitled to apply for resettlement to the UK.

But, according to MoD documents obtained by Panorama, thousands of ARAP applications containing credible evidence of service alongside UK Special Forces were subsequently rejected.

BBC Panorama first revealed last year that it had been UK Special Forces – the very force that trained and served with the Triples – that rejected them.

“We heard some of our Triples were already killed by the Taliban,” said Jumakhan Joya, a former Afghan special forces commanding officer. “Some of them are in jail in a Taliban prison. Some of them have already been disabled by the Taliban. They’re breaking their hands, their legs, their head,” he said.

Mr Joya told the BBC he believed that the existence of the public inquiry was the “only reason” their applications had been vetoed.

The rejections and reported reprisals have outraged some former members of British special forces. “What’s happened is horrendous. It is a betrayal and it shames us all,” one former UK Special Forces officer told Panorama.

Asked by Panorama about the government’s rejection of Triples’ applications, Bruce Houlder KC, who as a former director of service prosecutions was responsible for bringing charges against members of the armed forces, said the government must have known the Triples would have “highly relevant” evidence that would be “much easier to obtain” if they were in the UK.

“I can’t think of any fair reason why we should exclude people from their right to live in this country, which is extended to others, simply because they might be in possession of information which would embarrass special forces,” Mr Houlder said.

“If that is the reason, it’s disreputable and it can’t be supported in any way.”

India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi has said his country will respond strongly to what he describes as a future “terrorist attack”, after four days of military exchanges with neighbouring Pakistan.

“This is not an era of war, but this is also not an era of terror,” Modi said in his first public address since days of intense shelling and aerial incursions, carried out by both sides, began.

These followed a militant attack in Indian-administered Kashmir that killed 26 people, for which India blamed a Pakistan-based group. Islamabad has strongly denied backing the group in question.

The US-brokered ceasefire agreed between the nuclear-armed neighbours at the weekend appears to have held so far.

Both nations say they remain vigilant.

“If another terrorist attack against India is carried out, a strong response will be given,” Modi said in his speech on Monday.

• ANALYSIS: How backchannels and US mediators pulled India and Pakistan back from the brink

“Terror and trade talks cannot happen together,” he remarked. This was most likely a reference to comments from US President Donald Trump, who said he had told India and Pakistan his administration would only trade with them if they end the conflict.

“Water and blood cannot flow together,” Modi added, this time referring to the suspension of a water treaty between India and Pakistan.

His comments come after Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif on Saturday said that his country had “acted as a responsible state”, adding: “Our honour, our dignity and our self-respect are more precious to us than our lives.”

He said he believed the water issue with India would be resolved through peaceful negotiations.

Earlier on Monday, top military officials from India and Pakistan discussed finer details of the ceasefire agreed between them over the weekend.

According to the Indian army, the two sides spoke about the need to refrain from any aggressive action.

“It was also agreed that both sides consider immediate measures to ensure troop reduction from the borders and forward areas,” it said in a statement.

India also announced it was reopening 32 airports for civilians that it had earlier said would remain closed until Thursday due to safety concerns.

The recent tensions were the latest in the decades-long rivalry between India and Pakistan, who have fought two wars over Kashmir, a Himalayan region which they claim in full but administer in part.

The hostilities threatened to turn into a fully-fledged war as they appeared unwilling to back down for days.

Both countries have said that dozens of people from both sides died over the four days of fighting last week, partly due to heavy shelling near the de facto border.

Announcing the ceasefire on Saturday, Trump said “it was time to stop the current aggression that could have led to the death and destruction of so many, and so much”.

Both India and Pakistan declared military victory after it came into effect.

On 7 May, India reported striking nine targets inside Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir in response to the 22 April deadly militant attack in the picturesque Pahalgam valley.

In the days after the first strike, India and Pakistan accused each other of cross-border shelling and claimed to have shot down rival drones and aircraft in their airspace.

As the conflict escalated, both nations said they had struck the rival’s military bases.

Indian officials reported striking 11 Pakistan Air Force bases, including one in Rawalpindi, near the capital Islamabad. India also claimed Pakistan lost 35-40 men at the Line of Control – the de facto border – during the conflict and that its air force lost a few aircraft.

Pakistan has accepted that some Indian projectiles landed at its air force bases.

Indian defence forces have also said that they struck nine armed group training facilities in Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir, killing more than 100 militants.

The Pakistan military, in turn, claims it targeted about 26 military facilities in India and that its drones hovered over the capital, Delhi.

India has confirmed that some Pakistani projectiles landed up at its air force bases, though it did not comment on the claim about Delhi.

Pakistan also claims to have shot down five Indian aircraft, including three French Rafales – India has not acknowledged this or commented on the number, though it said on Sunday that “losses are a part of combat”.

Pakistan denied the claims that an Indian pilot was in its custody after she ejected following an aircraft crash. India has also said that “all our pilots are back home”.

A group of 59 white South Africans has arrived in the US, where they are to be granted refugee status.

President Donald Trump has said the refugee applications for the country’s Afrikaner minority had been expedited as they were victims of “racial discrimination”.

The South African government said the group were not suffering any such persecution that would merit refugee status.

The Trump administration has halted all other refugee admissions, including for applicants from warzones. Human Rights Watch described the move as a cruel racial twist, saying that thousands of people – many black and Afghan refugees – had been denied refuge in the US.

The group of white South Africans, who landed at Dulles airport near Washington DC on Monday, received a warm welcome from US authorities.

Some held young children and waved small American flags in the arrival area adorned with red, white and blue balloons on the walls.

The processing of refugees in the US often takes months, even years, but this group has been fast tracked. UNHCR – the United Nations refugee agency – confirmed to the BBC it wasn’t involved in the vetting, as is usually the case.

Asked directly on Monday why the Afrikaners’ refugee applications had been processed faster than other groups, Trump said a “genocide” was taking place and that “white farmers” specifically were being targeted.

“Farmers are being killed, they happen to be white, but whether they’re white or black makes no difference to me.”

But South African President Cyril Ramaphosa said he told Trump during a phone call the US assessment of the situation was “not true”.

“A refugee is someone who has to leave their country out of fear of political persecution, religious persecution, or economic persecution,” Ramaphosa said. “And they don’t fit that bill.”

In response to a question from the BBC at Dulles airport, Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau said: “It is not surprising, unfortunately, that a country from which refugees come does not concede that they are refugees.”

The US has criticised domestic South African policy, accusing the government of seizing land from white farmers without any compensation.

In January President Ramaphosa signed a controversial law allowing the government to seize privately owned land without compensation in certain circumstances, when it is deemed “equitable and in the public interest”.

But the government says no land has yet been seized under the act.

There has been frustration in South Africa over the slow pace of land reform in the three decades since the end of the racist apartheid system.

While black South Africans make up more than 90% of the population, they only hold 4% of all privately owned land, according to a 2017 report.

One of Trump’s closest advisers, South African-born Elon Musk, has previously said there was a “genocide of white people” in South Africa and accused the government of passing “racist ownership laws”.

The claims of a genocide of white people have been widely discredited.

In a statement to the BBC, Gregory Meeks, ranking Democratic member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said the Trump administration’s refugee resettlement was “not just a racist dog whistle, it’s a politically motivated rewrite of history”.

The Episcopal Church said it would no longer work with the federal government on refugee settlement because of the “preferential treatment” granted for the Afrikaners.

Melissa Keaney, a lawyer with the International Refugee Assistance project, told the BBC the White House’s decision to fast-track the Afrikaners’ arrival amounted to “a lot of hypocrisy and unequal treatment”.

Her organisation is suing the Trump administration after it indefinitely suspended the US Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) in January. She said that policy had left over 120,000 conditionally approved refugees in limbo.

• Racially charged row between Musk and South Africa over Starlink
• What’s really driving Trump’s fury with South Africa?

Afrikaner author Max du Preez told the BBC’s Newsday radio programme that claims of persecution of white South Africans were a “total absurdity” and “based on nothing”.

Figures from the South African police show that in 2024, 44 murders were recorded on farms and smaller plots of agricultural land, with eight of those killed being farmers.

South Africa does not report on crime statistics broken down by race but a majority of the country’s farmers are white, while other people living on farms, such as workers, are mostly black.

Bilateral relations between the US and South Africa have been strained since President Trump first tasked his administration with resettling Afrikaners, a group with mostly Dutch ancestry, in the US.

In March, South Africa’s ambassador to the US, Ebrahim Rasool, was expelled after accusing President Trump of using “white victimhood as a dog whistle”, leading to the US accusing Mr Rasool of “race-baiting”.

The US has also criticised South Africa for taking an “aggressive” position against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), where Pretoria has accused Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government of genocide against Palestinians – a claim the Israelis strongly reject.

President Trump’s openness to accepting Afrikaner refugees comes as the US has engaged in a wider crackdown on migrants and asylum seekers from other countries.

• Almost 70,000 South Africans interested in US asylum
• Is it checkmate for South Africa after Trump threats?
• US cuts send South Africa’s HIV treatment ‘off a cliff’

Former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte, who is detained at The Hague over his drug war that killed thousands, has been elected mayor of his family’s stronghold, according to early, partial results.

Two of his most loyal aides – long-time assistant Christopher “Bong” Go and Ronald “Bato” dela Rosa, the one-time police chief in charge of enforcing his drug war – have been re-elected to the country’s senate.

But the midterm election, dominated by a spectacular feud between the Duterte and Marcos dynasties, has also thrown up some unexpected results.

The fate of Duterte’s daughter, Vice-President Sara Duterte, remains in the balance as counting continues.

Sara Duterte – who is widely expected to run for president in 2028 – is facing the prospect of a ban from politics should a jury made up of the country’s senate vote to impeach her.

It meant the midterms – which saw 18,000 seats contested, from local officials to governors and senators – became a proxy war between her supporters and her one-time ally, President Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr.

Candidates supporting either dynasty went head-to-head, with Duterte’s camp seeking the nine senate votes she needs to avoid impeachment.

But an unofficial tally of 68% of the vote suggests it is unclear which way it has gone.

Marcos Jr’s endorsements appear to not have worked as predicted by opinion polls – only one of his candidates, broadcaster Erwin Tulfo, made the top five in the unofficial count.

The rest of the top five was made up of the two Duterte aides and two independents while there is a tight race for the rest of the winning circle of 12.

The vice-president, meanwhile, remains widely popular despite her political troubles, and the president will be leaving office in 2028.

Results so far show the Duterte’s have managed to retain their powerbase in the south of the country – just two months after the 80-year-old populist leader was arrested at Manila Airport and flown to the Netherlands on the same day to face the International Criminal Court.

It was his arrest – approved by Marcos Jr – which pushed the rivalry between his daughter and the current president to boiling point, a few weeks after the president’s allies in the House of Representatives voted to impeach Vice-President Duterte.

The older Duterte was widely expected to win as mayor, given the family has held the post since the mid-1980s.

Duterte himself led Davao, a sprawling southern metropolis, for two decades before he was elected president in 2016. There, he showcased his drug war that he credited for the city’s success, and won him the support of millions far beyond its borders.

His youngest son, Sebastian, the incumbent mayor, was elected vice-mayor, meaning he can discharge his father’s duties in his absence. Another Duterte son, Paolo, was re-elected as congressman. His grandchildren won local posts.

Duterte’s name remained on the ballot as he has not been convicted of any crime. He beat the scion of a smaller rival political family.

Maintaining a political base in Davao city in the south is crucial for the Dutertes – it is where they get the most voter support.

The election was not just a battle between the two families, however.

Monday’s vote saw long queues under temperatures of 33C (91F) and sporadic reports of violence and vote machines malfunctioning.

Like past elections, song-and-dance, showbusiness-style campaigns played out on stage and on social media, underscoring the country’s personality and celebrity politics that sometimes overshadow more pressing issues such as corruption, high cost of living and creaking infrastructure.

Israeli-American hostage Edan Alexander has been reunited with his family in Israel after being held captive by Hamas in Gaza for 19 months.

The 21-year-old had been serving in the Israeli army on the border of Gaza when he was captured by Hamas militants on 7 October 2023.

On Monday, Israel paused its military operations in Gaza for a few hours to facilitate the transfer. A senior Hamas official told the BBC the release was intended as a goodwill gesture and as part of efforts to reach a new ceasefire deal ahead of US President Donald Trump’s visit to the Middle East on Tuesday.

Mr Alexander is thought to be the last US citizen held by Hamas who was still alive.

President Trump offered “congratulations” to his family on his release.

Television pictures show Edan Alexander smiling as he embraces his parents and siblings at an Israeli military base.

In a statement, his family thanked the US president but also urged the Israeli government and negotiators to continue working to free the 58 remaining hostages.

Mr Alexander is the first hostage to be freed by Hamas since Israel restarted its military offensive on 18 March, after a two-month ceasefire came to an end.

On Monday, he was seen with masked Hamas fighters as they handed him over to Red Cross workers in the southern Gaza city of Khan Younis.

He was then transferred to Israeli authorities in Gaza before being reunited with his family in southern Israel. The Israeli military said it provided a “safe corridor” for Mr Alexander’s release.

A video shared on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s X account showed Yael Alexander speaking to her son over the phone.

“You are strong. You are protected. You are home,” she said in the video.

Netanyahu called Mr Alexander’s return a “very moving moment” – and thanked Trump for his support.

The release had been made possible because of military pressure on Hamas and “the political pressure exerted by President Trump”, Netanyahu said.

He added that Israel intended to continue with plans to intensify its military actions in Gaza and that there would be no ceasefire.

Hamas had earlier said Mr Alexander’s release was intended to facilitate a deal for the entry of humanitarian aid into the enclave.

Israel has blocked the entry of all food, medication and other humanitarian supplies into Gaza for 70 days, which aid agencies say amounts to a policy of starvation and could be a war crime, and renewed its aerial bombardment and other military operations there in mid-March.

Hamas has previously said it will only agree to a deal that includes the end of the war. This has been repeatedly rejected by Netanyahu.

Trump is due to arrive in the Middle East on Tuesday, and Israel has vowed to expand its military offensive against Hamas if no deal is reached by the end of his visit.

Israeli officials have said the plans for their expanded offensive include seizing all of Gaza indefinitely, forcibly displacing Palestinians to the south, and taking over aid distribution with private companies despite opposition from the UN and its humanitarian partners, who say they will not co-operate because it appears to “weaponise” aid.

Israel is due to send representatives to Qatar on Thursday to discuss a proposal on further hostage releases.

Qatar and Egypt said that Mr Alexander’s release was an encouraging sign of potential new truce talks.

Born in Tel Aviv but raised in New Jersey, Mr Alexander had been serving in an elite infantry unit on the Gaza border when he was captured by Hamas militants during the 7 October 2003 attack.

About 1,200 people were killed and 251 hostages taken. Some 58 hostages remain, up to 24 of whom are believed to be alive.

Five of the captives held in Gaza are believed to have US citizenship. Mr Alexander is thought to be the last American still alive.

Israel’s military campaign has killed 52,829 people in Gaza, according to the Hamas-run health ministry, including 2,720 Palestinians killed since March.

Rapper Tory Lanez has been rushed to hospital after he was stabbed 14 times in a California prison.

The Canadian hip-hop artist was attacked by another inmate on Tuesday morning in a housing unit at the California Correctional Institution in Tehachapi, about 75 miles (120km) north of Los Angeles, prison officials told the BBC.

The rapper was stabbed 14 times and suffered wounds across his body – causing both of his lungs to collapse, according to a post on his Instagram account after the attack.

Lanez, whose legal name is Daystar Peterson, is serving a 10-year prison sentence for shooting fellow musician Megan Thee Stallion at a party in 2020.

The star’s Instagram post said he was stabbed in the back, torso, head and face. He was temporarily placed on a breathing apparatus but is now able to breath on his own, the Instagram post adds.

“Despite being in pain, he is talking normally, in good spirits, and deeply thankful to God that he is pulling though,” the post said.

The attack happened around 07:20 local time (15:20 GMT), said Pedro Calderón Michel of the state’s corrections department.

Prison staff began first aid before Lanez, 31, was taken to a local medical facility for further treatment, he said.

An investigation is underway into the stabbing, Mr Calderón Michel told the BBC. He did not comment on the attacker’s motive.

Lanez was sentenced in 2023 for three felony gun-related charges, including assault with a semi-automatic firearm.

He shot Megan Thee Stallion, whose legal name is Megan Pete, as they were leaving a pool party at reality star Kylie Jenner’s Hollywood mansion.

The pair argued inside a vehicle about their previous sexual relationship and insulted each other over their careers, Megan Thee Stallion testified during the trial.

She said she had demanded to be let out of the vehicle, at which point Lanez started shooting at the ground and shouted at her to “dance”.

She required surgery to remove bullet fragments from her foot.

Lanez refused to apologise and maintained his innocence in the shooting.

The case divided the hip-hop world with rappers – including 50 Cent and Iggy Azalea – appearing to take sides in the conflict. Some of them wrote to the court to ask for leniency in Lanez’s sentencing.

Lanez had seven US top 10 albums in the seven years before his conviction. He has teased the release of a new upcoming album from prison titled Peterson.

Share markets jumped on Monday after President Trump said weekend talks had resulted in a “total reset” in trade terms between the US and China, a move which goes some way to defuse the high stakes stand-off between the two countries.

The talks in Switzerland resulted in significant cuts to the tit-for-tat tariffs that had been stacked up since January on both sides.

The US will lower those tariffs from 145% to 30%, while China’s retaliatory tariffs on US goods will drop to 10% from 125%.

President Trump told reporters, that, as some of the levies have been suspended rather than cancelled altogether, they might rise again in three months time, if no further progress was made.

However, he said he did not expect them to return to the previous 145% peak.

“We’re not looking to hurt China,” Trump said after the agreement was announced, adding that China was “being hurt very badly”.

“They were closing up factories. They were having a lot of unrest, and they were very happy to be able to do something with us.”

He said he expected to speak to Chinese President Xi Jinping “maybe at the end of the week”.

• What does the US-China tariff deal mean?

Investors welcomed the de-escalation. The S&P 500 index jumped more than 3.2% after the announcement, while the Dow climbed 2.8% and the Nasdaq had surged 4.3% by the end of the day.

The gains left the indexes roughly where they started the year, fully recovered from the losses they sustained in the aftermath of the 2 April tariffs announcement, dubbed “Liberation Day” by the Trump administration.

Framed as a campaign to give Americans a fairer deal from international trade, the US announced a universal baseline tariff on all imports to the US.

Around 60 trading partners, which the White House described as the “worst offenders”, were subjected to higher rates than others, and this included China.

Beijing retaliated with tariffs of its own, which led to levies being ratcheted up on both sides, sending shares sharply lower.

Under the new agreement, the US is reducing the “reciprocal” tariff on Chinese goods that it announced on “Liberation day” to 10%. But it said the higher levy rate was being suspended for 90 days, rather than removed permanently.

The US is also keeping in place the extra 20% tariff aimed at putting pressure on Beijing to do more to curb the illegal trade in fentanyl, a powerful opioid drug.

For its part, China is also reducing to 10% the retaliation tariffs they put in place in response to Trump’s “Liberation day” announcement, again suspended for three months.

China has also agreed to “suspend or remove” all non-tariff measures against the US.

Pre-existing tariffs, including higher sector-specific tariffs on things like steel and cars, remain in place.

However, additional retaliatory tariffs, that were added subsequently, have been cancelled altogether on both sides.

The retreat comes as the first impacts from the tariff-war were beginning to show, with US ports reporting a sharp drop in the number of ships scheduled to arrive from China.

Factory output has slowed in China, and there are reports of firms laying off workers, as US orders dried up.

China’s commerce ministry said the agreement was an important step to “resolve differences” which would help to “deepen co-operation”.

• Faisal Islam: US and China step back from brink
• Laura Bicker: China has come to the table – but this fight is far from over

Tat Kei, a Chinese exporter of personal care appliances to the US, whose factory employs 200 people in Shenzhen, welcomed the announcement, but said he still feared what else might be to come.

“President Trump is going to be here for the next three-and-a-half years. I don’t think this is going to be the end of it… not by a long shot,” he told the BBC.

Elaine Li, head of Greater China at Atlas Ways, which offers services for Chinese enterprises’ global development, also said she believed many Chinese firms would treat the reprieve as temporary.

“For businesses, the best they can do is build a moat around their company before the next round of tariffs arrives,” she said.

On Wall Street Target, Home Depot and Nike were among companies that saw their share price rise sharply on the news. Tech firms including Nvidia, Amazon, Apple and Facebook-owner Meta also moved sharply higher.

European stocks rose on Monday, and earlier Hong Kong’s benchmark Hang Seng Index had ended the day up 3%.

The deal has boosted shares in shipping companies, with Denmark’s Maersk up more than 12% and Germany’s Hapag-Lloyd jumping 14%.

Maersk told the BBC the US-China agreement was “a step in the right direction” and that it now hoped for “a permanent deal that can create the long-term predictability our customers need.”

In the US, the National Retail Federation (NRF) said it was encouraged by the “constructive” negotiations.

“This temporary pause is a critical first step to provide some short-term relief for retailers and other businesses that are in the midst of ordering merchandise for the winter holiday season,” said NRF president Matthew Shay.

The International Chamber of Commerce said the deal sent a clear signal that the US and China both wanted to avoid a “hard decoupling”.

“Ultimately, we hope this weekend’s agreement lays the foundation to lift the cloud of trade policy uncertainty that continues to weigh on investment, hiring, and demand across the world,” said deputy secretary-general, Andrew Wilson.

The gold price – which has benefited from its safe-haven status in recent weeks given the disruption caused by the tariffs – fell 3.1% to $3,223.57 an ounce.

China’s defiance as it faced down US President Donald Trump’s tariffs has been a defining image of this trade war.

It has prompted viral memes of Trump waiting for the Chinese leader to call.

“We will not back down,” has been an almost daily message from Beijing’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs. As the tariffs and the rhetoric from Washington escalated, China dug its heels in.

Even as Chinese officials headed to Switzerland for talks, a state-run social media account published a cartoon of the US Treasury secretary pushing an empty shopping trolley.

There were even conflicting versions of who initiated the talks in Geneva.

But after two days of “robust” talks, the situation appears to have changed.

So, is this a major turning point for Washington and Beijing? The answer is yes and no.

• Faisal Islam: US and China step back from beyond brink
• ‘We don’t care’: A defiant China looks beyond Trump’s America

“The consensus from both delegations this weekend is neither side wants a decoupling,” said US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent during a press conference in Geneva.

“And what had occurred with these very high tariffs… was the equivalent of an embargo, and neither side wants that. We do want trade.”

Economists admit that this agreement is better than expected.

“I thought tariffs would be cut to somewhere around 50%,” Zhiwei Zhang, chief economist at Pinpoint Asset Management in Hong Kong, told Reuters news agency.

But in fact, US tariffs on Chinese imports will now fall to 30%, while Chinese tariffs on US goods will drop to 10%.

“Obviously, this is very positive news for economies in both countries and for the global economy, and makes investors much less concerned about the damage to global supply chains in the short term,” he added.

Trump hailed the progress on Sunday on his Truth Social site: “Many things discussed, much agreed to. A total reset negotiated in a friendly, but constructive, manner.”

Beijing has also softened its tone considerably– and perhaps for good reason.

China can take the pain of an economic war with America – to an extent. It is the lead trade partner for more than 100 other countries.

But officials have become increasingly concerned about the impact the tariffs could have on an economy that is already struggling to deal with a property crisis, stubbornly high youth unemployment and low consumer confidence.

Factory output has slowed and there are reports that some companies are having to lay off workers as production lines of US-bound goods grind to a halt, bringing trade to a standstill.

Data on Saturday showed China’s consumer price index dropped 0.1 percent in April, the third month in a row of decline as consumers hold back from spending and businesses drop prices to compete for customers.

The Chinese Commerce Ministry said on Monday that the agreement reached with the US was an important step to “resolve differences” and “lay the foundation to bridge differences and deepen cooperation”.

Such a positive statement from Beijing would have seemed inconceivable just a month ago.

The two sides have also agreed to more talks, or an “economic and trade consultation mechanism”, as Beijing puts it.

But Trump’s characterisation of a “total reset” in relations may be overly optimistic as there is a slight sting in the tail in Beijing’s statement.

The Commerce Ministry ended with a reminder of who it sees as being in the wrong.

“We hope that the US will continue to work with China to meet each other halfway based on this meeting, thoroughly correct the wrong practice of unilateral tariff increases,” said the spokesperson.

Chinese state media also had a warning for Washington. Xinhua News Agency’s commentary claimed China’s “goodwill and patience has its limits, and it will never be used on those who repress and blackmail us without pause or have no qualms about going back on their word”.

Leaders in Beijing will want to portray an image of strength both to its own people and to the international community. They will want to appear as if they have not budged an inch. The message from China is that it is being responsible and rational and doing what it can to avoid a global recession.

• Xi’s real test is not Trump’s trade war

“This is a victory for conscience and rationality,” said Zhang Yun from the School of International Relations at Nanjing University.

“The talks also established the necessary framework for continued dialogue and negotiations in the future.”

This “victory” is only for 90 days. The tariffs are only paused temporarily to allow for negotiations.

It will allow some trade to flow, and it will soothe worried markets.

But the root of the problem still exists. China still sells far more to the United States than it buys. And there are other, far thornier differences to unpick, from Chinese government subsidies, to key industries, to geopolitical tensions in the Taiwan Strait and beyond.

The fight for a more balanced trade relationship is far from over – it has simply moved.

The frontline has shifted from China’s factory floors and American supermarkets to negotiating tables in both Beijing and Washington.

Australia’s Liberal Party has for the first time chosen a woman as its leader, with Sussan Ley to take over from Peter Dutton after he led the party to a bruising election loss.

Ley, from the moderate faction of the party, beat Angus Taylor – who ran on a promise to restore conservative values – by four votes.

At the election on 3 May, the Liberal-National coalition, currently Australia’s main opposition party, suffered what many are calling the worst defeat in its history.

Pundits and MPs have blamed the result on polarising leaders, a messy campaign and “Trumpian” policies, which alienated women and young people in particular.

Ley’s appointment comes as Prime Minister Anthony Albanese was sworn in at Government House on Tuesday, following his Labor Party’s landslide election win.

According to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Labor has won at least 93 seats – increasing their majority by 16 – while the Coalition has 41 electorates, down from 58. Some seats are still too close to call.

Ley has held the massive regional New South Wales seat of Farrer since 2001 and has served as a senior minister in a variety of portfolios – making her one of the Liberal Party’s most experienced hands. She was also the party deputy under Dutton.

Ted O’Brien, a Queensland MP who was the energy spokesman in charge of selling the coalition’s controversial nuclear power proposal, was elected Ley’s deputy.

Both are expected to address the media later on Tuesday, but Ley has previously said she wanted to help the party rebuild its relationship with Australians.

“Many Australians, including women and younger Australians, feel neglected by the Liberal Party,” she said when announcing her desire to lead.

“We need to listen and we need to change. The Liberal Party must respect modern Australia, reflect modern Australia and represent modern Australia.”

Speaking after the party room vote, former minister Linda Reynolds said: “Australia spoke very clearly to the Liberal Party and we’ve listened and we’ve acted.”

The junior coalition partner, the Nationals, re-elected leader David Littleproud on Monday, after he too was challenged by a hardline conservative colleague.

Albanese’s new cabinet was also sworn in on Tuesday.

The biggest changes include former Labor deputy Tanya Plibersek swapping from the environment portfolio to social services, and former communications minister Michelle Rowland becoming attorney general.

Former Attorney General Mark Dreyfus and Ed Husic – the first Muslim to become an Australian government minister – were both removed from the frontbench.

“I have got people who are, I think, in the best positions and that’s across the board,” Albanese said when announcing the positions on Monday.

Born in Nigeria to English parents, Ley grew up in the United Arab Emirates before moving to Australia at age 13.

“Travelling, and being at boarding school on my own, I think you either sink or swim,” Ley said in a previous interview. “Obviously, I was someone who decided very early on in life that I wasn’t going to sink.”

It was as a young woman that she changed her name from Susan to Sussan, inspired by numerology – an ancient belief that numbers have a mystical impact on people’s lives.

“I read about this numerology theory that if you add the numbers that match the letters in your name you can change your personality,” she told The Australian.

“I worked out that if you added an ‘s’ I would have an incredibly exciting, interesting life and nothing would ever be boring. It’s that simple.”

“And once I’d added the ‘s’ it was really hard to take it away.”

As an adult she has had a “wonderfully varied” career path, Ley says, obtaining degrees in economics and accounting while raising three young children, earning a commercial pilot licence, and working in the outback mustering livestock.

Elected in 2001 to represent an area the size of New Zealand, Ley was promoted to Health Minister under Malcom Turnbull in 2014, but resigned two years later amid an expenses scandal.

Ley apologised after using a taxpayer-funded trip to purchase an apartment on Queensland’s Gold Coast.

She re-joined the frontbench in 2019 after Scott Morrison’s “miracle” election win, as the Minister for Environment.

In that role, she was taken to court by a group who claimed she had a duty of care towards children to protect them from harm caused by climate change. Eight teenagers and an 87-year-old nun convinced a court that the government had a legal duty towards them when assessing fossil fuel projects, but the landmark decision was later overturned.

Ley has also drawn headlines for her comments about Palestinians. She was a co-chair of the Parliamentary Friends of Palestine, an informal cross-party group which aimed to raise the experiences of Palestinian people and has spoken in the chamber in support of Palestinian autonomy.

However, speaking after the vote on Tuesday, one of her colleagues Andrew Wallace said she has “seen the light on Israel in recent years”.

The US and China have agreed a truce to lower import taxes on goods being traded between the two countries.

The agreement marks a major de-escalation of the trade war between the world’s two biggest economies, which has sent shockwaves impacting countless other countries, including the UK.

Here’s what it all means.

Both the US and China have confirmed a reduction in the tariffs they imposed on each other following the initial escalation by President Donald Trump earlier this year.

The deal involves both nations cancelling some tariffs altogether and suspending others for 90 days, by 14 May.

The result is that additional US tariffs on Chinese imports – that’s the extra tariffs imposed in this recent stand-off – will fall to from 145% to 30%, while recently-hiked Chinese tariffs on some US imports will fall from 125% to 10%.

China has also halted and scrapped other non-tariff countermeasures, such as the export of critical minerals to the US, which it put in place in response to the initial escalation.

The US measures still include an extra 20% component aimed at putting pressure on Beijing to do more to curb the illegal trade in fentanyl, a powerful opioid drug.

The announcement came after the two countries held talks in Switzerland, the first between the two countries since Trump sparked the latest tariff war.

Trying to predict the next steps in this ongoing trade war between the US and China these past few months has been difficult to say the least.

But this is a major agreement between the world’s two powerhouse economies and has been broadly welcomed.

Even if the suspended tariffs are reinstated after 90 days, because the vast majority of the tariffs that were announced after Liberation Day have been cancelled, US tariffs on China would only rise to 54% and Chinese tariffs on the US would rise to 34%.

However, talks between both governments are set to continue, so a further deal might be struck.

US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said the consensus from both countries was that “neither side wants a decoupling”, while China’s commerce ministry said the agreement was a step to “lay the foundation to bridge differences and deepen co-operation”.

So relations between the US and China are sounding more friendly, but as we’ve seen so far during this Trump presidency, things can change quickly.

In a word – lots.

In 2024, the biggest category of goods exported from the US to China were soybeans – primarily used to feed China’s estimated 440 million pigs. The US also sent pharmaceuticals and petroleum.

Meanwhile, China exported large volumes of electronics, computers and toys.

The biggest category of US imports from China is smartphones, accounting for 9% of the total. A large proportion of these smartphones Apple iPhones made in China.

However, the US buys much more from China ($440bn) than it sells to it ($145bn), which is something Trump has long been unhappy with.

His reasoning in part for introducing tariffs, and higher ones on countries which sell more to the US than they buy, is to encourage US consumers to buy more American-made goods, increase the amount of tax raised and boost manufacturing jobs.

The escalating trade war in recent months has led to a collapse in the amount of goods being shipped across the Pacific Ocean, but investors believe the truce will lead to a rebound, with shares up for some of the world’s biggest shipping firms.

Politicians on both sides have started and will no doubt continue to claim victory over this truce.

Despite the US and China calling this a joint agreement, people in Beijing will interpret it as the Trump administration walking back from the tariffs, according to Janka Oertel, director of the Asia programme at the European Council on Foreign Relations.

“We are back to square one, now negotiating can begin. The outcome is uncertain but China is in a psychologically stronger position now than before,” she said.

The US will argue its tariff rate on Chinese imports, although lower, is still hefty at 30%.

“This trade deal is a win for the United States, demonstrating President Trump’s unparalleled expertise in securing deals that benefit the American people,” a White House statement said.

Economists at Deutsche Bank have suggested the lowering of tariffs, and last week’s UK-US deal on them, means there’s both “a likely cap and floor” to Trump’s rates.

“The UK has one of the least imbalanced relationships with the US and now has a universal tariff rate of 10%. China has one of the most imbalanced relationships and now has a tariff rate of 30%,” said George Saravelos, head of FX research at the investment bank.

“It is reasonable that these two numbers now set the bounds of where American tariffs will end up this year.”

US President Donald Trump has signed an executive order that aims to reduce high prescription drug prices – but its details and long-term effects are far from clear.

Citing figures that patients in other countries pay much less than Americans for pharmaceuticals, Trump said he would order drug companies to reduce their prices inside the US.

He touted the move as “one of the most consequential” executive orders in US history, claiming prices would fall “almost immediately, by 30% to 80%”.

But experts are highly sceptical of the claims, and stock market moves indicate that investors think they will have little immediate effect.

The US has a particularly complex healthcare system – including a large private insurance industry, employer subsides, and publicly funded insurance programmes for the elderly and poor, known as Medicare and Medicaid respectively.

In many other developed countries, more centralised systems mean that officials can negotiate blanket rates for drugs, and in some cases refuse to buy if they deem the price too high.

In 2021, the US Government Accounting Office made a comparison with Australia, Canada and France, and found that prescription drugs were on average two to four times more expensive in the US.

Politicians from both US political parties have taken aim at the costs. During Monday’s White House announcement, Health Secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr noted that prices had been a preoccupation of Democrats and a main target in socialist Senator Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaigns.

Both Trump in his first term and former President Joe Biden tried to tackle the issue, particularly the cost of life-saving drugs such as insulin, but US prices remain stubbornly high.

Speaking at the White House on Monday, Trump and his health officials blamed the lack of progress on pharmaceutical lobbying efforts and large donations to members of Congress.

“The drug lobby is the strongest lobby,” Trump told reporters. “But starting today, the United States will no longer subsidise the health care of foreign countries, which is what we were doing.”

It should also be noted that Trump’s trade tariffs – which he has consistently used to threaten other countries – could increase costs even further. Trump has previously said he will tax drugs imported into the US.

Trump’s order is much wider than previous efforts to bring down costs – however, many details are yet to be worked out.

The wording directs US officials to make sure that deals over drug costs made by foreign countries do not result in “unreasonable or discriminatory” price hikes for Americans.

But what exactly is covered by those terms is unclear – as is the question of what measures the White House would take if “unreasonable” practices are discovered.

The White House also wants drug companies to sell more products directly to consumers – cutting out insurance companies and pharmaceutical benefit managers – and look into importing drugs from foreign countries where they are sold at lower prices. That idea has previously hit stumbling blocks over safety and trade rules.

An official said that Monday’s order was the start of negotiations between the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and industry.

The order also proposed that the US be given Most Favoured Nation (MFN) status – meaning drug companies would be asked to match the lowest price for a drug abroad when selling to US consumers.

“Big pharma will either abide by this principle voluntarily or we’ll use the power of the federal government to ensure that we are paying the same price as other countries,” Trump told reporters.

It was unclear what mechanism the White House would use to punish drug companies that refuse to voluntarily comply.

Drug prices are very opaque, according to Alan Sager, a professor of health policy at Boston University. Drug manufacturers could easily argue that they were complying with the order by touting the price discounts that they already routinely provide on very high listed retail prices, he told the BBC.

“Will they act? Maybe. Will they claim they act? Sure,” Prof Sager said.

“Whether this will signal a durable and meaningful cut in extraordinarily high US drug prices is very unclear,” he said. “This is rhetoric, not reality.”

Trump’s preview of the announcement hit share prices of major drug makers, such as Pfizer, Eli Lilly and the UK’s GSK.

But they staged a quick recovery, rallying after the administration shared the scope of its plans – an indication that investors do not expect the moves to have a major impact.

To try to retain their profits in the US, drugs companies could simply pull out of other nations in which they are selling their products more cheaply, according to researchers Darius Lakdawalla and Dana Goldman at the University of Southern California.

The researchers also said that foreign governments routinely underestimated the true value of drugs to patients, and that “shifting to a European pricing model in the US would lead to shorter, less healthy lives for Americans”.

Meanwhile, it is unclear how lower prescription drug prices would fit into Kennedy’s “Make America Healthy Again” agenda. The health secretary has consistently emphasised diet and exercise as the key to improving Americans’ health – and has criticised the proliferation of many pharmaceutical products, including vaccines and drugs to treat mental illness.

However, any potential reduction in drug prices is likely to be popular with Americans – as polls consistently show that high costs are a top concern when it comes to the US healthcare system.

C Michael White, a pharmacy professor at the University of Connecticut, said that the results of the Trump administration’s actions on drug prices “will be minimal for many Americans” but that any attempts towards greater transparency and lower costs “are a positive step in the right direction”.

But the order is expected to face challenges from the pharmaceutical industry in courts and Congress.

Industry groups are largely opposed to the executive order and say it will be counterproductive – potentially choking off the supply of drugs and funds for research while doing little to quell high costs.

Stephen J Ubl, president of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, said in a statement that “importing foreign prices from socialist countries would be a bad deal” for American patients.

John F Crowley, president of the Biotechnology Innovation Organization, called MFN status “a deeply flawed proposal that would devastate our nation’s small- and mid-size biotech companies” by potentially choking off funding for research.

“Patients and families are not a bargaining chip in a trade war, but that’s exactly how they are being treated – first through proposed tariffs on our nation’s medicines, now with foreign reference pricing in the name of fairness.”

But Alan Sager, the Boston University professor, was sceptical about the industry’s arguments. He pointed out that the money used to research a drug was spent before any profits were made, and suggested that there might be other ways to fund research – such as large cash prizes for cures for specific diseases.

Prof Sager suggested that real action to drive down drug prices would depend on the president’s attention span.

“Given the president’s apparent public vacillation on many topics, it just isn’t clear that he’ll stay with this problem or that he’ll be willing and able to act effectively,” he said.