Israel went to war after the Hamas attacks of 7 October 2023 armed with an arsenal of weapons mostly paid for, supplied and then resupplied by the United States.

Its other allies gave Israel something just as potent in its own way: a deep credit of goodwill and solidarity, based on revulsion at the killings of 1,200 people, mostly Israeli civilians, and the sight of 251 people being dragged into captivity in Gaza as hostages.

Now it seems that Israel’s credit has gone, at least as far as France, the United Kingdom and Canada are concerned. They have issued their strongest condemnation yet of the way Israel is fighting the war in Gaza.

Israel, they say, must halt its new offensive, which Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says will destroy Hamas, rescue the remaining hostages and put all of Gaza under direct Israeli military control.

• Israel lets aid into Gaza after 11-week blockade but UN calls it ‘drop in ocean’

Their statement dismisses Netanyahu’s arguments and calls for a ceasefire. Together, the three governments say that they “strongly oppose the expansion of Israel’s military operations in Gaza” adding: “The level of human suffering in Gaza is intolerable.”

They call for the release of the remaining hostages and recall that after the “heinous attack” on 7 October they believed that the Israeli state “had a right to defend Israelis against terrorism. But this escalation is wholly disproportionate”.

Netanyahu’s decision to allow what he called “minimal” food into Gaza was they said “wholly inadequate”.

Netanyahu has hit back, saying the “leaders in London, Ottowa and Paris are offering a huge prize for the genocidal attack on Israel on October 7 while inviting more such atrocities”.

He insisted the war could end if Hamas returned hostages, laid down its arms, agreed for its leaders to go into exile and Gaza was demilitarised. “No nation can be expected to accept anything less and Israel certainly won’t,” he said.

Netanyahu – who is sought under an International criminal Court warrant for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity, which he has dismissed as “antisemitic” – had been under heavy international pressure to end the blockade of Gaza after a respected international survey warned of imminent famine.

At the London summit between the EU and the UK the President of the European Council, António Costa, called the humanitarian crisis in Gaza “a tragedy where international law is being systematically violated, and an entire population is being subjected to disproportionate military force”.

“There must be safe, swift and unimpeded access for humanitarian aid,” he said.

Netanyahu’s reluctant decision to allow in limited supplies was condemned by his ultra nationalist coalition partners.

The Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir, convicted in 2007 for incitement to racism and supporting an extremist Jewish group that Israel classifies as a terrorist organisation, complained that Netanyahu’s decision would “fuel Hamas and give it oxygen while our hostages languish in tunnels”.

Only five trucks made it into Gaza on Monday, as Israeli troops advanced and air and artillery strikes killed more Palestinian civilians including many young children.

Opponents of Israel’s destruction of Gaza and the killing of tens of thousands of Palestinian civilians will say the governments of France, the UK and Canada are speaking out far too late.

Many of them have held months of demonstrations protesting about the death and destruction in Gaza – and more killing of Palestinian civilians and confiscation of land in the West Bank, the other side of the Palestinian territories, during military operations and raids by armed Jewish settlers.

But sometimes in the politics of war, a single incident carries symbolic power that clarifies and crystallises so sharply that it can force governments to action. This time it was the killing on 23 March by Israeli forces in Gaza of 15 paramedics and aid workers.

It came after Israel, on 18 March, had broken a ceasefire that had held for two months with a series of massive air strikes.

Five days into the renewed war an Israeli unit attacked the medical convoy, and covered the men they had killed and their bullet ridden vehicles with the sand. The Israeli account of what happened was shown to be untrue when a mobile phone was recovered from a body in the mass grave.

Its owner had filmed the incident before he was killed. Far from proving Israel’s claim that the emergency workers were a potential threat to the Israeli combat soldiers, the video from the grave showed that clearly marked and well-lit ambulances and emergency vehicles were attacked systematically until almost everyone inside them was killed.

Alarm has been growing fast since then, not just among Israel’s usual opponents. Its European allies, with President Macron of France leading the way, have been toughening their language. The statement calling for an end to Israel’s offensive is their harshest criticism of Israel so far.

A senior European diplomatic source involved in their discussions told me that the tough language reflected a “real sense of growing political anger at the humanitarian situation, of a line being crossed, and of this Israeli government appearing to act with impunity”.

More ominously for Israel, the statement says that “we will not stand by while the Netanyahu government pursues these egregious actions. If Israel does not cease the renewed military offensive and lift its restrictions on humanitarian aid, we will take further concrete steps in response”.

They do not specify what those might be. Sanctions could be one possibility. A bigger step would be to recognise Palestine as an independent state.

France has been considering joining the 148 other states that have done so at a conference it is co-chairing with Saudi Arabia in New York in early June. The UK has also talked about Palestinian recognition with the French.

Israel, pushing back hard, has told them they would be presenting Hamas with a victory. But the tone of the statement made by the French, the Canadians and the British suggests that Israel is losing its ability to pressurise them.

Sesame Street and Netflix have struck a deal that will see the popular TV show appear on the streaming platform, after US President Donald Trump pulled funding for the free-to-air channel Public Broadcasting Service (PBS).

Netflix said the iconic programme is a “beloved cornerstone of children’s media, enchanting young minds and nurturing a love of learning”.

Netflix will offer its 300 million subscribers a new season of the show and 90 hours of previous episodes, while still being available on PBS.

Sesame Street was also facing an uncertain future after entertainment giant Warner Bros Discovery, which owns the HBO platform, did not renew its deal with the half a century old programme.

Earlier this month, Trump issued an executive order to block federal funding for PBS and the National Public Radio (NPR) network, alleging they engaged in “biased and partisan news coverage”.

The government body Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which backed the two broadcasters, has since announced the termination of a federal initiative which funded shows for children, including Sesame Street.

Under the deal, PBS will get access to Sesame Street episodes on the same day they are released on Netflix.

In the late 1960s, Sesame Street co-founders Lloyd Morrisett and Joan Ganz Cooney approached Harvard University’s Graduate School of Education with a novel way of teaching American children.

A team led by a developmental psychologist worked with the Sesame founders to analyse childhood psychology and produce entertaining lessons.

They worked with Muppets creator Jim Henson to create characters like Big Bird, with a set made to look like an urban street.

Since its first airing on 10 November 1969, millions of children have grown up with the show’s theme tune “Can you tell me how to get, how get to Sesame Street?”

Over the decades, the programme and its characters have gained a life beyond the small screen.

Popular character Elmo stepped into the public policy spotlight in 2002, when he was invited to discuss music education at Congress.

During a child obesity epidemic in the US in 2006, Sesame Street aired Health Habits segments designed to teach kids about diet and exercise.

The Cookie Monster declared cookies a “sometimes food” and taught children about a balanced diet.

Former First Lady Michelle Obama also visited Sesame’s studios to film a segment on healthy eating.

Netflix has been increasing its focus on children’s content, that accounts for 15% of viewing on its service.

It also announced on Tuesday that new episodes of Peppa Pig and a mobile game with puzzles and colouring activities would be coming to the platform.

The animated show is centred on the adventures of a four-year-old piglet called Peppa who lives with her family in a fictional British town.

Last year, Donald Trump promised he would end the Ukraine War in “24 hours”.

Last week, he said that it would not be resolved until he and Russian President Vladimir Putin could “get together” and hash it out in person.

On Monday, the ground shifted again.

After a two-hour phone call with Putin, he said that the conditions of a peace deal could only be negotiated between Russia and Ukraine – and maybe with the help of the Pope.

Still, the US president has not lost his sense of optimism about the prospect for peace, posting on social media that the combatants would “immediately start” negotiations for a ceasefire and an end to the war.

That sentiment was somewhat at odds with the Russian view. Putin only said that his country is ready to work with Ukraine to craft a “memorandum on a possible future peace agreement”.

Talks about memorandums and a “possible future” of peace hardly seems the kind of solid ground on which lasting deals can be quickly built.

• Russia and Ukraine to ‘immediately’ start ceasefire talks, says Trump
• Trump says he will call Putin to discuss stopping Ukraine ‘bloodbath’
• Rosenberg: Trump-Putin call seen as victory in Russia

Putin again emphasised that any resolution would have to address the “root causes” of the war – which Russia has claimed in the past to be Ukraine’s desire for closer ties to Europe.

On Truth Social after the call, Trump said that Russia and Ukraine will “immediately start negotiations” toward a ceasefire, adding that “the conditions for that will be negotiated between the two parties”.

But there is a possibility that Trump’s latest take on the war in Ukraine could be a sign that the US will ultimately abandon the negotiating table.

Later on Monday, Trump said he would not step away from brokering talks between the two countries, but acknowledged that he had a “red line in his head”.

“Big egos involved, but I think something’s going to happen,” he said. “And if it doesn’t, I’ll just back away and they’ll have to keep going.”

Such a move, however, comes with its own set of questions – and risks.

If the US washes its hands of the war, as Vice-President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio have also threatened, does it mean the US would also end any military and intelligence support for Ukraine?

And if that is the case, then it may be a development that Russia, with its greater resources compared to a Ukraine cut off from American backing, would welcome.

That prospect is enough to have Ukrainian President Volodomyr Zelensky concerned.

“It’s crucial for all of us that the United States does not distance itself from the talks and the pursuit of peace,” he said on Monday after the Trump-Putin call.

• Trump’s frantic peace brokering hints at what he really wants

Trump has expressed frustration with both Putin and Zelensky as efforts to resolve the three-year-old conflict drag on.

He accused the Ukrainian leader of “gambling with World War Three” in an explosive meeting in February in the Oval Office and, in April, said he was “very angry” and “pissed off” at Putin after talks continued to stall.

Putting aside Monday’s rhetoric, it appears that Ukraine and Russia are set to continue some kind of talks – and talking in any form is progress after nearly three years of war. Still to be determined is whether the Russian team will be more than the low-level delegation that travelled to Istanbul to meet with the Ukrainians last Friday.

Trump is holding out the promise of reduced sanctions on Russia – and new trade deals and economic investment – as the enticement that will move Putin toward a peace agreement. He mentioned that again in his post-call comments. Not discussed, on the other hand, were any negative consequences, such as new sanctions on Russian banking and energy exports.

The US president last month warned that he would not tolerate Putin “tapping me along” and said that Russia should not target civilian areas. But yesterday, Russia launched its largest drone strike of the war on Ukrainian cities, and Monday’s call between the two world leaders makes clear that any ceasefire or peace deal still seems well over the horizon.

Australia’s conservative Liberal-National coalition – the nation’s main opposition political party – has split after a partnership lasting almost 80 years.

The move marks a seismic change in the country’s political landscape and comes just weeks after a federal election that saw Labor win a second term in a landslide victory.

Nationals leader David Littleproud on Tuesday said his party was not re-entering a coalition agreement, amid policy disagreements with the Liberal Party as it goes on a journey of “rediscovery” following the empathic loss.

Littleproud added that the Coalition has been broken and repaired before, and he hoped that – with time – the parties could reconcile again.

The Liberal Party – which has the second largest number of seats in parliament – will remain the formal opposition party, though now in their own right. This means the Nationals will not hold any opposition roles.

“Whilst we have enormous respect for David Littleproud and his team, it is disappointing that the National Party has taken the decision to leave the Coalition,” newly elected Liberal leader Sussan Ley said, hours after the shock announcement.

Ley said the founding principle of the Coalition had long been “shared values”, but said the Nationals had refused to sign a deal without commitments to “specific policies”.

The split comes after days of post-election talks between the two parties about their future, with Littleproud’s party – which mainly represents regional communities and leans more conservative than the Liberals – failing to reach an agreement with their long-time political ally.

A key issue that had strained their relationship with the Liberals was climate and energy, with sects of the National Party still opposed to net-zero emissions goals, and wedded to a nuclear power proposal which proved controversial at the election.

Littleproud also pointed to regional infrastructure spending and policies to improve supermarket competition as points of conflict.

Describing it as “one of the hardest political decisions of his life”, Littleproud said he had a “respectful conversation” with Ley to inform her of the split on Tuesday morning.

“What this is about is taking a deep breath and saying to the Australian people, this is time apart [for] us to be better, [to] focus on them.”

“I gave [Ley] the commitment that I’ll work with her every day to help to try to rebuild the relationship to the point we can re-enter a coalition before the next election.”

However, he said the National Party would contest the next election solo if unity could not be achieved.

The Liberal-National partnership, which in its current form dates back to the 1940s, has broken down and been re-established several times over the decades. The last time the Coalition split was almost four decades ago, in 1987.

All except one of the 15 electorates the Liberal-National coalition lost at the election were ceded by the Liberals, who saw big swings against them right around the nation.

Support for the Liberals nosedived in more moderate areas, particularly in cities, which analysts largely put down to then-leader Peter Dutton’s polarising persona and some Trump-like policies. Ley, his successor, has vowed to bring the party back to the centre-right.

Vietnamese authorities have arrested a beauty queen and social media influencer for consumer fraud after she promoted a counterfeit fibre supplement.

Nguyen Thuc Thuy Tien had heavily marketed gummies said to be rich in fibre on her social media channels.

But a public backlash erupted after product tests revealed this was untrue.

A former winner of the Miss Grand International beauty competition, Ms Nguyen is a well-known personality in Vietnam and previously received accolades from the government.

Ms Nguyen had promoted Kera Supergreens Gummies along with social media influencers, Pham Quang Linh and Hang Du Muc.

Investigators said the product was the result of a joint venture between Ms Nguyen and a company set up by the two other influencers.

The influencers claimed that each of their gummies contained fibre equivalent to a plate of vegetables.

A member of the public sent the product for testing at a lab, which found that each gummy only contained 16mg of fibre, far from 200mg as claimed.

Authorities then launched an investigation, which found that sub-standard ingredients that were low in fibre were used in the manufacture of the gummies.

The product’s packaging also did not state the fibre content, nor did it state that the product contained a high level of sorbitol, which is used in laxatives.

The three influencers were fined in March, and apologised to the public.

The following month, Vietnamese authorities arrested Mr Pham and Hang Du Muc as well as officials from their company and the gummies’ manufacturer.

They were charged with producing counterfeit goods and defrauding customers.

On Monday, authorities announced the arrest of Ms Nguyen for allegedly deceiving customers.

More than 100,000 boxes of the gummies were reportedly sold before sales were halted due to the scandal.

After winning the Bangkok-based beauty pageant in 2021, Ms Nguyen became a celebrity sought after by many Vietnamese brands, and appeared on several reality TV shows.

She also received certificates of merit from the prime minister and Vietnam’s ruling Communist Party.

The four-day conflict between arch-rivals India and Pakistan this month ended with a ceasefire and both claiming victory – but it now appears that China’s defence industry might also be an unlikely winner.

The latest flare-up began on 7 May when India launched attacks on what it called “terrorist infrastructure” inside Pakistan in response to the brutal killing of 26 people, mostly tourists by militants in Pahalgam on 22 April.

Many of them were killed in the scenic valley in Indian-administered Kashmir in front of their wives and family members. Delhi accused Islamabad of supporting militant groups involved in the carnage, a charge Pakistan denied.

After India’s response – which it called Operation Sindoor – to the militant attack, tit-for-tat military manoeuvres from both sides followed, involving drones, missiles and fighter jets.

India reportedly used its French and Russian-made jets, while Pakistan deployed its J-10 and J-17 aircraft, which Islamabad co-produces with Beijing. Both sides say their jets did not cross the border and they were firing missiles at each other from a distance.

Islamabad claims that its fighter aircraft shot down at least six Indian planes, including the newly-acquired French-made Rafale fighter jets. Delhi hasn’t responded to these claims.

“Losses are a part of combat,” Air Marshal AK Bharti of the Indian Air Force (IAF) said last week when a reporter asked him about these claims. Air Marshal Bharti declined to comment on the specific claim of Pakistan downing Indian jets.

“We have achieved the objectives that we selected, and all our pilots are back home,” he added.

India said it had killed at least “100 terrorists” while targeting the headquarters of the banned Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed militant outfits based in Pakistan.

A definitive account of what really happened in the aerial battle is yet to emerge. Some media outlets reported plane crashes in the state of Punjab and Indian-administered Kashmir around the same time but the Indian government has not responded to the reports.

A Reuters report quoting American officials said Pakistan possibly had used the Chinese-made J-10 aircraft to launch air-to-air missiles against Indian fighter jets. Pakistan claiming victory after hugely relying on Chinese weapons systems in an active combat situation is being seen by some experts as a boost for Beijing’s defence industry but some also disagree with the claim.

Some of the experts have called this a “DeepSeek moment” for the Chinese weapons industry, referring to January this year when the Chinese AI start-up shook US giants with its cost-effective technology.

“The aerial fight was a big advertisement for the Chinese weapons industry. Until now, China had no opportunity to test its platforms in a combat situation,” Zhou Bo, a retired senior colonel in the Chinese People’s Liberation Army, told the BBC.

The Beijing-based analyst said the outcome of the air duel showed “China has some systems that are next to none”. Shares in the Chinese Avic Chengdu Aircraft company, that manufactures fighter jets like the J-10, surged by up to 40% last week after the reported performance of the fighter jet in the India-Pakistan conflict.

Other experts, however, feel it’s too early to declare the superiority of Chinese weapons systems.

Professor Walter Ladwig from the King’s College in London said it was yet to be determined whether the Chinese jets had actually outmanoeuvred the Indian Air Force (IAF) planes, particularly the Rafale.

“In a standard military doctrine, you would suppress the enemy’s air defences and get air superiority before you struck ground targets. Instead, it appears the IAF’s mission was clearly not to provoke any Pakistani military retaliation,” he said.

Mr Ladwig thought that the Indian pilots were given instructions to fly despite the fact that the entire Pakistani air defence was on high alert and their jets were already in the sky. The IAF hasn’t given details of the mission or about its air operations strategy.

Beijing also hasn’t made any comment on reports of the J-10 taking down Indian fighter jets, including the Rafale. But unconfirmed reports of the J-10 bringing down a Western weapon system has triggered jubilation and triumphalism on Chinese social media.

Carlotta Rinaudo, a China researcher at the International Team for the Study of Security in Verona, said Chinese social media was flooded with nationalistic messages even though it’s difficult to reach a conclusion with the available information.

“At the moment perception matters way more than reality. If we see it in that way, the main winner is really China,” she said.

For China, Pakistan is a strategic and economic ally. It is investing more than $50bn (£37bn) to build infrastructure in Pakistan as part of its China-Pakistan Economic corridor.

So, a weak Pakistan is not in China’s interest.

China made a critical difference in the latest India-Pakistan conflict, says Imtiaz Gul, a Pakistani security analyst. “It took the Indian planners by sheer surprise. They didn’t probably envision the depth of co-operation in the modern warfare between Pakistan and China,” he said.

Experts say the performance of the Chinese jets in a real combat situation was keenly analysed in Western capitals as this will have cascading impact on global arms trade. The US is the world’s largest arms exporter, while China is the fourth.

China sells weapons mostly to developing countries like Myanmar and Pakistan. Previously the Chinese weapon systems were criticised for their poor quality and technical problems.

Reports said the Burmese military grounded several of its JF-17 fighter jets – jointly manufactured by China and Pakistan in 2022 – due to technical malfunctions.

The Nigerian military reported several technical problems with the Chinese made F-7 fighter jets.

Another point to be noted is that this was not the first time that India lost an aircraft to Pakistan.

In 2019, during a brief air battle between the two sides following similar Indian air strikes on suspected terrorist targets in Pakistan, a Russian-made MiG-21 jet was shot down inside Pakistani territory and the pilot was captured. He was released a few days later.

India, however, said that the pilot had ejected after successfully shooting down Pakistani fighter jets, including a US-made F-16. Pakistan has denied the claim.

Despite reports of the downing of Indian jets last week, experts like Mr Ladwig argue that India was able to hit an “impressive breadth of targets” inside Pakistan early in the morning of 10 May and this fact has gone largely unnoticed by the international media.

The Indian military said in a co-ordinated attack, it launched missiles on 11 Pakistani air bases across the country, including the strategic Nur Khan air base outside Rawalpindi, not far from the Pakistani military headquarters. It’s a sensitive target that took Islamabad by surprise.

One of the furthest targets was in Bholari, 140km (86 miles) from the southern city of Karachi.

Mr Ladwig says this time the IAF operated with standard procedures – first attacking Pakistani air defence and radar systems and then focusing on ground targets.

The Indian jets used an array of missiles, loitering munitions and drones despite the Pakistanis operating the Chinese-provided HQ 9 air defence system.

“It seems the attacks were relatively precise and targeted. The craters were in the middle of runways, exactly the ideal spot. If it were a longer conflict, how long would it take the Pakistani Air Force to get these facilities up and running again, I can’t say,” Mr Ladwig pointed out.

Nevertheless, he said, by refusing to get into the details of the mission briefing, India’s military “lost control of the narrative thread”.

In response to the Indian strikes, Pakistan said it launched missile and air strikes on several Indian forward air bases, but Delhi said the attacks caused no damage to equipment and personnel.

Realising that the situation was getting out of control, the US and its allies intervened and put pressure on both countries to stop the fighting.

But for India, experts say, the whole episode is a wake-up call.

Beijing may not comment on the details of the recent India-Pakistan conflict, but it’s keen to show that its weapon systems are fast catching up with the West.

Delhi is aware that the jets China has supplied to Pakistan are some of the earlier models. Beijing has already inducted the more advanced J-20 stealth fighter jets, that can evade radars.

India and China have a long-standing border dispute along the Himalayas and fought a brief border war in 1962 that resulted in a defeat for India. A brief border clash took place in Ladakh in June 2020.

Experts say India is acutely aware that it needs to accelerate investments in its homegrown defence manufacturing industry and speed up international buying.

For now, China’s defence industry seems to be enjoying the limelight following the claims of success of one of its aircraft in the India-Pakistan conflict.

Joe Biden expressed his gratitude for the words of support that have poured in from across the world, including a private letter from Britain’s King Charles, after the former US president announced his cancer diagnosis on Sunday.

“Cancer touches us all,” Biden wrote on social media on Monday morning. “Like so many of you, Jill and I have learned that we are strongest in the broken places. Thank you for lifting us up with love and support.”

On Sunday, Biden’s office disclosed that he was diagnosed with an aggressive form of prostate cancer that has spread to his bones.

The news comes as fresh questions are being raised about the former president’s health while he was in office.

President Donald Trump posted that he was “saddened” by Biden’s diagnosis but later questioned – without providing any evidence – whether Biden’s team had known earlier about his illness and concealed the news from the public.

“I am surprised that the public wasn’t notified a long time ago because to get to stage nine that takes a long time,” he said at the White House on Monday afternoon.

“It could take years to get to this level of danger,” he said, adding: “I feel very badly about it, and I think people should try and find out what happened.”

Late-stage diagnoses for cancer are not unheard of, however. One UK study in 2014 found 46% of cancer diagnoses in that country were only made at an advanced stage.

Biden’s office said that he was diagnosed on Friday with prostate cancer “characterised by a Gleason score of 9 (Grade Group 5) with metastasis to the bone”.

“While this represents a more aggressive form of the disease, the cancer appears to be hormone-sensitive which allows for effective management.”

A Gleason score of nine means his illness is classified as “high-grade” and the cancer cells could spread quickly, according to Cancer Research UK.

• What we know about Biden’s prostate cancer diagnosis
• Analysis: Cancer diagnosis is another formidable challenge

Biden said his diagnosis was made after he reported urinary symptoms which led doctors to find a small nodule on his prostate.

In the wake of the cancer diagnosis, many have offered Biden their support including former President Barack Obama and former Vice-President Kamala Harris.

King Charles has written privately to Biden offering his support and best wishes, Buckingham Palace said.

The king, 76, who has met Biden a number of times, is also receiving treatment for an unspecified type of cancer after his diagnosis in 2024.

Biden had then sent his best wishes, saying: “I’m concerned about him. Just heard about his diagnosis. I’ll be talking to him, God willing.”

Vice-President JD Vance offered well wishes, but questioned whether the American people had a clear picture of Biden’s health while the former president was in office.

“We really do need to be honest about whether the former president was capable of doing the job,” Vance said on Monday. “And that’s that’s … you can separate the desire for him to have the right health outcome with a recognition that whether it was doctors or whether there were staffers around the former president, I don’t think he was able to do a good job for the American people.”

Vance also said he blamed the people around him more than Biden himself.

“This is not child’s play, and we can pray for good health, but also recognise that if you’re not in good enough health to do the job, you shouldn’t be doing the job,” he added.

The announcement comes as Biden staves off criticism from a forthcoming book that claims he and his advisers hid his deteriorating health while he was in the White House.

Details revealed last week from the book entitled, Original Sin: President Biden’s Decline, Its Cover-Up, and His Disastrous Choice to Run Again, include Biden not recognising actor and frequent Democratic donor George Clooney at a fundraiser last year and aides discussing putting the former president in a wheelchair.

The book will be released on Tuesday.

Nearly a year ago, the former president was forced to drop out of the 2024 US presidential election because of concerns about his health and age.

A British ultra-endurance athlete has broken the world record for running across the width of Australia, after a gruelling 35-day journey.

William Goodge, 31, started the 3,800km (2,361 miles) run from Cottesloe Beach in Perth on 15 April, and finished on Monday afternoon at Australia’s iconic Bondi Beach, his father by his side.

Originally from Bedfordshire in England, Goodge ran the equivalent of two-and-a-half marathons – about 100km – every day.

He started running marathons after his mother, Amanda, died from cancer in 2018, with this journey raising money for cancer charities in the UK, US and Australia.

The previous world record for running across Australia was held by Chris Turnbull, who managed the feat in 39 days in 2023. The year before, Australian electrician Nedd Brockmann ran the same route in 47 days, raising millions for charity.

Speaking to local media after he crossed the finish line, Goodge said the run was “like a revolving nightmare that wouldn’t end”.

“The first nine days were extremely challenging…but you have to tell your body and mind that even though you’re struggling, you’re going to persevere, and you’re going to get through it,” he told the Sydney Morning Herald (SMH).

Moments after crossing the finish line, Goodge placed a bunch of flowers on Bondi’s famous shoreline in memory of his late mother.

“She was the most special person in my life,” he told the Guardian Australia, adding, “she would be proud of everything I’ve done – she’d also be concerned”.

Along the way toenails have fallen off, his feet began rotting and he sometimes hallucinated due to broken sleep caused by pain in his bones.

Goodge said thinking about how his mother battled cancer was crucial during his journey, and helped him overlook his own suffering.

“So in the moments where it’s tough, I’ll think back to those times, I think about the woman she was, and how she handled herself, and how she supported me,” he told the SMH.

“I feel like she’s there with me a lot of the time.”

During the race, he says he saw almost all of Australia’s famous animals – though most were dead on the road – and much of its unique countryside.

On Goodge’s website about the run, he also thanked Turnbull for sharing his knowledge and experience on how to tackle the journey.

Goodge also holds the record for the fastest British man to run across the US, crossing from Los Angeles to New York in 55 days.

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

“Whenever I was struggling, if it was going to be a really bad day, I could then start to chat to one of these bots, and it was like [having] a cheerleader, someone who’s going to give you some good vibes for the day.

“I’ve got this encouraging external voice going – ‘right – what are we going to do [today]?’ Like an imaginary friend, essentially.”

For months, Kelly spent up to three hours a day speaking to online “chatbots” created using artificial intelligence (AI), exchanging hundreds of messages.

At the time, Kelly was on a waiting list for traditional NHS talking therapy to discuss issues with anxiety, low self-esteem and a relationship breakdown.

She says interacting with chatbots on character.ai got her through a really dark period, as they gave her coping strategies and were available for 24 hours a day.

“I’m not from an openly emotional family – if you had a problem, you just got on with it.

“The fact that this is not a real person is so much easier to handle.”

People around the world have shared their private thoughts and experiences with AI chatbots, even though they are widely acknowledged as inferior to seeking professional advice. Character.ai itself tells its users: “This is an AI chatbot and not a real person. Treat everything it says as fiction. What is said should not be relied upon as fact or advice.”

But in extreme examples chatbots have been accused of giving harmful advice.

Character.ai is currently the subject of legal action from a mother whose 14-year-old son took his own life after reportedly becoming obsessed with one of its AI characters. According to transcripts of their chats in court filings he discussed ending his life with the chatbot. In a final conversation he told the chatbot he was “coming home” – and it allegedly encouraged him to do so “as soon as possible”.

Character.ai has denied the suit’s allegations.

And in 2023, the National Eating Disorder Association replaced its live helpline with a chatbot, but later had to suspend it over claims the bot was recommending calorie restriction.

In April 2024 alone, nearly 426,000 mental health referrals were made in England – a rise of 40% in five years. An estimated one million people are also waiting to access mental health services, and private therapy can be prohibitively expensive (costs vary greatly, but the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy reports on average people spend £40 to £50 an hour).

At the same time, AI has revolutionised healthcare in many ways, including helping to screen, diagnose and triage patients. There is a huge spectrum of chatbots, and about 30 local NHS services now use one called Wysa.

Experts express concerns about chatbots around potential biases and limitations, lack of safeguarding and the security of users’ information. But some believe that if specialist human help is not easily available, chatbots can be a help. So with NHS mental health waitlists at record highs, are chatbots a possible solution?

Character.ai and other bots such as Chat GPT are based on “large language models” of artificial intelligence. These are trained on vast amounts of data – whether that’s websites, articles, books or blog posts – to predict the next word in a sequence. From here, they predict and generate human-like text and interactions.

The way mental health chatbots are created varies, but they can be trained in practices such as cognitive behavioural therapy, which helps users to explore how to reframe their thoughts and actions. They can also adapt to the end user’s preferences and feedback.

Hamed Haddadi, professor of human-centred systems at Imperial College London, likens these chatbots to an “inexperienced therapist”, and points out that humans with decades of experience will be able to engage and “read” their patient based on many things, while bots are forced to go on text alone.

“They [therapists] look at various other clues from your clothes and your behaviour and your actions and the way you look and your body language and all of that. And it’s very difficult to embed these things in chatbots.”

Another potential problem, says Prof Haddadi, is that chatbots can be trained to keep you engaged, and to be supportive, “so even if you say harmful content, it will probably cooperate with you”. This is sometimes referred to as a ‘Yes Man’ issue, in that they are often very agreeable.

And as with other forms of AI, biases can be inherent in the model because they reflect the prejudices of the data they are trained on.

Prof Haddadi points out counsellors and psychologists don’t tend to keep transcripts from their patient interactions, so chatbots don’t have many “real-life” sessions to train from. Therefore, he says they are not likely to have enough training data, and what they do access may have biases built into it which are highly situational.

“Based on where you get your training data from, your situation will completely change.

“Even in the restricted geographic area of London, a psychiatrist who is used to dealing with patients in Chelsea might really struggle to open a new office in Peckham dealing with those issues, because he or she just doesn’t have enough training data with those users,” he says.

Philosopher Dr Paula Boddington, who has written a textbook on AI Ethics, agrees that in-built biases are a problem.

“A big issue would be any biases or underlying assumptions built into the therapy model.”

“Biases include general models of what constitutes mental health and good functioning in daily life, such as independence, autonomy, relationships with others,” she says.

Lack of cultural context is another issue – Dr Boddington cites an example of how she was living in Australia when Princess Diana died, and people did not understand why she was upset.

“These kinds of things really make me wonder about the human connection that is so often needed in counselling,” she says.

“Sometimes just being there with someone is all that is needed, but that is of course only achieved by someone who is also an embodied, living, breathing human being.”

Kelly ultimately started to find responses the chatbot gave unsatisfying.

“Sometimes you get a bit frustrated. If they don’t know how to deal with something, they’ll just sort of say the same sentence, and you realise there’s not really anywhere to go with it.” At times “it was like hitting a brick wall”.

“It would be relationship things that I’d probably previously gone into, but I guess I hadn’t used the right phrasing […] and it just didn’t want to get in depth.”

A Character.AI spokesperson said “for any Characters created by users with the words ‘psychologist’, ‘therapist,’ ‘doctor,’ or other similar terms in their names, we have language making it clear that users should not rely on these Characters for any type of professional advice”.

For some users chatbots have been invaluable when they have been at their lowest.

Nicholas has autism, anxiety, OCD, and says he has always experienced depression. He found face-to-face support dried up once he reached adulthood: “When you turn 18, it’s as if support pretty much stops, so I haven’t seen an actual human therapist in years.”

He tried to take his own life last autumn, and since then he says he has been on a NHS waitlist.

“My partner and I have been up to the doctor’s surgery a few times, to try to get it [talking therapy] quicker. The GP has put in a referral [to see a human counsellor] but I haven’t even had a letter off the mental health service where I live.”

While Nicholas is chasing in-person support, he has found using Wysa has some benefits.

“As someone with autism, I’m not particularly great with interaction in person. [I find] speaking to a computer is much better.”

The app allows patients to self-refer for mental health support, and offers tools and coping strategies such as a chat function, breathing exercises and guided meditation while they wait to be seen by a human therapist, and can also be used as a standalone self-help tool.

Wysa stresses that its service is designed for people experiencing low mood, stress or anxiety rather than abuse and severe mental health conditions. It has in-built crisis and escalation pathways whereby users are signposted to helplines or can send for help directly if they show signs of self-harm or suicidal ideation.

For people with suicidal thoughts, human counsellors on the free Samaritans helpline are available 24/7.

Nicholas also experiences sleep deprivation, so finds it helpful if support is available at times when friends and family are asleep.

“There was one time in the night when I was feeling really down. I messaged the app and said ‘I don’t know if I want to be here anymore.’ It came back saying ‘Nick, you are valued. People love you’.

“It was so empathetic, it gave a response that you’d think was from a human that you’ve known for years […] And it did make me feel valued.”

His experiences chime with a recent study by Dartmouth College researchers looking at the impact of chatbots on people diagnosed with anxiety, depression or an eating disorder, versus a control group with the same conditions.

After four weeks, bot users showed significant reductions in their symptoms – including a 51% reduction in depressive symptoms – and reported a level of trust and collaboration akin to a human therapist.

Despite this, the study’s senior author commented there is no replacement for in-person care.

Aside from the debate around the value of their advice, there are also wider concerns about security and privacy, and whether the technology could be monetised.

“There’s that little niggle of doubt that says, ‘oh, what if someone takes the things that you’re saying in therapy and then tries to blackmail you with them?’,” says Kelly.

Psychologist Ian MacRae specialises in emerging technologies, and warns “some people are placing a lot of trust in these [bots] without it being necessarily earned”.

“Personally, I would never put any of my personal information, especially health, psychological information, into one of these large language models that’s just hoovering up an absolute tonne of data, and you’re not entirely sure how it’s being used, what you’re consenting to.”

“It’s not to say in the future, there couldn’t be tools like this that are private, well tested […] but I just don’t think we’re in the place yet where we have any of that evidence to show that a general purpose chatbot can be a good therapist,” Mr MacRae says.

Wysa’s managing director, John Tench, says Wysa does not collect any personally identifiable information, and users are not required to register or share personal data to use Wysa.

“Conversation data may occasionally be reviewed in anonymised form to help improve the quality of Wysa’s AI responses, but no information that could identify a user is collected or stored. In addition, Wysa has data processing agreements in place with external AI providers to ensure that no user conversations are used to train third-party large language models.”

Kelly feels chatbots cannot currently fully replace a human therapist. “It’s a wild roulette out there in AI world, you don’t really know what you’re getting.”

“AI support can be a helpful first step, but it’s not a substitute for professional care,” agrees Mr Tench.

And the public are largely unconvinced. A YouGov survey found just 12% of the public think AI chatbots would make a good therapist.

But with the right safeguards, some feel chatbots could be a useful stopgap in an overloaded mental health system.

John, who has an anxiety disorder, says he has been on the waitlist for a human therapist for nine months. He has been using Wysa two or three times a week.

“There is not a lot of help out there at the moment, so you clutch at straws.”

“[It] is a stop gap to these huge waiting lists… to get people a tool while they are waiting to talk to a healthcare professional.”

The Trump administration has agreed to pay a $5m (£3.7m) settlement to the family of Ashli Babbitt, a US Air Force veteran who was shot and killed by a Capitol police officer while breaching the US Congress on 6 January 2021.

Capitol Police Chief Tom Manger told CBS, the BBC’s US partner, he is “extremely disappointed” with the decision. The officer involved in her shooting has been cleared of any wrongdoing.

The settlement resolves a $30m wrongful death suit filed by Babbitt’s family and the conservative activist group Judicial Watch.

Thousands of Trump supporters descended on the US Capitol on 6 January in an attempt to halt the certification of Joe Biden’s victory in the 2020 election.

Babbitt was part of a group that smashed windows in an effort to enter the chamber of the House of Representatives while it was still in session, forcing lawmakers to delay certification and flee for safety.

Video of the incident shows her being shot in the shoulder after attempting to climb through a door. She later died in hospital.

The wrongful death lawsuit filed by Babbitt’s family claimed that the decision to open fire by Capitol Police officer Michael Byrd was negligent, and that Babbitt’s hands were in the air when she was shot.

Family members say that Babbitt was motivated to come to the Capitol by Trump’s claims of election fraud. No evidence has ever surfaced of widespread fraud in the 2020 election.

Mr Byrd previously defended the move to fire his gun, saying the group of lawmakers and security “were essentially trapped” and had “no way to retreat”.

In August 2021, a Capitol Police review found that Mr Byrd’s decision saved lives and was consistent with police training and procedures. A justice department review also found no evidence of any police wrongdoing.

“This is extremely disappointing and I completely disagree with the Department of Justice’s decision,” Chief Manger said in a statement to staff after learning of the settlement, the Washington Post reported.

“This settlement sends a chilling message to law enforcement officers across our nation – especially those who have a protective mission like ours,” he added.

In January, on his first day back in the White House, President Donald Trump issued a blanket pardon for more than 1,500 Capitol riot defendants, including hundreds accused of assaulting police. He also fired the federal prosecutors who handled those cases.

Trump in March told conservative news outlet Newsmax that he’s “a big fan of Ashli Babbitt” and that she was “innocently standing there” when she was shot.

“And a man did something unthinkable to her when he shot her, and I think it’s a disgrace,” he said, promising to “look into” the lawsuit brought by her family.

Sean “Diddy” Combs allegedly used a hammer to try to break into his ex-girlfriend’s apartment after the now-infamous assault at an Intercontinental Hotel in 2016, a New York court has heard.

Security video of Mr Combs’ assault on his then-girlfriend Casandra “Cassie” Ventura has been shown to the jury several times in his sex-trafficking trial.

Ms Ventura’s former best friend Kerry Morgan on Monday recounted how Mr Combs allegedly tried to smash his way into Ventura’s apartment in the aftermath, and described the incident as terrifying.

Mr Combs, 55, has pleaded not guilty to racketeering, sex trafficking and transportation to engage in prostitution. He could face life in prison if convicted.

Ms Morgan told the court she was at Ms Ventura’s Los Angeles apartment after the hotel incident and watched through the peephole as Mr Combs was “banging on the door with a hammer”.

Ms Morgan told the court that as it unfolded, she didn’t think Ms Ventura cared if Mr Combs “came in and killed her”.

Mr Combs did not enter the apartment and police officers arrived about three hours later, Ms Morgan said. No complaint was filed.

The court heard more allegations of violent outbursts by the hip-hop mogul. Ms Morgan said that during a vacation in Jamaica, she saw him drag Ms Ventura down a 50-yard hallway by her hair because she was “taking too long in the bathroom”.

The witness told the court she too had experienced violence at the hands of Mr Combs, alleging he choked her and threw a wooden hanger at her head in 2018 while demanding to know who Ms Ventura was cheating on him with.

The court heard Ms Morgan had a concussion and had to go to urgent care.

The two women were best friends for 17 years, but after that, their friendship was over, Ms Morgan said.

She told the court that Ms Ventura met her at a West Hollywood pizza place about a month later and offered her $30,000 (£22,450) to sign a non-disclosure agreement. They agreed, and have not spoken in the seven years since.

“I draw my line at physical abuse,” Ms Morgan said.

After Ms Morgan stepped down from the witness stand, David James, the former personal assistant of Mr Combs, testified.

Mr James, who told the court he often worked 20 hours a day for six to seven days a week, was once shown a photograph of Mr Combs at his Bad Boy Entertainment office and a high-ranking staff member told him “this is Mr Combs’ kingdom. We’re all here to serve it”.

The former assistant also recounted a conversation he overheard in Manhattan, when he was in an Escalade SUV with Combs and some of his entourage.

When a friend asked how Ms Ventura was, Mr Combs allegedly said: “Cassie’s good. I got her right where I want her, she’s young”.

“He said she was very mouldable,” Mr James recalls his boss saying.

The trial will continue on Tuesday with Mr James on the witness stand.

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 our Universe exist?

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

The current theory of how the Universe came into being can’t explain the existence of the planets, stars and galaxies we see around us. Both teams are building detectors that study a sub-atomic particle called a neutrino in the hope of finding answers.

The US-led international collaboration is hoping the answer lies deep underground, in the aptly named Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment (Dune).

The scientists will 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.

The science director of this facility, Dr Jaret Heise describes the giant caves as “cathedrals to science”.

Dr Heise has been involved the construction of these caverns at the Sanford Underground Research Facility (Surf) 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 more than 1,400 scientists from 35 countries 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. Gleaming in all its splendour it is like a temple to science, mirroring the cathedral in South Dakota 6,000 miles (9,650 km) away. 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 three 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 Dune 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.

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

US President Donald Trump’s sweeping tax and spending bill is one step closer to a full vote in the House of Representatives.

The 1,116-page bill – officially known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act – was approved 17-16 by the budget committee on Sunday night.

Four Republican dissidents voted “present” rather than against the legislation, giving House Speaker Mike Johnson a rare win.

The hold-outs last week voted ‘no’ to the bill, citing concerns that its spending cuts were not deep enough to reduce the national debt.

The Senate must also pass the legislation and Republicans in that chamber are planning their own tweaks.

Let’s take a look at where the disagreements lie.

Among the primary sticking points in the negotiations is just how much to slash from the bill.

As things stand, the measure’s tax breaks total about $4.9tr (£3.7tn), partly paid for by cuts to the healthcare programme known as Medicaid, as well as to green energy tax breaks approved by former President Joe Biden.

Four right-wing lawmakers withheld their support, arguing that the cuts should be steeper to avoid swelling America’s public debt, which currently stands at $36tr. A fifth lawmaker also voted no, citing procedural reasons.

“The bill does not yet meet the moment,” one of the rebels, Texas Republican Chip Roy, posted on social media late on Sunday. “We can and must do better before we pass the final product.”

• Moody’s downgrades US credit rating citing rising debt
• Five House Republicans stall Trump’s ‘big, beautiful’ tax bill

Perhaps the most contentious item in the bill are cuts – partly through work requirements – to Medicaid, a healthcare programme aimed at lower-income Americans.

Roy and other Republicans – including South Carolina’s Ralph Norman, Oklahoma’s Josh Brecheen and Georgia’s Andrew Clyde – want further cuts to Medicaid and other social security programmes.

On Sunday night, Speaker Johnson said “minor modifications” had been promised to the four rebels.

Norman said these concessions include making the Medicaid work requirements take effect sooner, preventing undocumented immigrants from accessing Medicaid and ditching green energy tax credits.

The bill currently would require that states deny Medicaid coverage if able-bodied Americans using the programme are not working at least 80 hours a month or undertaking other community options – from 2029, after Trump has left office.

It would also end coverage for those who cannot show they are meeting work requirements.

Roy and other conservatives want those work requirements to start straightaway – rather than after President Trump has left office.

Other lawmakers, such as Missouri Republican Senator Josh Hawley, have argued against any cuts to Medicaid, warning it would affect millions of lower-income constituents.

Hawley wrote in the New York Times that such a move would be “both morally wrong and politically suicidal”.

Dozens of other House Republicans have also voiced concerns.

Another point of contention in the bill is a tripling of a local tax deduction – known as Salt – from $10,000 to $30,000 for couples.

Some lawmakers from states with high taxes such as New York, California and New Jersey have objected, saying that the proposed cap is not high enough.

In a joint statement earlier in May, New York Republican Congress members Elise Stefanik, Andrew Garbarino, Nick LaLota and Mike Lawler said Speaker Johnson’s offer was too low and ” insulting”.

Some so-called Salt Republicans want the cap raised to $62,000 for individuals and double for couples filing jointly.

House Republican leaders are reportedly seeking a compromise that would see the cap raised to $40,000 for individuals and $80,000 for joint filers.

The “Salt Caucus” formed in 2021 is a bipartisan effort that brings together both Democrats and Republicans who hope to repeal the current $10,000 cap.

As part of the bill, House Republicans have called for substantial reforms to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Programme, or Snap.

More than 42 million Americans currently benefit from the Snap programme, which allows them to use federal funds to buy groceries every year.

The legislation would require individual states to shoulder 5% of the benefit’s costs each year, as well as 75% of the administrative costs.

At the moment, states are not responsible for Snap costs and pay half of the administrative costs.

Republicans also hope to expand existing work requirements for recipients, which currently apply to people without dependants between the ages of 18 and 54. The current proposal would expand that to 64.

Democratic National Committee chair Ken Martin said the proposal “is a slap in the face” to millions of Americans “who rely on food assistance programme to put food on the table and make sure their kids don’t go hungry”.

Republicans argue the proposal would reduce government waste, promote work over welfare, and restore “common sense” to the programme.

The House Agriculture Committee has already approved $300m in cuts to the Snap programme to fund tax cuts.

Government data shows that about 12% of Americans received Snap benefits last year, with the figure higher in some Republican-leaning states such as Alabama and Oklahoma.

Just as India showed flickers of progress toward its long-held dream of becoming the world’s factory, Washington and Beijing announced a trade “reset” that could derail Delhi’s ambitions to replace China as the global manufacturing hub.

Last week, Trump’s tariffs on China dropped overnight – from 145% to 30%, vs 27% for India – as the two sides thrashed out an agreement in Switzerland.

As a result, there’s a chance manufacturing investment that was moving from China to India could either “stall” or “head back”, feels Ajay Srivastava of the Delhi-based think tank, Global Trade Research Institute (GTRI).

“India’s low-cost assembly lines may survive, but value-added growth is in danger.”

The change in sentiment stands in sharp relief to the exuberance in Delhi last month when Apple indicated that it was shifting most of its production of iPhones headed to the US from China to India.

That may well still happen, even though US President Donald Trump revealed that he had told Apple CEO Tim Cook not to build in India because it was “one of the highest tariff nations in the world”.

“India is well positioned to be an alternative to China as a supplier of goods to the US in the immediate term,” Shilan Shah, an economist with Capital Economics, wrote in an investor note before the deal was announced. He pointed out that 40% of India’s exports to the US were “similar to those exported by China”.

There were early signs that Indian exporters were already stepping in to fill the gap left by Chinese producers. New export orders surged to a 14-year high, according to a recent survey of Indian manufacturers.

Nomura, a Japanese broking house, also pointed to growing “anecdotal evidence” of India emerging as a winner from “trade diversion and supply-chain shift in low and mid-tech manufacturing” particularly in sectors like electronics, textiles and toys.

Some analysts do believe that despite the so-called trade “reset” between Beijing and Washington, a larger strategic decoupling between China and the US will continue to benefit India in the long run.

For one, there’s greater willingness by Narendra Modi’s government to open its doors to foreign companies after years of protectionist policies, which could provide tailwind.

India and the US are also negotiating a trade deal that could put Asia’s third-largest economy in a sweet spot to benefit from the so-called “China exodus” – as global firms shift operations to diversify supply chains.

India has just signed a trade pact with the UK, sharply cutting duties in protected sectors like whiskey and automobiles. It offers a glimpse of the concessions Delhi might offer Trump in the ongoing India-US trade talks.

But all of this optimism needs to be tempered for more reasons than one.

Apart from the fact that China is now back in the running, companies are also “not entirely writing off other Asian competitors, with countries like Vietnam still on their radars”, economists Sonal Verma and Aurodeep Nandi from Nomura said in a note earlier this month.

“Hence, for India to capitalise on this opportunity, it needs to complement any tariff arbitrage with serious ease-of-doing-business reforms.”

A tough business climate has long frustrated foreign investors and stalled India’s manufacturing growth, with its share of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) stuck at around 15% for two decades.

The Modi government’s efforts, such as the Production Linked Incentive (PLI) scheme, have delivered only limited success in boosting this figure.

The government’s think tank, Niti Aayog, has acknowledged India’s “limited success” in attracting investment shifting from China. It noted that factors like cheaper labour, simpler tax laws, lower tariffs, and proactive Free Trade Agreements helped countries like Vietnam, Thailand, Cambodia, and Malaysia expand exports – while India lagged behind.

Another major concern, says Nomura, is India’s ongoing reliance on China for raw materials and components used in electronics like iPhones, limiting Delhi’s ability to fully capitalise on supply chain shifts.

“India’s earnings from making iPhones will only rise if more of the phone is made locally,” Mr Srivastava told the BBC.

According to him, right now Apple earns over $450 per iPhone sold in the US while India keeps less than $25 – even though the full $1,000 is counted as an Indian export.

“Just assembling more iPhones in India won’t help much unless Apple and its suppliers also start making components and doing high-value work here. Without that, India’s share stays small, and the export numbers go up only on paper -possibly triggering more scrutiny from the US without real economic gain for India,” Mr Srivastava said.

The jobs created by such assembly lines aren’t very high quality either, says GTRI.

Quite unlike companies like Nokia which set up a factory in the southern city of Chennai in 2007 where suppliers moved in together, “today’s smartphone makers mostly import parts and push for lower tariffs instead of building supply chains in India”, explained Mr Srivastava. He noted that, in certain instances, the investment made could be lower than the subsidies received under India’s PLI scheme.

Finally there are concerns that Chinese exporters could try to use India to reroute products to the US.

India doesn’t seem averse to this idea despite the pitfalls. The country’s top economic adviser said last year that the country should attract more Chinese businesses to set-up export oriented factories and boost its manufacturing industry – a tacit admission that its own industrial policy hadn’t delivered.

But experts caution, this could further curtail India’s ability to build local know-how and grow its own industrial base.

All of this shows that beyond the headline-grabbing announcements by the likes of Apple, India is still a long way from realising its factory ambitions.

“Slash production costs, fix logistics, and build regulatory certainty,” Mr Srivastava urged policymakers in a social media post.

“Let’s be clear. This US-China reset is damage control, not a long-term solution. India must play the long game, or risk getting side-lined.”

This is a sorry end to a long BBC career. Gary Lineker was among the corporation’s highest-paid presenters for a reason – he is popular with audiences, knowledgeable and brilliant at his job.

But it’s an understatement to suggest he has also caused problems for his BBC bosses over the years, as their high-profile football host began to morph into a presenter with opinions that he voiced on social media.

In the end, those two things were increasingly in conflict.

This has always been about reputation management for the BBC. Lineker had already, in the eyes of BBC bosses, caused the corporation damage with previous social media posts. Mistakenly sharing a video about Zionism which included a rat emoji was the final straw.

It was difficult to see how he could continue presenting for the corporation, particularly at a time when the BBC is enmeshed in another controversy surrounding a documentary about Gaza, which it pulled after discovering the child narrator was the son of a Hamas official.

I think what’s different is that on this occasion, Lineker regrets his actions. He has appeared bullish about previous posts, saying that while he regretted damaging the BBC, he didn’t believe, for example, that comparing the language of a Conservative asylum policy to that of 1930s Germany was wrong.

Lineker is genuinely upset by what happened. He is mortified that he reposted the video. His relationship with the BBC is coming to an end in circumstances nobody would have wanted, but some might have predicted.

He seemed unable or unwilling to accept that his high profile might prevent him from voicing strongly-held views that many believed had an impact on the BBC’s need for impartiality.

We live increasingly in an age when people want to express their opinions, and often do. Social media has given everyone a platform, and high-profile media figures have huge followings.

He could not keep quiet. In the end, it brought him down.

But he is a successful podcast entrepreneur, owning a third of the shares in Goalhanger, the company behind hit shows including The Rest is History and The Rest is Politics.

I would also not be surprised if he does appear in the future on TV, perhaps even as a presenter of the World Cup for another outlet.

He has shown contrition, but it has been a damaging few days.

Imagine having a president called Nicky.

That’s what Romanians just voted for: a softly-spoken, slightly geeky mathematician who everyone refers to by his first name, Nicusor – or Nicky.

On Monday, hours after claiming victory in the elections, the new president picked up his daughter from school as usual. He’s promised his children nothing will change.

But for Romania things looked very different this morning.

Nicusor Dan has been mayor of Bucharest since 2020 but until now he was little known beyond the capital. That’s why his election is widely seen as an act of protest against the old political guard who have governed Romania for over three decades.

But it was also the least extreme option for change.

Dan’s opponent in the second-round vote was George Simion, a hard-right nationalist and Eurosceptic who regularly dishes out public insults.

He’s also banned from two neighbouring countries because he claims part of Ukraine and all of Moldova belong to Romania.

Simion won the first round with 41% of the vote but Dan caught up in the second, and then took over.

“This time, fear managed to defeat fury,” is how political analyst Radu Magdin explains the shift, and points to a significant increase in turnout.

“Clearly a lot of people are angry in Romania and want to see radical change. But at the same time, we saw massive mobilization of the urban middle class who feared that the country could be taken backwards.

“It was a fear of what may happen if Simion and friends came to power.”

I’ve met plenty of Simion supporters in recent days.

When he turned up to vote on Sunday, a colourful crowd were there at the polling station to greet him. Some were in embroidered national dress and others had brought Romanian flags.

They tended to talk about God and the “traditional values” they think Simion represents. Two men told me their priority was to prevent the EU “imposing” same-sex marriage on Romania.

Other voters are drawn to Simion’s “Romania first” rhetoric and promises of a better life.

“Nothing has been done for us, the working people, and I’m fed up,” Liliana told me this week from behind a Bucharest market stall piled with apples.

She and her husband voted for Simion thinking he wouldn’t be “so corrupt”.

So when the results came in she was disappointed.

“I don’t think Dan is capable of running a country. But what can we do if people don’t want change and progress?” Liliana shrugged.

“I think children came back to the villages and persuaded their parents against Simion. They scared them into voting for Dan.”

George Simion himself told me he was a patriot and a “man of my people”. But as the campaign advanced, he made mistakes.

Outside the market, feeding pigeons with her children, Diana said she’d been planning to vote for Simion until she saw a video from Paris just before the elections.

Attempting to speak French, Simion had described President Macron as having “dictatorial tendencies” and said the country was run by “the ayatollahs”.

“It wasn’t okay to do that, to go there and talk so rudely to the French people,” Diana thinks. “It made me change my vote.”

Analyst Radu Magdin spots other errors, including aggressive blog posts and the moment when Simion insulted his rival, Dan, calling him “autistic, poor guy”.

“Other than that, he seemed to flee the public debate and went shaking hands in the pan-European radical right instead,” Mr Magdin mentions, referring to meetings in Poland, France and Italy right before the vote.

“I would say there were many people who did not really appreciate that.”

For many Romanians, choosing Dan was also a strike against Moscow’s meddling.

At the election street celebrations last night, as well as yelling the new president’s name and cheering, people chanted their defiance: “Russia, don’t forget! Romania is not yours!”

They were referring to evidence Russia interfered in their election back in November to boost the chances of far-right conspiracy theorist, Calin Georgescu.

When he came from nowhere to win the first round, the vote was annulled.

This weekend was a re-run, with Georgescu banned and Simion in his place. The two were often seen side-by-side, even on voting day.

But Georgescu’s open sympathy for Russia – he once told me he admired Vladimir Putin – was a turn-off for many voters.

Nicusor Dan didn’t only win because he was not Simion.

His voters liked what he stood for, including a future firmly within Europe.

When thousands surrounded his campaign headquarters last night to wait for him to claim victory, many brought EU flags. There was relief as well as excitement.

Before the election, young voters had told me they planned radical action if Simion won.

“So many friends say that they will leave Romania because our values do not align with him at all,” politics graduate Sergiana told me in central Bucharest. “I feel like in a year or two he would completely mess up our chances to stay in the EU.”

By contrast, Dan put relations with Europe at the heart of his campaign.

“It’s better for the European way, for younger people and for Romania – because we get more EU funds, more development,” another young voter, Petrosanu, approved.

“Also Nicusor is the smartest guy since the revolution. He knows how to do things.”

In the end, Dan’s win was emphatic. But millions of Romanian voters chose a different way, different values. While hopes for the ‘change’ candidate are high, the challenges are huge and patience may be limited.

“In my view, this is the last chance for the mainstream political class to win an election on a ‘Save Europe, Save Democracy’ platform,” Radu Magdin warns.

George Simion is just 38 and going nowhere; his nationalist AUR party are strong in parliament.

“Next time, it’s ‘bye bye’ if these people do not do their job,” the analyst says. “Next time it could be somebody like Simion.”

A memorial bust of American singer Jim Morrison that was stolen from his grave 37 years ago has been found by chance, according to French police.

The statue of The Doors frontman was recovered in Paris during an investigation conducted by its financial and anti-corruption arm that was unrelated to the original theft, it said in a post on Instagram.

Morrison’s grave has long been a site for fans of the rock band to pay their respects in an unusual way – graffiti sprawls across neighbouring gravestones in the poet’s corner of the famous Père-Lachaise cemetery, which also houses the tombs of Edith Piaf and Oscar Wilde.

Little information has been released about the investigation and no suspects have been named in the theft of the statue of the singer, who died in 1971.

The police made the discovery when looking into a case of fraud, a source close to the investigation told news agency Agence France-Presse.

It is not clear if the bust will be put back on the grave, with the cemetery’s curator telling Le Figaro: “The police haven’t contacted us, so I don’t know whether the bust will be returned to us.”

Croatian artist Mladen Mikulin carved the statue from white marble to mark the 10th anniversary of the singer’s death. But it disappeared in 1988, seven years after the bust was placed at the site.

A picture released by the French police shows the statue’s mouth and nose missing, as they had been before it was stolen.

Speaking to Rolling Stone, a representative of the Morrison estate said it was “happy to hear the news” that the “piece of history” had been found, adding that Morrison’s family wanted it on the grave “so it’s gratifying to see that it’s been recovered”.

This is not the first time the singer’s grave has been the source of controversy. On the 20th anniversary of his death fans rioted at his grave and had to be dispersed by police.

Morrison was living in the Marais district of Paris when he died suddenly at the age of 27.

He was found dead in the bath by his girlfriend, Pamela Courson. A doctor’s report stated the cause of death was heart failure aggravated by heavy drinking.

Morrison, the son of a US Navy admiral, was born in 1943 in Florida.

He formed The Doors with keyboardist Ray Manzarek in 1965 in Los Angeles

The band name was inspired by Aldous Huxley’s The Doors of Perception, about the author’s drug use.

Mexicans are mourning the death of two young Navy cadets who were killed on Saturday when the training tall ship ARM Cuauhtémoc crashed into Brooklyn Bridge.

América Sánchez, 20, and 23-year-old Adal Jair Maldonado Marcos were among the 277 crew members on board the Mexican Navy’s sailing ship when its three masts snapped as they hit the bridge.

According to Mexican media, Sánchez was one of the cadets who was standing on top of the rigging at the time of the accident.

Twenty-two other crew members were injured, three of them critically, the Mexican Navy said.

The commander of the Mexican Navy, Admiral Pedro Raymundo Morales, said all the crew members well enough to travel would be taken back to their homeland soon.

The body of América Sánchez is scheduled to be transferred to the Naval Academy in her home state of Veracruz later on Monday.

Her mother, Rocío Hernández, described the 20-year-old cadet as “an exemplary daughter” who was “a dedicated student” aiming to become a naval engineer.

Standing before an impromptu altar adorned with flowers and photos of América Sánchez dressed up for her “quinceañera”, the party marking her 15th birthday, Ms Hernández paid tribute to her daughter.

“She was a warrior, a soldier who didn’t give up, who always fought for her goals,” she said, adding that her daughter only had one year left until her graduation.

“They [the Navy] will hold a private ceremony in her honour at the Veracruz Naval Academy for her and then I will bring her home,” Ms Hernández said thanking all of her daughter’s relatives, friends and teachers, whom she asked “to remember her [América] with affection”.

In San Mateo del Mar, a coastal town in Oaxaca state, friends and relatives of Adal Jair Maldonado Marcos have also been paying their respects after the young cadet was confirmed as the second fatal victim of the crash.

His friends told local media that the 23-year-old had always dreamt of following in his father’s footsteps and becoming a sailor.

Being on board the Cuauhtémoc, also known as “Knight of the Seas”, had been his greatest wish, they recalled.

“The sea saw him being born and the sea was a witness to his passing,” one friend to media, adding that “all of us who knew him will remember him as a role model of an intelligent youth”.

The investigation into how the accident happened is still under way.

“This is the start of a long process,” Michael Graham of the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) said during a briefing on Monday. “We will not be drawing any conclusions, we will not speculate.”

Mr Graham said there was “no significant structural damage” to the load-bearing elements of the Brooklyn Bridge.

His colleague, Brian Young, provided a preliminary timeline of events on the night of 17 May.

• At 20:20 local time (00:20 GMT), the Cuauhtémoc backed away from Manhattan’s Pier 17 with the assistance of a tug boat. It intended to sail south on the East River before heading out to sea, Mr Young said
• After departing the pier, the ship’s astern (backwards) motion and speed increased up to 6 knots
• At 20:24 a radio broadcast was sounded requesting assistance from other tugboats in the area. It was followed by two other requests
• At 20:24 and 45 seconds, the Cuauhtémoc’s mast struck the underside of the bridge
• At 20:27 the ship came to a stop
• By 20:30, New York City police and firefighters arrived on the scene

New York police officials previously said it appeared that the Cuauhtémoc had lost power as it was leaving New York Harbour and was dragged towards Brooklyn Bridge by the current.

Its three masts, measuring more than 48m, hit the base of the bridge, which -according to the New York transport department’s website – only has a clearance of 41.1m.

All three masts collapsed and video footage taken by bystanders shows some of the crew members dangling from the yards and sails.

Mr Graham said that his team would consider the status of the engine during their investigation.

“On behalf of the NTSB, I wish to express my most sincere condolences to the families and loved ones of those who lost their lives in this terrible tragedy,” he said.

Mexico’s Navy Secretary Raymundo Pedro Morales Ángeles said in a statement the results of any investigation would be followed with “total transparency and responsibility”.

The Cuauhtémoc left Acapulco, Mexico, on 6 April on a tour that included stops in New York and Aberdeen, Scotland, for the city’s Tall Ships race in July.

The world’s largest electric vehicle (EV) battery maker has seen its shares jump on their first day of trading in Hong Kong, as it made the biggest initial public offering (IPO) so far this year.

China’s Contemporary Amperex Technology Co Limited (CATL) produces more than a third of all EV batteries sold worldwide and supplies major carmakers including Tesla, Volkswagen and Toyota.

The listing was closely watched as the US-China tariff war upended the global trading system and hit carmakers hard.

In January, the US Department of Defense added the battery maker to a list of businesses it says works with China’s military. CATL denies this, claiming its inclusion on the list was a “mistake”.

The company raised almost HK$35.7bn ( $4.55bn, £3.4bn) from the listing, with its shares climbing by as much as 18%.

“The performance of the stock was very good in what is going to be a key IPO for Hong Kong given the size of the listing”, said Neil Beveridge, head of research for Asia at Bernstein.

CATL already trades on China’s Shenzhen Stock Exchange, where it has a valuation of more than 1tn yuan ($138.7bn, £104.3bn).

The firm is heavily reliant on the Chinese market, with the world’s second largest economy accounting for almost 70% of its total revenue.

Its relatively small sales to the US will ensure it is shielded from Trump’s trade policies, said Mr Bernstein.

“The direct implications of what we are seeing with tariffs will only have a limited effect on the company”, he told the BBC.

Founded in 2011 in the eastern Chinese city of Ningde, it enjoyed rapid growth thanks to the boom in the country’s EV industry.

The battery giant employs over 100,000 people and has 13 production plants around the world.

CATL is currently building its second European factory in Hungary, after opening a plant in Germany in early 2023.

In December, the firm announced a tie-up with Chrysler-owner Stellantis to build a $4.3bn (£3.2bn) EV battery plant in Spain. The facility is set to be in operation by the end of next year.

The firm invests heavily in new technology, with six research and development centres around the world.

“The innovations that we’re seeing from CATL are unbelievable, particularly in the fast charging area”, said Tim Buckley founder of the independent Australian think tank Climate Energy Finance.

Last month, the company unveiled a new battery that it said can be charged for 323 miles (520km) in just five minutes.

CATL is a major supplier to Elon Musk’s Tesla, providing lithium iron phosphate batteries for the EV makers Shanghai factory.

But US lawmakers have expressed concerns about potential national security risks surrounding the Chinese company.

In April, the chair of the House Select Committee on China wrote letters to the chief executives of JPMorgan and Bank of America, asking them to withdraw from working on CATL’s Hong Kong listing.

Despite scepticism about Chinese firms from Washington, Mr Buckley says the US should be looking to work with Beijing on the advancement of renewable energy.

“They’re rejecting by far the best technology players in the world when it comes to clean tech”, he told the BBC.

Rapper Drake has shared a petition asking California’s governor to pardon fellow Canadian rapper Tory Lanez, who was attacked last week in prison.

“Come home soon,” Drake wrote on his Instagram story with a link to the petition.

Lanez was stabbed 14 times by a fellow inmate in a California prison last week, an attack that caused both of his lungs to collapse. He was rushed to a hospital and is expected to recover.

Lanez, whose legal name is Daystar Peterson, is serving a 10-year prison sentence for shooting another musician, Megan Thee Stallion, in 2020.

The prison attack happened around 07:20 local time (15:20 GMT) on 12 May, said Pedro Calderón Michel of the state’s corrections department.

Staff began first aid before Lanez, 32, was taken to a local medical facility for further treatment, he said.

A post on Lanez’s Instagram said he was stabbed in the back, torso, head and face and had to be temporarily placed on a breathing apparatus. He is now able to breathe on his own.

“Despite being in pain, he is talking normally, in good spirits, and deeply thankful to God that he is pulling through,” the post said.

• Tory Lanez’s trial for shooting Megan Thee Stallion was divisive. Here’s how it played out
• Rapper Tory Lanez stabbed 14 times in California prison attack
• Convicted killer named as suspect in prison stabbing of rapper Tory Lanez

The prisoner suspected of the attack, Santino Casio, 41, is serving a life sentence for second-degree murder and other violent offences, officials told the BBC. They said he has been placed in “restricted housing” pending an investigation.

Casio arrived at the Tehachapi institution in February 2004, according to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), and has received additional sentences for assaulting a fellow prisoner in 2008 and for possessing a deadly weapon in 2018.

Lanez was convicted of shooting Megan Thee Stallion, whose legal name is Megan Pete, as they were leaving a 2020 pool party at reality star Kylie Jenner’s Hollywood mansion.

The case divided the hip-hop world, with rappers – including 50 Cent and Iggy Azalea – appearing to take sides in the conflict and some asking the court for leniency at Lanez’s sentencing.

Drake’s song Circo Loco, a collaboration with 21 Savage, appeared to reference the case and imply that Megan lied about being shot.

Megan, in turn, accused Drake of making jokes about assaulting a woman.

The petition shared by Drake now has about 270,000 signatures calling on Gov Gavin Newsom to grant Lanez a “full pardon”. The Change.org petition, created by the Caldwell Institute for Public Safety, also points to arguments questioning both evidence and witness accounts in the case.

Newsom has not commented on the request.

Lanez had seven US top 10 albums in the seven years before his conviction. He has teased the release of a new album from prison titled Peterson.

The DNA testing firm 23andMe says it has entered into an agreement to be acquired by Regeneron Pharmaceuticals for $256m (£192m).

It comes two months after the company filed for bankruptcy protection in the US.

23andMe said Regeneron had committed to comply with its privacy policies as part of the deal, and that Regeneron has security controls in place to protect user data.

Last month, the firm agreed to have an ombudsman oversee the protection of user data in response to demands by several state attorneys general in the US.

The officials expressed concern over the potential for unscrupulous buyers to wield the data against consumers.

Regeneron will acquire nearly all of 23andMe’s assets, the company said in a statement.

Its subsidiary Lemonaid Health will be wound down under the agreement.

23andMe will continue to operate as a wholly-owned unit unit of Regeneron, which said it would use the firm’s data for drug development.

“We are pleased to have reached a transaction that maximizes the value of the business and enables the mission of 23andMe to live on, while maintaining critical protections around customer privacy, choice and consent with respect to their genetic data,” said 23andMe’s board chairman Mark Jensen.

The deal was made through auction last week as part of the company’s bankruptcy proceedings.

The company declined to comment further when approached by the BBC.

Regeneron has different aims from the ones 23andMe presented to consumers, according to Dr Jennifer King, privacy and data policy Fellow at the Stanford Institute for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence.

Dr. King, who has interviewed multiple 23andMe users for her research, said the company “always led with the non-profit ‘we’re helping humanity’ side which helped obscure its for-profit mission”.

But she added a profit-driven mission was likely to be clearer to customers now that it “is in the sole control of a company that is doing genetic research for pharmaceutical development”.

23andMe was co-founded in 2006 by Anne Wojcicki who served as CEO until stepping down in March.

Over the years, the company received high-profile endorsements from celebrities including Oprah Winfrey, Eva Longoria and Snoop Dogg.

23andMe went public in 2021, which saw its value top $6bn – but it never turned a profit.

The once-celebrated company has struggled amid weak demand for its testing kits and never managed to redefine its business model.

A subscription service failed to gain traction with customers and efforts to use its massive trove of data to move into drug development also faltered.

Then in 2023 the company experienced a data breach that exposed the genetic data of millions of users.

The firm ultimately settled a lawsuit alleging it failed to protect the privacy of nearly seven million customers whose personal information was exposed.

Hackers gained access to family trees, birth years and geographic locations, by using customers’ old passwords, but the company maintains the data stolen did not include DNA records.

Two months after the settlement, it slashed 200 jobs – about 40% of its workforce.

Ms Wojcicki tried to take the company private but was not open to a third-party takeover.

When 23andMe filed for bankruptcy protection in March, attorneys general from multiple US states advised its customers to purge their information from the firm’s database.

At the time, the company said it would continue to protect customer data as laid out in its privacy policy, and any buyer of the company would have to abide by laws that apply to how customer data is treated.

But its privacy policy also included language which allowed for personal information to be accessed, sold, or transferred if it was “involved in a bankruptcy, merger, acquisition, reorganization, or sale of assets”.

23andMe agreed to a court-appointed overseer of customer genetic data after several states alleged the company was failing to take data security seriously enough.

Sign up for our Tech Decoded newsletter to follow the world’s top tech stories and trends. Outside the UK? Sign up here.

The United Nation’s top court has sided with Equatorial Guinea in a row with Gabon over three islands in potentially oil-rich waters.

The two Central African countries have been arguing over the isles – Conga, Mbanié and Cocoteros – since the early 1970s.

The islands are virtually uninhabited but are in a maritime zone thought to contain significant oil deposits.

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled that Equatorial Guinea’s claim – based on a 1900 treaty dividing up French and Spanish colonial assets – should be honoured.

The court dismissed Gabon’s central argument – that a more recent treaty, the 1974 Bata convention, had switched the islands’ sovereignty in its favour.

In a final and binding ruling, the ICJ said Conga, Mbanié and Cocoteros were held by Spain, and then passed to its former colony Equatorial Guinea at independence in 1968.

Gabon will now have to remove its soldiers from Mbanié, the largest of the islands.

In 1972, the Gabonese army drove Equatoguinean troops from Mbanié and established its own military presence there.

Hostilities cooled until the early 2000s, when the prospect of oil in the Gulf of Guinea became apparent.

In 2016, following years of mediation by the United Nations, the two nations agreed to let the ICJ settle the matter.

A spokesperson for the Gabonese presidency said it was now down to the countries to negotiate in the light of the ruling, the AFP news agency reports.

“Gabon and Equatorial Guinea have to live side-by-side, we can’t move away from each other. Therefore we will have to talk it over to solve all these problems,” said Guy Rossatanga-Rignault.

Both countries are significant oil producers. However, they have experienced falling oil production in recent years due to underinvestment, insufficient exploration activity and ageing wells.

• Massive sex tape leak could be a ploy for power in central Africa
• Why Gabon’s coup leader is bucking a trend by embracing democracy
• Gabon’s ousted president and family freed after two years

Gary Lineker has confirmed he will leave the BBC after presenting his final episode of Match of the Day on Sunday.

The 64-year-old had been expected to continue fronting coverage of the men’s FA Cup and World Cup, but was criticised last week after sharing a social media post about Zionism that included an illustration of a rat, historically used as an antisemitic insult.

On Monday, Lineker said he did not see the image, and “would never consciously repost anything antisemitic”.

He added: “However, I recognise the error and upset that I caused, and reiterate how sorry I am. Stepping back now feels like the responsible course of action.”

The presenter has previously attracted criticism for his social media posts, but the latest example was thought to be the last straw for bosses, who considered his position untenable, the BBC’s culture and media editor Katie Razzall said.

The BBC’s director general Tim Davie, said in a statement: “Gary has acknowledged the mistake he made. Accordingly, we have agreed he will step back from further presenting after this season.

“Gary has been a defining voice in football coverage for the BBC for over two decades. His passion and knowledge have shaped our sports journalism and earned him the respect of sports fans across the UK and beyond. We want to thank him for the contribution he has made.”

• A sorry end to Gary Lineker’s BBC career
• Live updates: Host to leave the BBC after social media ‘error’
• From football sensation to headline-hitting presenter

Lineker said: “Football has been at the heart of my life for as long as I can remember – both on the pitch and in the studio.

“I care deeply about the game, and about the work I’ve done with the BBC over many years. As I’ve said, I would never consciously repost anything antisemitic – it goes against everything I stand for.

“However, I recognise the error and upset that I caused, and reiterate how sorry I am. Stepping back now feels like the responsible course of action.”

In addition to the written statement, the former footballer also posted a video on Instagram.

He said he would “never, ever have shared” the post if he had seen the emoji, which he said “has awful connotations”.

“I would like once again to say I’m sorry unreservedly for the hurt and upset caused. It was a genuine mistake and oversight,” he continued. “But I should have been more diligent. I know that.”

Lineker said he had “stood up for minorities and humanitarian issues, and against all forms of racism all of my life, including, of course, antisemitism, which I absolutely abhor”.

He told his followers it was “best for all concerned” that he “step down from BBC presenting duties altogether”.

Lineker described his 30 years at the BBC as a “pleasure and a huge privilege”, adding that Match of the Day had become “an integral part of my life”.

The presenter concluded by saying his relationship with the BBC had been “long and wonderful”, but that it was “time for the organisation and myself to go our separate ways”.

Replying to Lineker’s post, Match of the Day pundit Alan Shearer said: “Thank you for everything.”

Writing to staff shortly after the announcement, BBC Sport director Alex Kay-Jelski said he “appreciated the last week has been difficult and emotional for many of you”.

He said it was “sad to be saying goodbye to such a brilliant broadcaster” and thanked Lineker “for his years of service”.

He concluded: “Let’s finish the season strongly with Gary’s final show, enjoy an incredible summer of sport and look forward with excitement to what lies ahead.”

Lineker and the BBC had announced last year that he would leave Match of the Day at the end of this season, which concludes on Sunday.

But he had been due to remain at the forefront of the BBC coverage of the men’s FA Cup and the World Cup in 2026.

The former England striker replaced Des Lynam as the corporation’s main presenter of Match of the Day in 1999.

In a recent interview with the BBC’s Amol Rajan he said he had a sense during his latest contract negotiations that the BBC wanted him to step down from the Premier League highlights show.

Roger Mosey, former director of BBC Sport and ex-head of BBC television news, told Radio 4’s Today programme on Monday he believed the “difficulty” was that “you can’t both be the highest paid presenter and be a social media activist”.

“I think it’s always been a problem that allowing Gary to do the amount of social media he did and also be the BBC’s highest-paid presenter was never going to be easy,” he said.

Lineker was temporarily suspended from the BBC in 2023 after an impartiality row over comments he made criticising the then-government’s asylum policy.

He was also among 500 other high-profile figures who signed an open letter earlier this year urging the BBC to reinstate a documentary, Gaza: How To Survive A War Zone, to BBC iPlayer.

Lineker is also the co-founder of Goalhanger Podcasts, makers of the popular The Rest Is History series and its spin-offs about politics, football, entertainment and money.

The parting of ways between Lineker and the BBC also includes the licensing deal for the Goalhanger podcast titles on BBC Sounds which ends this year, the PA news agency reported.

Israel went to war after the Hamas attacks of 7 October 2023 armed with an arsenal of weapons mostly paid for, supplied and then resupplied by the United States.

Its other allies gave Israel something just as potent in its own way: a deep credit of goodwill and solidarity, based on revulsion at the killings of 1,200 people, mostly Israeli civilians, and the sight of 251 people being dragged into captivity in Gaza as hostages.

Now it seems that Israel’s credit has gone, at least as far as France, the United Kingdom and Canada are concerned. They have issued their strongest condemnation yet of the way Israel is fighting the war in Gaza.

Israel, they say, must halt its new offensive, which Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says will destroy Hamas, rescue the remaining hostages and put all of Gaza under direct Israeli military control.

• Israel lets aid into Gaza after 11-week blockade but UN calls it ‘drop in ocean’

Their statement dismisses Netanyahu’s arguments and calls for a ceasefire. Together, the three governments say that they “strongly oppose the expansion of Israel’s military operations in Gaza” adding: “The level of human suffering in Gaza is intolerable.”

They call for the release of the remaining hostages and recall that after the “heinous attack” on 7 October they believed that the Israeli state “had a right to defend Israelis against terrorism. But this escalation is wholly disproportionate”.

Netanyahu’s decision to allow what he called “minimal” food into Gaza was they said “wholly inadequate”.

Netanyahu has hit back, saying the “leaders in London, Ottowa and Paris are offering a huge prize for the genocidal attack on Israel on October 7 while inviting more such atrocities”.

He insisted the war could end if Hamas returned hostages, laid down its arms, agreed for its leaders to go into exile and Gaza was demilitarised. “No nation can be expected to accept anything less and Israel certainly won’t,” he said.

Netanyahu – who is sought under an International criminal Court warrant for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity, which he has dismissed as “antisemitic” – had been under heavy international pressure to end the blockade of Gaza after a respected international survey warned of imminent famine.

At the London summit between the EU and the UK the President of the European Council, António Costa, called the humanitarian crisis in Gaza “a tragedy where international law is being systematically violated, and an entire population is being subjected to disproportionate military force”.

“There must be safe, swift and unimpeded access for humanitarian aid,” he said.

Netanyahu’s reluctant decision to allow in limited supplies was condemned by his ultra nationalist coalition partners.

The Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir, convicted in 2007 for incitement to racism and supporting an extremist Jewish group that Israel classifies as a terrorist organisation, complained that Netanyahu’s decision would “fuel Hamas and give it oxygen while our hostages languish in tunnels”.

Only five trucks made it into Gaza on Monday, as Israeli troops advanced and air and artillery strikes killed more Palestinian civilians including many young children.

Opponents of Israel’s destruction of Gaza and the killing of tens of thousands of Palestinian civilians will say the governments of France, the UK and Canada are speaking out far too late.

Many of them have held months of demonstrations protesting about the death and destruction in Gaza – and more killing of Palestinian civilians and confiscation of land in the West Bank, the other side of the Palestinian territories, during military operations and raids by armed Jewish settlers.

But sometimes in the politics of war, a single incident carries symbolic power that clarifies and crystallises so sharply that it can force governments to action. This time it was the killing on 23 March by Israeli forces in Gaza of 15 paramedics and aid workers.

It came after Israel, on 18 March, had broken a ceasefire that had held for two months with a series of massive air strikes.

Five days into the renewed war an Israeli unit attacked the medical convoy, and covered the men they had killed and their bullet ridden vehicles with the sand. The Israeli account of what happened was shown to be untrue when a mobile phone was recovered from a body in the mass grave.

Its owner had filmed the incident before he was killed. Far from proving Israel’s claim that the emergency workers were a potential threat to the Israeli combat soldiers, the video from the grave showed that clearly marked and well-lit ambulances and emergency vehicles were attacked systematically until almost everyone inside them was killed.

Alarm has been growing fast since then, not just among Israel’s usual opponents. Its European allies, with President Macron of France leading the way, have been toughening their language. The statement calling for an end to Israel’s offensive is their harshest criticism of Israel so far.

A senior European diplomatic source involved in their discussions told me that the tough language reflected a “real sense of growing political anger at the humanitarian situation, of a line being crossed, and of this Israeli government appearing to act with impunity”.

More ominously for Israel, the statement says that “we will not stand by while the Netanyahu government pursues these egregious actions. If Israel does not cease the renewed military offensive and lift its restrictions on humanitarian aid, we will take further concrete steps in response”.

They do not specify what those might be. Sanctions could be one possibility. A bigger step would be to recognise Palestine as an independent state.

France has been considering joining the 148 other states that have done so at a conference it is co-chairing with Saudi Arabia in New York in early June. The UK has also talked about Palestinian recognition with the French.

Israel, pushing back hard, has told them they would be presenting Hamas with a victory. But the tone of the statement made by the French, the Canadians and the British suggests that Israel is losing its ability to pressurise them.

Last year, Donald Trump promised he would end the Ukraine War in “24 hours”.

Last week, he said that it would not be resolved until he and Russian President Vladimir Putin could “get together” and hash it out in person.

On Monday, the ground shifted again.

After a two-hour phone call with Putin, he said that the conditions of a peace deal could only be negotiated between Russia and Ukraine – and maybe with the help of the Pope.

Still, the US president has not lost his sense of optimism about the prospect for peace, posting on social media that the combatants would “immediately start” negotiations for a ceasefire and an end to the war.

That sentiment was somewhat at odds with the Russian view. Putin only said that his country is ready to work with Ukraine to craft a “memorandum on a possible future peace agreement”.

Talks about memorandums and a “possible future” of peace hardly seems the kind of solid ground on which lasting deals can be quickly built.

• Russia and Ukraine to ‘immediately’ start ceasefire talks, says Trump
• Trump says he will call Putin to discuss stopping Ukraine ‘bloodbath’
• Rosenberg: Trump-Putin call seen as victory in Russia

Putin again emphasised that any resolution would have to address the “root causes” of the war – which Russia has claimed in the past to be Ukraine’s desire for closer ties to Europe.

On Truth Social after the call, Trump said that Russia and Ukraine will “immediately start negotiations” toward a ceasefire, adding that “the conditions for that will be negotiated between the two parties”.

But there is a possibility that Trump’s latest take on the war in Ukraine could be a sign that the US will ultimately abandon the negotiating table.

Later on Monday, Trump said he would not step away from brokering talks between the two countries, but acknowledged that he had a “red line in his head”.

“Big egos involved, but I think something’s going to happen,” he said. “And if it doesn’t, I’ll just back away and they’ll have to keep going.”

Such a move, however, comes with its own set of questions – and risks.

If the US washes its hands of the war, as Vice-President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio have also threatened, does it mean the US would also end any military and intelligence support for Ukraine?

And if that is the case, then it may be a development that Russia, with its greater resources compared to a Ukraine cut off from American backing, would welcome.

That prospect is enough to have Ukrainian President Volodomyr Zelensky concerned.

“It’s crucial for all of us that the United States does not distance itself from the talks and the pursuit of peace,” he said on Monday after the Trump-Putin call.

• Trump’s frantic peace brokering hints at what he really wants

Trump has expressed frustration with both Putin and Zelensky as efforts to resolve the three-year-old conflict drag on.

He accused the Ukrainian leader of “gambling with World War Three” in an explosive meeting in February in the Oval Office and, in April, said he was “very angry” and “pissed off” at Putin after talks continued to stall.

Putting aside Monday’s rhetoric, it appears that Ukraine and Russia are set to continue some kind of talks – and talking in any form is progress after nearly three years of war. Still to be determined is whether the Russian team will be more than the low-level delegation that travelled to Istanbul to meet with the Ukrainians last Friday.

Trump is holding out the promise of reduced sanctions on Russia – and new trade deals and economic investment – as the enticement that will move Putin toward a peace agreement. He mentioned that again in his post-call comments. Not discussed, on the other hand, were any negative consequences, such as new sanctions on Russian banking and energy exports.

The US president last month warned that he would not tolerate Putin “tapping me along” and said that Russia should not target civilian areas. But yesterday, Russia launched its largest drone strike of the war on Ukrainian cities, and Monday’s call between the two world leaders makes clear that any ceasefire or peace deal still seems well over the horizon.

The four-day conflict between arch-rivals India and Pakistan this month ended with a ceasefire and both claiming victory – but it now appears that China’s defence industry might also be an unlikely winner.

The latest flare-up began on 7 May when India launched attacks on what it called “terrorist infrastructure” inside Pakistan in response to the brutal killing of 26 people, mostly tourists by militants in Pahalgam on 22 April.

Many of them were killed in the scenic valley in Indian-administered Kashmir in front of their wives and family members. Delhi accused Islamabad of supporting militant groups involved in the carnage, a charge Pakistan denied.

After India’s response – which it called Operation Sindoor – to the militant attack, tit-for-tat military manoeuvres from both sides followed, involving drones, missiles and fighter jets.

India reportedly used its French and Russian-made jets, while Pakistan deployed its J-10 and J-17 aircraft, which Islamabad co-produces with Beijing. Both sides say their jets did not cross the border and they were firing missiles at each other from a distance.

Islamabad claims that its fighter aircraft shot down at least six Indian planes, including the newly-acquired French-made Rafale fighter jets. Delhi hasn’t responded to these claims.

“Losses are a part of combat,” Air Marshal AK Bharti of the Indian Air Force (IAF) said last week when a reporter asked him about these claims. Air Marshal Bharti declined to comment on the specific claim of Pakistan downing Indian jets.

“We have achieved the objectives that we selected, and all our pilots are back home,” he added.

India said it had killed at least “100 terrorists” while targeting the headquarters of the banned Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed militant outfits based in Pakistan.

A definitive account of what really happened in the aerial battle is yet to emerge. Some media outlets reported plane crashes in the state of Punjab and Indian-administered Kashmir around the same time but the Indian government has not responded to the reports.

A Reuters report quoting American officials said Pakistan possibly had used the Chinese-made J-10 aircraft to launch air-to-air missiles against Indian fighter jets. Pakistan claiming victory after hugely relying on Chinese weapons systems in an active combat situation is being seen by some experts as a boost for Beijing’s defence industry but some also disagree with the claim.

Some of the experts have called this a “DeepSeek moment” for the Chinese weapons industry, referring to January this year when the Chinese AI start-up shook US giants with its cost-effective technology.

“The aerial fight was a big advertisement for the Chinese weapons industry. Until now, China had no opportunity to test its platforms in a combat situation,” Zhou Bo, a retired senior colonel in the Chinese People’s Liberation Army, told the BBC.

The Beijing-based analyst said the outcome of the air duel showed “China has some systems that are next to none”. Shares in the Chinese Avic Chengdu Aircraft company, that manufactures fighter jets like the J-10, surged by up to 40% last week after the reported performance of the fighter jet in the India-Pakistan conflict.

Other experts, however, feel it’s too early to declare the superiority of Chinese weapons systems.

Professor Walter Ladwig from the King’s College in London said it was yet to be determined whether the Chinese jets had actually outmanoeuvred the Indian Air Force (IAF) planes, particularly the Rafale.

“In a standard military doctrine, you would suppress the enemy’s air defences and get air superiority before you struck ground targets. Instead, it appears the IAF’s mission was clearly not to provoke any Pakistani military retaliation,” he said.

Mr Ladwig thought that the Indian pilots were given instructions to fly despite the fact that the entire Pakistani air defence was on high alert and their jets were already in the sky. The IAF hasn’t given details of the mission or about its air operations strategy.

Beijing also hasn’t made any comment on reports of the J-10 taking down Indian fighter jets, including the Rafale. But unconfirmed reports of the J-10 bringing down a Western weapon system has triggered jubilation and triumphalism on Chinese social media.

Carlotta Rinaudo, a China researcher at the International Team for the Study of Security in Verona, said Chinese social media was flooded with nationalistic messages even though it’s difficult to reach a conclusion with the available information.

“At the moment perception matters way more than reality. If we see it in that way, the main winner is really China,” she said.

For China, Pakistan is a strategic and economic ally. It is investing more than $50bn (£37bn) to build infrastructure in Pakistan as part of its China-Pakistan Economic corridor.

So, a weak Pakistan is not in China’s interest.

China made a critical difference in the latest India-Pakistan conflict, says Imtiaz Gul, a Pakistani security analyst. “It took the Indian planners by sheer surprise. They didn’t probably envision the depth of co-operation in the modern warfare between Pakistan and China,” he said.

Experts say the performance of the Chinese jets in a real combat situation was keenly analysed in Western capitals as this will have cascading impact on global arms trade. The US is the world’s largest arms exporter, while China is the fourth.

China sells weapons mostly to developing countries like Myanmar and Pakistan. Previously the Chinese weapon systems were criticised for their poor quality and technical problems.

Reports said the Burmese military grounded several of its JF-17 fighter jets – jointly manufactured by China and Pakistan in 2022 – due to technical malfunctions.

The Nigerian military reported several technical problems with the Chinese made F-7 fighter jets.

Another point to be noted is that this was not the first time that India lost an aircraft to Pakistan.

In 2019, during a brief air battle between the two sides following similar Indian air strikes on suspected terrorist targets in Pakistan, a Russian-made MiG-21 jet was shot down inside Pakistani territory and the pilot was captured. He was released a few days later.

India, however, said that the pilot had ejected after successfully shooting down Pakistani fighter jets, including a US-made F-16. Pakistan has denied the claim.

Despite reports of the downing of Indian jets last week, experts like Mr Ladwig argue that India was able to hit an “impressive breadth of targets” inside Pakistan early in the morning of 10 May and this fact has gone largely unnoticed by the international media.

The Indian military said in a co-ordinated attack, it launched missiles on 11 Pakistani air bases across the country, including the strategic Nur Khan air base outside Rawalpindi, not far from the Pakistani military headquarters. It’s a sensitive target that took Islamabad by surprise.

One of the furthest targets was in Bholari, 140km (86 miles) from the southern city of Karachi.

Mr Ladwig says this time the IAF operated with standard procedures – first attacking Pakistani air defence and radar systems and then focusing on ground targets.

The Indian jets used an array of missiles, loitering munitions and drones despite the Pakistanis operating the Chinese-provided HQ 9 air defence system.

“It seems the attacks were relatively precise and targeted. The craters were in the middle of runways, exactly the ideal spot. If it were a longer conflict, how long would it take the Pakistani Air Force to get these facilities up and running again, I can’t say,” Mr Ladwig pointed out.

Nevertheless, he said, by refusing to get into the details of the mission briefing, India’s military “lost control of the narrative thread”.

In response to the Indian strikes, Pakistan said it launched missile and air strikes on several Indian forward air bases, but Delhi said the attacks caused no damage to equipment and personnel.

Realising that the situation was getting out of control, the US and its allies intervened and put pressure on both countries to stop the fighting.

But for India, experts say, the whole episode is a wake-up call.

Beijing may not comment on the details of the recent India-Pakistan conflict, but it’s keen to show that its weapon systems are fast catching up with the West.

Delhi is aware that the jets China has supplied to Pakistan are some of the earlier models. Beijing has already inducted the more advanced J-20 stealth fighter jets, that can evade radars.

India and China have a long-standing border dispute along the Himalayas and fought a brief border war in 1962 that resulted in a defeat for India. A brief border clash took place in Ladakh in June 2020.

Experts say India is acutely aware that it needs to accelerate investments in its homegrown defence manufacturing industry and speed up international buying.

For now, China’s defence industry seems to be enjoying the limelight following the claims of success of one of its aircraft in the India-Pakistan conflict.

The UK, France and Canada have warned Israel they will take “concrete actions” if it continues an “egregious” expansion of military operations in Gaza.

Sir Keir Starmer joined the French and Canadian leaders to call on the Israeli government to “stop its military operations” and “immediately allow humanitarian aid to enter Gaza”.

No food, fuel or medicine had been allowed into Gaza since 2 March, a situation the UN previously described as taking a “disastrous toll” on the Palestinian population.

Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu responded by saying the three leaders had offered a “huge prize” for Hamas in the Gaza war.

On Sunday, Netanyahu said his country would allow a “basic amount of food” to enter the territory after an 11-week long blockade but it planned to take “control of all of Gaza”.

The three Western leaders criticised this as “wholly inadequate” as the “denial of essential humanitarian assistance to the civilian population is unacceptable and risks breaching International Humanitarian Law”.

They added the level of suffering in Gaza was “intolerable”.

They also condemned “the abhorrent language used recently by members of the Israeli Government, threatening that, in their despair at the destruction of Gaza, civilians will start to relocate”.

“Permanent forced displacement is a breach of international humanitarian law,” they added.

UN humanitarian relief chief Tom Fletcher, a former British diplomat, said the number of aid trucks which had been cleared to enter was a “drop in the ocean of what is urgently needed”.

“We have always supported Israel’s right to defend Israelis against terrorism. But this escalation is wholly disproportionate,” the leaders’ statement added, referring to Israel’s renewed offensive.

Sir Keir, Emmanuel Macron and Mark Carney also called for Hamas to immediately release the remaining hostages taken in the “heinous attack” on southern Israel on 7 October 2023.

The Gaza war was triggered by the Hamas-led attack which saw around 1,200 people killed and 251 taken hostage.

Some 58 hostages remain in Gaza, up to 23 of whom are believed to be alive.

Gaza’s health ministry, which is run by Hamas, says more than 53,000 Palestinians have been killed during Israel’s military campaign.

The statement from the UK, France and Canada reiterated support for a ceasefire as well as the implementation of a “two-state solution”, which proposes an independent Palestinian state which would exist alongside Israel.

Netanyahu hit back at the suggestion: “By asking Israel to end a defensive war for our survival before Hamas terrorists on our border are destroyed and by demanding a Palestinian state, the leaders in London, Ottawa and Paris are offering a huge prize for the genocidal attack on Israel on October 7 while inviting more such atrocities.”

He also called on “all European leaders” to follow US President Donald “Trump’s vision” for ending the conflict.

Australia’s conservative Liberal-National coalition – the nation’s main opposition political party – has split after a partnership lasting almost 80 years.

The move marks a seismic change in the country’s political landscape and comes just weeks after a federal election that saw Labor win a second term in a landslide victory.

Nationals leader David Littleproud on Tuesday said his party was not re-entering a coalition agreement, amid policy disagreements with the Liberal Party as it goes on a journey of “rediscovery” following the emphatic loss.

Littleproud added that the Coalition has been broken and repaired before, and he hoped that – with time – the parties could reconcile again.

The Liberal Party – which has the second largest number of seats in parliament – will remain the formal opposition party, though now in their own right. This means the Nationals will not hold any opposition roles.

“Whilst we have enormous respect for David Littleproud and his team, it is disappointing that the National Party has taken the decision to leave the Coalition,” newly elected Liberal leader Sussan Ley said, hours after the shock announcement.

Ley said the founding principle of the Coalition had long been “shared values”, but said the Nationals had refused to sign a deal without commitments to “specific policies”.

The split comes after days of post-election talks between the two parties about their future, with Littleproud’s party – which mainly represents regional communities and often leans more conservative than the Liberals – failing to reach an agreement with their long-time political ally.

A key issue that had strained their relationship was climate and energy, with some in the National Party still opposed to net-zero emissions goals, and wedded to a nuclear power proposal which proved controversial at the election.

Littleproud also pointed to regional infrastructure spending and policies to improve supermarket competition as points of conflict.

Describing it as “one of the hardest political decisions of his life”, Littleproud said he had a “respectful conversation” with Ley to inform her of the split on Tuesday morning.

“What this is about is taking a deep breath and saying to the Australian people, this is time apart [for] us to be better, [to] focus on them.

“I gave [Ley] the commitment that I’ll work with her every day to help to try to rebuild the relationship to the point we can re-enter a coalition before the next election.”

However, he said the National Party would contest the next election solo if unity could not be achieved.

The Liberal-National partnership, which in its current form dates back to the 1940s, has broken down and been re-established several times over the decades. The last time the Coalition split was almost four decades ago, in 1987.

All except one of the 15 electorates the Liberal-National coalition lost at the election were ceded by the Liberals, who saw big swings against them right around the nation.

Support for the Liberals nosedived in more moderate areas, particularly in cities, which analysts largely put down to then-leader Peter Dutton’s polarising persona and some Trump-like policies. Ley, his successor, has vowed to bring the party back to the centre-right.

Vietnamese authorities have arrested a beauty queen and social media influencer for consumer fraud after she promoted a counterfeit fibre supplement.

Nguyen Thuc Thuy Tien had heavily marketed gummies said to be rich in fibre on her social media channels.

But a public backlash erupted after product tests revealed this was untrue.

A former winner of the Miss Grand International beauty competition, Ms Nguyen is a well-known personality in Vietnam and previously received accolades from the government.

Ms Nguyen had promoted Kera Supergreens Gummies along with social media influencers, Pham Quang Linh and Hang Du Muc.

Investigators said the product was the result of a joint venture between Ms Nguyen and a company set up by the two other influencers.

The influencers claimed that each of their gummies contained fibre equivalent to a plate of vegetables.

A member of the public sent the product for testing at a lab, which found that each gummy only contained 16mg of fibre, far from 200mg as claimed.

Authorities then launched an investigation, which found that sub-standard ingredients that were low in fibre were used in the manufacture of the gummies.

The product’s packaging also did not state the fibre content, nor did it state that the product contained a high level of sorbitol, which is used in laxatives.

The three influencers were fined in March, and apologised to the public.

The following month, Vietnamese authorities arrested Mr Pham and Hang Du Muc as well as officials from their company and the gummies’ manufacturer.

They were charged with producing counterfeit goods and defrauding customers.

On Monday, authorities announced the arrest of Ms Nguyen for allegedly deceiving customers.

More than 100,000 boxes of the gummies were reportedly sold before sales were halted due to the scandal.

After winning the Bangkok-based beauty pageant in 2021, Ms Nguyen became a celebrity sought after by many Vietnamese brands, and appeared on several reality TV shows.

She also received certificates of merit from the prime minister and Vietnam’s ruling Communist Party.

Sesame Street and Netflix have struck a deal that will see the popular TV show appear on the streaming platform, after US President Donald Trump pulled funding for the free-to-air channel Public Broadcasting Service (PBS).

Netflix said the iconic programme is a “beloved cornerstone of children’s media, enchanting young minds and nurturing a love of learning”.

Netflix will offer its 300 million subscribers a new season of the show and 90 hours of previous episodes, while still being available on PBS.

Sesame Street was also facing an uncertain future after entertainment giant Warner Bros Discovery, which owns the HBO platform, did not renew its deal with the half a century old programme.

Earlier this month, Trump issued an executive order to block federal funding for PBS and the National Public Radio (NPR) network, alleging they engaged in “biased and partisan news coverage”.

The government body Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which backed the two broadcasters, has since announced the termination of a federal initiative which funded shows for children, including Sesame Street.

Under the deal, PBS will get access to Sesame Street episodes on the same day they are released on Netflix.

In the late 1960s, Sesame Street co-founders Lloyd Morrisett and Joan Ganz Cooney approached Harvard University’s Graduate School of Education with a novel way of teaching American children.

A team led by a developmental psychologist worked with the Sesame founders to analyse childhood psychology and produce entertaining lessons.

They worked with Muppets creator Jim Henson to create characters like Big Bird, with a set made to look like an urban street.

Since its first airing on 10 November 1969, millions of children have grown up with the show’s theme tune “Can you tell me how to get, how get to Sesame Street?”

Over the decades, the programme and its characters have gained a life beyond the small screen.

Popular character Elmo stepped into the public policy spotlight in 2002, when he was invited to discuss music education at Congress.

During a child obesity epidemic in the US in 2006, Sesame Street aired Health Habits segments designed to teach kids about diet and exercise.

The Cookie Monster declared cookies a “sometimes food” and taught children about a balanced diet.

Former First Lady Michelle Obama also visited Sesame’s studios to film a segment on healthy eating.

Netflix has been increasing its focus on children’s content, that accounts for 15% of viewing on its service.

It also announced on Tuesday that new episodes of Peppa Pig and a mobile game with puzzles and colouring activities would be coming to the platform.

The animated show is centred on the adventures of a four-year-old piglet called Peppa who lives with her family in a fictional British town.

A British ultra-endurance athlete has broken the world record for running across the width of Australia, after a gruelling 35-day journey.

William Goodge, 31, started the 3,800km (2,361 miles) run from Cottesloe Beach in Perth on 15 April, and finished on Monday afternoon at Australia’s iconic Bondi Beach, his father by his side.

Originally from Bedfordshire in England, Goodge ran the equivalent of two-and-a-half marathons – about 100km – every day.

He started running marathons after his mother, Amanda, died from cancer in 2018, with this journey raising money for cancer charities in the UK, US and Australia.

The previous world record for running across Australia was held by Chris Turnbull, who managed the feat in 39 days in 2023. The year before, Australian electrician Nedd Brockmann ran the same route in 47 days, raising millions for charity.

Speaking to local media after he crossed the finish line, Goodge said the run was “like a revolving nightmare that wouldn’t end”.

“The first nine days were extremely challenging…but you have to tell your body and mind that even though you’re struggling, you’re going to persevere, and you’re going to get through it,” he told the Sydney Morning Herald (SMH).

Moments after crossing the finish line, Goodge placed a bunch of flowers on Bondi’s famous shoreline in memory of his late mother.

“She was the most special person in my life,” he told the Guardian Australia, adding, “she would be proud of everything I’ve done – she’d also be concerned”.

Along the way toenails have fallen off, his feet began rotting and he sometimes hallucinated due to broken sleep caused by pain in his bones.

Goodge said thinking about how his mother battled cancer was crucial during his journey, and helped him overlook his own suffering.

“So in the moments where it’s tough, I’ll think back to those times, I think about the woman she was, and how she handled herself, and how she supported me,” he told the SMH.

“I feel like she’s there with me a lot of the time.”

During the race, he says he saw almost all of Australia’s famous animals – though most were dead on the road – and much of its unique countryside.

On Goodge’s website about the run, he also thanked Turnbull for sharing his knowledge and experience on how to tackle the journey.

Goodge also holds the record for the fastest British man to run across the US, crossing from Los Angeles to New York in 55 days.

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

The Trump administration has agreed to pay a $5m (£3.7m) settlement to the family of Ashli Babbitt, a US Air Force veteran who was shot and killed by a Capitol police officer while breaching the US Congress on 6 January 2021.

Capitol Police Chief Tom Manger told CBS, the BBC’s US partner, he is “extremely disappointed” with the decision. The officer involved in her shooting has been cleared of any wrongdoing.

The settlement resolves a $30m wrongful death suit filed by Babbitt’s family and the conservative activist group Judicial Watch.

Thousands of Trump supporters descended on the US Capitol on 6 January in an attempt to halt the certification of Joe Biden’s victory in the 2020 election.

Babbitt was part of a group that smashed windows in an effort to enter the chamber of the House of Representatives while it was still in session, forcing lawmakers to delay certification and flee for safety.

Video of the incident shows her being shot in the shoulder after attempting to climb through a door. She later died in hospital.

The wrongful death lawsuit filed by Babbitt’s family claimed that the decision to open fire by Capitol Police officer Michael Byrd was negligent, and that Babbitt’s hands were in the air when she was shot.

Family members say that Babbitt was motivated to come to the Capitol by Trump’s claims of election fraud. No evidence has ever surfaced of widespread fraud in the 2020 election.

Mr Byrd previously defended the move to fire his gun, saying the group of lawmakers and security “were essentially trapped” and had “no way to retreat”.

In August 2021, a Capitol Police review found that Mr Byrd’s decision saved lives and was consistent with police training and procedures. A justice department review also found no evidence of any police wrongdoing.

“This is extremely disappointing and I completely disagree with the Department of Justice’s decision,” Chief Manger said in a statement to staff after learning of the settlement, the Washington Post reported.

“This settlement sends a chilling message to law enforcement officers across our nation – especially those who have a protective mission like ours,” he added.

In January, on his first day back in the White House, President Donald Trump issued a blanket pardon for more than 1,500 Capitol riot defendants, including hundreds accused of assaulting police. He also fired the federal prosecutors who handled those cases.

Trump in March told conservative news outlet Newsmax that he’s “a big fan of Ashli Babbitt” and that she was “innocently standing there” when she was shot.

“And a man did something unthinkable to her when he shot her, and I think it’s a disgrace,” he said, promising to “look into” the lawsuit brought by her family.

Joe Biden expressed his gratitude for the words of support that have poured in from across the world, including a private letter from Britain’s King Charles, after the former US president announced his cancer diagnosis on Sunday.

“Cancer touches us all,” Biden wrote on social media on Monday morning. “Like so many of you, Jill and I have learned that we are strongest in the broken places. Thank you for lifting us up with love and support.”

On Sunday, Biden’s office disclosed that he was diagnosed with an aggressive form of prostate cancer that has spread to his bones.

The news comes as fresh questions are being raised about the former president’s health while he was in office.

President Donald Trump posted that he was “saddened” by Biden’s diagnosis but later questioned – without providing any evidence – whether Biden’s team had known earlier about his illness and concealed the news from the public.

“I am surprised that the public wasn’t notified a long time ago because to get to stage nine that takes a long time,” he said at the White House on Monday afternoon.

“It could take years to get to this level of danger,” he said, adding: “I feel very badly about it, and I think people should try and find out what happened.”

Late-stage diagnoses for cancer are not unheard of, however. One UK study in 2014 found 46% of cancer diagnoses in that country were only made at an advanced stage.

Biden’s office said that he was diagnosed on Friday with prostate cancer “characterised by a Gleason score of 9 (Grade Group 5) with metastasis to the bone”.

“While this represents a more aggressive form of the disease, the cancer appears to be hormone-sensitive which allows for effective management.”

A Gleason score of nine means his illness is classified as “high-grade” and the cancer cells could spread quickly, according to Cancer Research UK.

• What we know about Biden’s prostate cancer diagnosis
• Analysis: Cancer diagnosis is another formidable challenge

Biden said his diagnosis was made after he reported urinary symptoms which led doctors to find a small nodule on his prostate.

In the wake of the cancer diagnosis, many have offered Biden their support including former President Barack Obama and former Vice-President Kamala Harris.

King Charles has written privately to Biden offering his support and best wishes, Buckingham Palace said.

The king, 76, who has met Biden a number of times, is also receiving treatment for an unspecified type of cancer after his diagnosis in 2024.

Biden had then sent his best wishes, saying: “I’m concerned about him. Just heard about his diagnosis. I’ll be talking to him, God willing.”

Vice-President JD Vance offered well wishes, but questioned whether the American people had a clear picture of Biden’s health while the former president was in office.

“We really do need to be honest about whether the former president was capable of doing the job,” Vance said on Monday. “And that’s that’s … you can separate the desire for him to have the right health outcome with a recognition that whether it was doctors or whether there were staffers around the former president, I don’t think he was able to do a good job for the American people.”

Vance also said he blamed the people around him more than Biden himself.

“This is not child’s play, and we can pray for good health, but also recognise that if you’re not in good enough health to do the job, you shouldn’t be doing the job,” he added.

The announcement comes as Biden staves off criticism from a forthcoming book that claims he and his advisers hid his deteriorating health while he was in the White House.

Details revealed last week from the book entitled, Original Sin: President Biden’s Decline, Its Cover-Up, and His Disastrous Choice to Run Again, include Biden not recognising actor and frequent Democratic donor George Clooney at a fundraiser last year and aides discussing putting the former president in a wheelchair.

The book will be released on Tuesday.

Nearly a year ago, the former president was forced to drop out of the 2024 US presidential election because of concerns about his health and age.