US President Donald Trump reignited trade tensions on Friday, threatening a 50% tariff on all goods sent to the United States from the European Union.

He also warned Apple that he would impose a 25% import tax “at least” on iPhones not manufactured in America, later widening the threat to any smartphone.

The warning against the EU came just hours before the two sides were set to have trade talks. Trump last month announced a 20% tariff on most EU goods, but had halved it to 10% until 8 July to allow time for negotiations.

In a statement after the talks, the EU said it remained committed to securing a deal, while warning again that it was prepared to retaliate.

“EU-US trade is unmatched & must be guided by mutual respect, not threats,” European Union Trade Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič wrote on social media. “We stand ready to defend our interests.”

In remarks to reporters at the White House on Friday afternoon, Trump expressed impatience with the pace of negotiations, saying his plan to raise tariffs on 1 June was set.

“I’m not looking for a deal – we’ve set the deal,” he added, before immediately adding that a big investment in the US by a European company might make him open to a delay.

“We’re going to see what happens but right now it’s going on on June 1st,” he said.

Analysts said it remained to be seen whether Trump’s rhetoric would turn into reality.

Trade expert Aslak Berg from the Centre for European Reform told the BBC that he thought Trump’s post was intended to increase leverage ahead of the negotiations.

“But the fact of the matter is the EU is not going to budge. They are going to stay calm, carry on and it will be a very difficult discussion,” he said.

He added that Trump’s re-escalation of tariffs set a bad precedent for other deals the US might be working on.

“For a while there was this perception … that Trump was backing off, that we would have a bit of quiet and stability. This shows that is not at all the case,” he said.

Since re-entering the White House, Trump has imposed and threatened various tariffs on goods from countries around the world, arguing that the measures – which are a tax on imports – will boost US manufacturing and protect jobs from foreign competition.

The announcements have sparked worries globally, because they will make it more expensive and difficult for foreign businesses to sell goods in the world’s largest economy.

But Trump has also backed down from some of his most aggressive proposals after financial market turmoil and business outcry in the US.

Shares in the US and EU fell on Friday after the latest threats, with the S&P 500 down about 0.7% and Germany’s Dax and France’s Cac 40 ending the day down more than 1.5%.

Shares in Apple, which had won relief last month when Trump exempted key electronics including smartphones from his tariffs, fell about 3%.

Officials at the time warned it would be temporary. Speaking to reporters later on Friday, Trump said he did not intend to single out Apple but planned to apply the duties to all smart phones, which could start by the end of June.

The EU is one of the US’s largest trading partners, sending more than $600bn in goods to the US last year and buying about $370bn worth, according to US government figures.

Trump’s complaints about Europe have focused on that uneven trade relationship, as the EU sells more goods to the US than it buys from America.

He blames this trade deficit on policies that he says are unfair to American companies, and he has specifically raised concerns about policies related to cars and agricultural products.

He targeted goods from the EU with a 20% tariff in his so-called Liberation Day announcement last month, which set off a flurry of negotiations between the US and countries around the world.

While some countries, especially smaller ones, have taken a conciliatory approach, the EU, like China and Canada, has pushed back harder against the threats, saying it is prepared to retaliate by raising its own tariffs on US products.

On Friday, Trump said the EU had been “very difficult to deal with”.

US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told Fox News that he hoped the threat “would light a fire under the EU”.

Politicians from members of the bloc greeted it with dismay.

Ireland’s Taoiseach Micheál Martin said the EU had been engaging in “good faith” and warned that tariffs would be damaging to both sides.

“We do not need to go down this road,” he said. “Negotiations are the best and only sustainable way forward.”

“We are maintaining the same line: de-escalation, but we are ready to respond,” French Foreign Minister Laurent Saint-Martin wrote on social media on Friday morning, adding that the pressure was “not helping” the negotiations.

German Economy Minister Katherina Reiche said her country needed “more trade, not less”.

“We must do everything to ensure that the European Commission reaches a negotiated solution with the United States,” she said.

Trump has ploughed ahead with tariffs, despite widespread concern among experts that the new taxes will lead to economic damage while doing little to achieve his aims.

On Friday, Wedbush Securities analyst Dan Ives said the idea that Apple would make iPhones in the US was a “fairy tale that is not feasible”.

He added that he expected Apple to continue to be able to navigate the situation, despite the latest attack from Trump, who has long singled out the company as one he wants to see manufacturing in the US.

Trump met with Apple chief executive Tim Cook at the White House earlier this week, after expressing unhappiness about the firm’s response to the tariffs.

Earlier this month, company said it was shifting production of most of its iPhones and other devices destined to be sold in the US away from China, but towards countries such as India and Vietnam, rather than the US.

Trump earlier this month said he had a “little problem” with Mr Cook, and had warned him: ‘I don’t want you building in India.'”

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

The last memory Han Tae-soon has of her daughter as a child is in May 1975, at their home in Seoul.

“I was going to the market and asked Kyung-ha, ‘Aren’t you coming?’ But she told me, ‘No, I’m going to play with my friends’,” recalled Ms Han.

“When I came back, she was gone.”

Ms Han would not see her daughter again for more than four decades. When they reunited, Kyung-ha was almost unrecognisable as a middle-aged American woman named Laurie Bender.

Kyung-ha had been kidnapped near her home, brought to an orphanage, then sent illegally to the US to be raised by another family, alleges Ms Han, who is now suing the South Korean government for failing to prevent her daughter’s adoption.

She is among the hundreds of people who have come forward in recent years with damning allegations of fraud, illegal adoptions, kidnapping and human trafficking in South Korea’s controversial overseas adoption programme.

No other country has sent as many children abroad for adoption, and for so long, as South Korea. Since the programme began in the 1950s, about 170,000 to 200,000 children have been adopted overseas – most of them in the West.

In March, a landmark inquiry found that successive governments had committed human rights violations with their lack of oversight, allowing private agencies to “mass export” children for profit on an industrial scale.

Experts say the findings could open the door to more lawsuits against the government. Ms Han’s is set to go to court next month.

It is one of two landmark cases. Ms Han is the first biological parent of an overseas adoptee seeking damages from the government, while in 2019, a man who was adopted in the US was the first adoptee to sue.

A government spokesman told the BBC that it “deeply sympathises with the emotional pain of individuals and families who could not find each other for a long time”.

It added that it considered Ms Han’s case with “deep regret” and that it would take “necessary actions” based on the outcome of the trial.

Ms Han, 71, told the BBC she is determined the government takes responsibility.

“I spent 44 years ruining my body and mind searching for [my daughter]. But in all that time, has anyone ever apologised to me? No one. Not once.”

For decades, she and her husband visited police stations and orphanages, put up flyers, and went on television appealing for information. Ms Han said she spent all day pounding the streets looking for her daughter “till all 10 of my toenails fell out”.

Over the years she thought she came close. In 1990, after one of her TV appeals, Ms Han met a woman who she believed could be Kyung-ha, and even took her in to live with her family for a while. But the woman eventually confessed she was not her daughter.

A breakthrough finally happened in 2019 when Ms Han signed up with 325 Kamra, a group that connects overseas Korean adoptees with their birth parents by matching their DNA.

They soon reported a match – Laurie Bender, a nurse in California. After several phone calls, she flew over to Seoul to meet Ms Han, where the two had a tearful reunion at the airport.

As they embraced, Ms Han ran her fingers through Kyung-ha’s hair. “I’ve been a hairdresser for 30 years. I can quickly tell if it’s my daughter just by feeling her hair. I had mistakenly thought I found her before, so I had to touch and feel the hair to confirm it,” she said.

The first thing she told her daughter was “I’m so sorry”.

“I felt guilty because she couldn’t find her way home when she was a child. I kept thinking about how much she must have searched for her mother… Meeting her after all those years made me realise how much she must have longed for her mother, and it broke my heart.”

“It’s like a hole in your heart has been healed, you finally feel like a complete person,” Kyung-ha said about their reunion in an earlier interview with the Associated Press. She did not respond to the BBC’s requests for an interview.

The pair eventually pieced together what happened on that day in May 1975.

Kyung-ha, who was six years old at the time, was playing near her home when she was approached by a strange woman claiming to know her mother. Kyung-ha was told her mother “didn’t need” her any more and was taken to a train station.

After taking a train ride with the woman, Kyung-ha was abandoned at the final stop, where she was eventually picked up by police officers and placed in an orphanage. Soon, she was flown to the US to be adopted by a couple in Virginia.

Years later, checks revealed she was given false papers stating she was an abandoned orphan whose parents were unknown.

“It’s like you’ve been living a fake life and everything you know is not true,” Kyung-ha said previously.

Her case was far from an isolated one.

South Korea’s overseas adoption programme began in the ashes of the 1950-53 Korean War, when it was a deeply impoverished country with an estimated 100,000 orphaned and displaced children.

At that time, few families were willing to adopt non-biological children, and the government began an overseas adoption programme, billed as a humanitarian effort.

The programme was handled entirely by private adoption agencies. While they were under government oversight, over time these agencies gained significant autonomy through laws.

As their power grew, so did the number of children being sent abroad, rising in the 1970s and peaking in the 1980s. In 1985 alone, more than 8,800 children were sent overseas.

There was a massive demand from the West – with declining birth rates and fewer babies to adopt at home, families began seeking children elsewhere.

Photos from that era show planes heading to Western countries filled with Korean children, with swaddled babies strapped to seats – what the truth and reconciliation commission’s inquiry called the “mass transportation of children like cargo”.

The report alleges little care was taken of these children during these long flights. In one case it cited from 1974, a lactose-intolerant child was fed milk in transit and subsequently died upon arrival in Denmark.

Critics of the programme have long questioned why so many children needed to be sent overseas at a time when South Korea was already experiencing rapid economic growth.

A 1976 BBC Panorama documentary, which featured South Korea as one of several Asian countries sending children to the West, quoted an observer describing the situation as “out of control” and “almost like a trade in children… flowing from Asia into Europe and North America”.

According to the truth and reconciliation report, foreign adoption agencies set quotas for children, which Korean agencies willingly fulfilled.

It was a profitable business – the lack of government regulation allowed the Korean agencies to charge large amounts and demand hidden fees termed as “donations”.

Some of these children may have been obtained by unscrupulous means, with parents like Ms Han alleging their children were kidnapped. In the 1970s and 1980s, thousands of homeless or unattended children were rounded up and put in orphanages or welfare centres as part of a national campaign to “clean up the streets” of South Korea.

Other parents were told their babies had fallen sick and died, when they were actually alive and taken to adoption agencies. Agencies also did not obtain proper consent from birth mothers to take their children for adoption, according to the truth and reconciliation report.

The report also stated that adoption agencies deliberately falsified information in adoption records to cut corners and quickly meet the demand for children.

Lost children who were found without any identity documents would be made to appear, in paperwork, as if they had been abandoned and put up for adoption.

If a child intended for adoption had died or was reclaimed by their birth parents, another child would be swapped in and assigned the original child’s identity. This allowed agencies to avoid refunding adoption fees and expedite the adoption process.

Decades on, this has created immense difficulties for many overseas adoptees trying to track down their biological parents.

Some have wrong or missing information in their adoption records, while others have discovered they were given entirely false identities.

“We are victims of state violence but there is no trace of this – literally. This lack of documents must not make us victims for the second time,” said Han Boon-young, co-founder of an overseas adoptee rights group campaigning for greater access to birth information.

“This is a human rights issue. There were kidnappings, falsified documents – all of which were examples of violations committed during the inter-country adoption process.

“It is really necessary to move towards reconciliation, that we recognise these experiences, and that the people who committed these violations be held responsible.”

But some of the key players continue to stay silent or deny wrongdoing.

The BBC contacted Bu Chung-ha, who in the 1970s served as chairman of Holt International, South Korea’s largest adoption agency.

Holt is at the centre of numerous allegations of fraud and illegal adoptions, and the subject of two lawsuits so far, including Ms Han’s.

In a brief reply, Mr Bu denied that the agency had sent abroad any children wrongly identified as orphans during his tenure. Any parents alleging their children were kidnapped “did not lose their children, they abandoned them”, he said.

The current management of Holt International has yet to respond to the BBC’s request for comment.

Experts say the responsibility lay not only with the private agencies but also with the state.

“Adoption agencies exploited the system, and the government turned a blind eye – allowing illegal practices to take root,” said Dr Lee Kyung-eun, an international law scholar at Seoul National University.

“The government was the captain, and the agencies rowed the boat,” said Shin Pil-sik, a researcher on transnational adoption at Seokyeong University, who added that this structure enabled both sides to deflect accountability.

Dr Shin said the state was not a passive observer- it actively shaped adoption policy, setting annual quotas for overseas placements and even on occasion halted some adoptions.

An Associated Press news investigation last year found successive Korean governments had rewritten laws to remove minimal safeguards and judicial oversight, fit their laws to match American ones to make children adoptable, and allowed foreign families to adopt Korean children quickly without ever visiting the country.

While the government billed the programme as a humanitarian effort, observers say it also served to strengthen ties with Western countries.

A 1984 government document obtained by the BBC stated that the official goals of the adoption policy included not only the welfare of children but also “the promotion of future national strength and people-to-people diplomacy”.

When asked about the state’s role in past adoption practices, South Korea’s health and welfare ministry said they were “continuing efforts to strengthen state responsibility” in the system and that it plans to promote adoptions that comply with international standards.

In 2012, the government revised adoption laws to tighten screening of potential adoptive parents, and to track birthparent data and birth information better.

It has also enacted reforms to the adoption system ensuring that overseas adoptions are minimised and that all adoptions would be handled by the government instead of private agencies. The changes will take effect in July.

Meanwhile, overseas adoptions have declined. In the late 1980s, overseas adoptions dropped sharply, before stabilising in the 1990s and dropping again in the 2010s. Only 79 children were adopted abroad in 2023, according to the latest available data.

But as South Korea begins to address this dark chapter in its past, adoptees and birth parents like Ms Han continue to struggle with their trauma.

After their initial reunion, Ms Han and Kyung-ha have struggled to maintain a close connection.

Not only do they live on opposite sides of the world, her daughter has forgotten most of her Korean while Ms Han knows little English.

They keep in touch over texts occasionally, and Ms Han spends two hours every day practising her English by writing phrases in an exercise book.

But it isn’t enough for Ms Han.

“Even though I have found my daughter, it doesn’t feel like I’ve truly found her. All I know is where she is, but what good is that, if we can’t even communicate?

“My entire life has been ruined… no amount of money will ever make up for what I’ve lost.”

A headline in Israel’s liberal daily Ha’aretz this week put it starkly: “Diplomatic tsunami nears,” it warned, “as Europe begins to act against Israel’s ‘complete madness’ in Gaza.”

This week’s diplomatic assault has taken many forms, not all of them foreseen.

From concerted international condemnation of Israel’s actions in Gaza, to the shocking murder of two young Israeli embassy staff members in Washington, this has been, to put it mildly, a tumultuous week for the Jewish state.

The waves started crashing on Israel’s shores on Monday evening, when Britain, France and Canada issued a joint statement condemning its “egregious” actions in Gaza.

All three warned of the possibility of “further concrete actions” if Israel continued its renewed military offensive and failed to lift restrictions on humanitarian aid.

They also threatened “targeted sanctions” in response to Israel’s settlement activity in the occupied West Bank.

A statement from 24 donor nations followed, condemning a new, Israeli-backed aid delivery model for Gaza.

But that was just the start.

On Tuesday, Britain suspended trade talks with Israel and said a 2023 road map for future cooperation was being reviewed.

A fresh round of sanctions was imposed on Jewish settlers, including Daniela Weiss, a prominent figure who featured in Louis Theroux’s recent documentary, The Settlers.

Israel’s ambassador in London, Tzipi Hotovely, was summoned to the Foreign Office, a move generally reserved for the representatives of countries like Russia and Iran.

To make matters worse for Israel, the EU’s foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas said a “strong majority” of the bloc’s members favoured reviewing the 25-year-old Association Agreement with Israel.

The reasons for this flurry of diplomatic condemnation seemed clear enough.

Evidence that Gaza was closer to mass starvation than at any time since the war began, following Hamas’s attack in October 2023, was sending ripples of horror across the world.

Israel’s military offensive, and the rhetoric surrounding it, suggested that conditions in the stricken territory were about to deteriorate once more.

Addressing MPs on Tuesday, UK Foreign Secretary David Lammy singled out the words of Israel’s hardline Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, who had spoken of “cleansing” Gaza, “destroying what’s left” and relocating the civilian population to third countries.

“We must call this what it is,” Lammy said. “It’s extremism. It is dangerous. It is repellent. It is monstrous. And I condemn it in the strongest possible terms.”

Smotrich is not a decision-maker when it comes to conduct of the war in Gaza. Before now, his incendiary remarks might have been set to one side.

But those days appear to be over. Rightly or wrongly, Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is seen as in thrall to his far-right colleagues. Critics accuse him of relentlessly pursuing a war, without regard for the lives of Palestinian civilians or the remaining Israeli hostages still being held in Gaza.

Countries that have long supported Israel’s right to defend itself are beginning to say “enough is enough.”

This week was clearly a significant moment for Britain’s Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, a staunch defender of Israel (he once said “I support Zionism without qualification”) who faced strong criticism from within the Labour Party for his reluctance last year to call for a ceasefire in Gaza.

On Tuesday, Sir Keir said the suffering of innocent children in Gaza was “utterly intolerable”.

In the face of this unusually concerted action from some of his country’s strongest allies, Netanyahu reacted furiously, suggesting Britain, France and Canada were guilty of supporting Hamas.

“When mass murderers, rapists, baby killers and kidnappers thank you, you’re on the wrong side of justice,” he posted on X.

“You’re on the wrong side of humanity and you’re on the wrong side of history.”

Israel’s Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar went further, suggesting there was a “direct line” between Israel’s critics, including Starmer, and Wednesday night’s killing of Yaron Lischinsky and Sarah Lynn Milgrim, the two Israeli embassy employees gunned down outside the Jewish Museum in Washington.

But despite the outpourings of sympathy following the shooting, the Israeli government seems increasingly isolated, with western allies and prominent members of the Jewish diaspora all voicing anger – and anguish – over the war in Gaza.

Lord Levy, former Middle East envoy and advisor to Tony Blair, said he endorsed the current government’s criticisms, even suggesting they might have come “a little late”.

“There has to be a stand, not just from us in this country but internationally, against what is going on in Gaza,” he told BBC Radio 4’s The World at One, describing himself as “a very proud Jew…who passionately cares for Israel”.

But silent, throughout all this, is the one man who could, if he wanted, stop the war.

At the end of his recent tour of the Gulf, Donald Trump said “a lot of people are starving”.

White House officials indicated the US president was frustrated with the war and wanted the Israeli government to “wrap it up”.

But while other western leaders release expressions of outrage, Trump is saying almost nothing.

Satellite images have for the first time shown the extent of a shipyard accident in North Korea that damaged a new warship in the presence of the secretive state’s leader, Kim Jong Un.

The image shows the warship lying on its side, covered by large blue tarpaulins. A portion of the vessel appears to be on land.

An official investigation into the accident – which Kim described as a “criminal act” – has begun, state media reported on Friday.

None of the reports mentioned any casualties or injuries as a result of Thursday’s incident in the eastern port city of Chongjin.

KCNA, North Korea’s official news agency, downplayed the damage in a report on Friday, saying it was “not serious” and that, contrary to initial reports, there were no holes on the ship’s bottom.

“The hull starboard was scratched and a certain amount of seawater flowed into the stern section through the rescue channel,” KCNA reported.

The manager of the shipyard, Hong Kil Ho, has been summoned by law enforcers, it said.

It would take around 10 days to restore the destroyer’s side, according to KCNA.

Kim said on Thursday that the accident was caused by “absolute carelessness, irresponsibility and unscientific empiricism”.

He added that those who made “irresponsible errors” will be dealt with at a plenary meeting next month.

It’s not clear what punishment they might face, but the authoritarian state has a woeful human rights record.

It is uncommon for North Korea to publicly disclose local accidents – though it has done this a handful of times in the past.

This particular accident comes weeks after North Korea unveiled a similar 5,000-ton destroyer, the Choe Hyon.

Kim had called that warship a “breakthrough” in modernising North Korea’s navy and said it would be deployed early next year.

In his 1983 science fiction story, an Indian astrophysicist predicted what schools would look like in 2050.

Jayant Narlikar envisioned a scene where an alien, living among humans, would sit in front of a screen and attend online classes. The aliens are yet to manifest, but online classes became a reality for students far sooner, in 2020, when the Covid-19 pandemic hit.

Narlikar also famously proposed an alternative to the Big Bang Theory – the popular idea that the universe was created in a single moment from a single point. He believed that the universe had always existed, expanding continuously into infinity.

With his passing on Tuesday, India lost one of its most celebrated astrophysicists. Narlikar was 86 – a man far ahead of his times and someone who shaped a generation of Indian researchers through his lifelong dedication to science education.

His funeral was attended by hundreds, from school children to renowned scientists and even his housekeeping staff, underscoring the profound impact he had on society.

Born on 19 July, 1938, in the town of Kolhapur in the western state of Maharashtra, Narlikar was raised in a home steeped in academic tradition.

His father, Vishnu Narlikar, was a professor and mathematician, and mother Sumati was a scholar of the Sanskrit language.

Following in his parents footsteps, the studious Narlikar went to Cambridge University for higher studies where topped a highly prestigious mathematical course. He also took a deep interest in astrophysics and cosmology.

But his most significant episode at Cambridge was his association with his PhD guide, physicist Sir Fred Hoyle. Together, Narlikar and Hoyle laid the groundwork for a revolutionary alternative to the popular Big Bang theory.

The two physicists contested the Big Bang Theory, which posits that all matter and energy in the universe came into existence in one single instance about 13.8 billion years ago.

The Hoyle-Narlikar theory boldly proposed the continuous creation of new matter in an infinite universe. Their theory was based on what they called a quasi-steady state model.

In his autobiography, My Tale of Four Cities, Narlikar used a banking analogy to explain the theory.

“To understand this concept better, think of capital invested in a bank which offers a fixed rate of compound interest. That is, the interest accrued is constantly added to the capital which therefore grows too, along with the interest.”

He explained that the universe expanded like the capital with compound interest. However, as the name ‘steady state’ implies, the universe always looks the same to the observer.

Astronomer Somak Raychaudhury says that though Narlikar’s theory isn’t as popular as the Big Bang, it is still useful.

“He advanced mechanisms by which matter could be continually created and destroyed in an infinite universe,” Raychaudhary said.

“While the Big Bang model gained broader acceptance, many tools developed for the steady-state model remain useful today,” he added

Raychaudhary recollects that even after Hoyle began to entertain elements of the Big Bang theory, Narlikar remained committed to the steady-state theory.

A sign outside his office fittingly stated: “The Big Bang is an exploding myth.”

Narlikar stayed in the UK till 1971 as a Fellow at King’s College and a founding member of the Institute of Theoretical Astronomy.

As he shot to global fame in the astrophysics circles, the science community in India took note of his achievements.

In 1972, he returned to India and immediately took charge of the Theoretical Astrophysics Group at the coveted Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, which he led it till 1989.

But his biggest contribution to India was the creation of an institution dedicated to cutting-edge research and the democratisation of science.

This dream materialised in 1988, when Narlikar, along with other distinguished scientists, founded the Inter-University Centre for Astronomy and Astrophysics (IUCAA) in Pune city in western India.

From a modest 100sq ft room, IUCAA has gone on to become an internationally respected institution for astronomy and astrophysics.

Narlikar served as its founder-director till 2003, and continued to be an emeritus professor after that.

He insisted that IUCAA should include programs aimed at school children and the general public. Monthly lectures, science camps, and workshops became regular events.

Recalling Narlikar’s vision for the institution, science educator Arvind Gupta says, “He said PhD scholars don’t fall from the sky, you must catch them young. He offered me a place to stay, told me to try running the children’s science centre for six months, and I ended up staying 11 years. He gave me wings to fly.”

Despite being a prolific scholar who published over 300 research papers, Narlikar never confined himself to being just a scientist. He also authored many science fiction books that have been translated into multiple languages.

These stories were often grounded in scientific principles.

In a story called Virus, published in 2015, he envisioned a pandemic taking over the world; his 1986 book Waman Parat Na Ala (The Return of Vaman), tackled the ethical dilemmas of artificial intelligence.

Sanjeev Dhurandhar, who was part of the Indian team that contributed to the physical detection of gravitational waves in 2015, recalled how Narlikar inspired him to attempt the unthinkable.

“He gave me a complex problem early in my research. After I struggled for a week, he solved it on the board in 15 minutes – not to show superiority, but to guide and inspire. His openness to gravitational waves was what gave me the courage to pursue it.”

A well-known rationalist, Narlikar also took it upon himself to challenge pseudoscience. In 2008, he co-authored a paper that challenged astrology using a statistical method.

Raychaudhary said that his motivation to challenge pseudoscience came from the belief system of questioning everything that did not have a scientific basis.

But when it came to science, Narlikar believed in exploring the slimmest of possibilities.

In his last days, Narlikar continued doing what he loved most – replying to children’s letters and writing about science on his blog.

The limited amount of food that trickled into Gaza after an Israeli blockade was partly lifted has sparked chaotic scenes, as hunger continues to spread.

Bakeries distributing food were overwhelmed by crowds and forced to close on Thursday, and armed looters attacked an aid convoy overnight – sparking a firefight with Hamas security officials who, witnesses say, were then targeted by an Israeli drone strike.

The incident in central Gaza, recounted to BBC News by eyewitnesses, local journalists and Hamas officials, underscores the deteriorating security situation in Gaza, where governance has collapsed and lawlessness has spread.

A convoy of 20 trucks, co-ordinated by the World Food Programme (WFP) and carrying flour, was en route from the Kerem Shalom crossing to a WFP warehouse in the city of Deir al-Balah.

It was being escorted by six Hamas security officers when it was ambushed by five unidentified gunmen, who fired at the tyres of the vehicles and tried to seize the cargo.

The Hamas security team engaged the attackers in a brief firefight, witnesses told BBC News.

Shortly after the clash began, Israeli drones targeted the Hamas unit with four missiles, killing six officers and wounding others.

Hamas issued a statement condemning the attack as “a horrific massacre” and accused Israel of deliberately targeting personnel tasked with protecting humanitarian aid.

In a statement, the IDF said one of its aircraft identified “several gunmen, including Hamas terrorists”, near humanitarian aid trucks in central Gaza and “struck the gunmen following the identification”.

The IDF said it would make “all efforts possible to ensure that the humanitarian aid does not reach the hands of terrorist organizations”.

A small amount of food has been allowed to cross into Gaza this week: around 130 lorries carrying aid have crossed the border in the last three days, after an 11-week blockade was partly lifted by the IDF.

The UN says 500 to 600 trucks of supplies a day are needed in Gaza.

• LIVE: Gazans tell BBC more aid needed as Israel eases blockade

International agencies, including the UN and the WFP, have repeatedly warned that the growing insecurity is hampering the delivery of desperately needed food and medical supplies to the population – the majority of whom are displaced.

Israel says the blockade was intended to put pressure on Hamas to release the hostages still held in Gaza. Israel has also accused Hamas of stealing supplies, which the group has denied.

The WFP said 15 of its aid trucks were looted overnight on Thursday, and that “hunger, desperation and anxiety over whether more food aid is coming is contributing to rising insecurity”. The organisation called on Israel to help ensure the safe passage of supplies.

Philippe Lazzarini, the head of UNRWA, an agency that supports Palestinian refugees, wrote on X that no one should be “surprised let alone shocked” that aid had been looted because the “people of Gaza have been starved [and] deprived of the basics including water and medicines for more than 11 weeks”.

Earlier on Thursday, angry and hungry Palestinians crowded outside bakeries in Gaza in a desperate attempt to obtain bread, but the situation quickly descended into chaos, forcing distribution to halt.

It forced most bakeries to suspend operations, citing a lack of security.

Many residents across Gaza voiced growing frustration over the aid distribution method and criticised the WFP, which oversees food deliveries.

Some called for an immediate shift from distributing baked bread to handing out flour directly at a rate of one sack per family.

Locals argue that distributing flour would allow families to bake at home or in tents – which, they say, would be safer than waiting at the overcrowded aid centres.

Palestinians on the ground have told of the deepening humanitarian crisis and the collapse of basic services facing people living among the fighting or forced from their homes, as the IDF continues to ramp up its military operations against Hamas.

From a displacement camp in southern Gaza’s al-Mawasi, Abd al-Fatah Hussein told BBC News over WhatsApp that the situation is getting worse due to the number of people in the area.

The father-of-two said there is “no room” in al-Mawasi, where people ordered by the Israeli military to leave their homes are being told to go for safety.

“There is no electricity, no food, insufficient portable water, and no available medicine,” he said.

“The repeated air strikes, especially during the night, add to the suffering.”

He described the aid trucks coming in as a “drop in the ocean of Gaza’s needs”.

When he announced some supplies would finally be allowed into the strip earlier this week, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said only a “basic amount” would be able to cross.

Humanitarian organisations have warned the amount of food entering Gaza in recent days is not close to what is needed to feed the 2.1 million people living there, while the UN has said about 500 lorries entered the territory on average every day before the war.

Widespread famine, humanitarian groups have warned, looms over Gaza.

Secretary-General António Guterres said 400 trucks had been cleared to enter Gaza this week, but supplies from just 115 had been collected. He said nothing had “reached the besieged north” so far.

While some flour, baby food and medical supplies had made it into Gaza, and some bakeries in the south had begun operating again, Guterres said that amounted to a “teaspoon of aid when a flood of assistance is required”.

“The supplies – 160,000 pallets, enough to fill nearly 9,000 trucks – are waiting,” he added.

Rida, a midwife with charity Project HOPE in Deir al-Balah, said women come to her clinic suffering from fainting, having sought medical help without eating breakfast.

Many of them eat only one meal a day and subsist on high energy biscuits given by the charity, she said.

“Due to malnutrition they are always telling us, ‘my baby cannot take enough supplement from my breast… my baby won’t stop crying… they always need to be breastfed, but my breast is empty’.”

Teenager Saba Nahed Alnajjar lives in Khan Younis, where the IDF ordered a mass evacuation earlier this week ahead of what it said would be an unprecedented military operation there.

She said her family has stayed in their partially destroyed home.

“An evacuation order has been issued for our area, but we have not been displaced because we have nowhere else to go,” she said.

“There are not many citizens in the area… The displaced are sleeping in the street and there is no food.

“The conditions are deteriorating and very difficult.”

Speaking over WhatsApp messages – often the only way to speak to people in Gaza, which journalists are blocked from entering by the IDF – she said the “bombing continues in a brutal manner”.

She and her family have little left, Saba said, adding: “We have no food, no flour – no basic necessities of life.”

Russia and Ukraine have each handed over 390 soldiers and civilians in the biggest prisoner exchange since the start of the full-scale Russian invasion in 2022.

They both returned 270 servicemen and 120 civilians on the Ukrainian border with Belarus, as part of the only deal agreed in direct talks in Istanbul a week ago.

Both sides had agreed to an exchange of 1,000 prisoners and confirmed there would be further swaps in the coming days.

Although there have been dozens of smaller-scale exchanges, no other handover has involved as many civilians.

The Russian defence ministry said servicemen and civilians, including those captured by Ukrainian forces in Russia’s Kursk border region during Kyiv’s offensive in recent months, were among those handed over.

They were currently on Belarusian territory and were to be taken to Russia for medical checks and treatment, the ministry said.

“We are bringing our people home,” Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky announced on social media.

“We are verifying every surname, every detail about each person.”

Ukraine’s co-ordination headquarters for prisoners of war said the 270 Ukrainian servicemen had fought in regions across the east and north, from Kyiv, Chernihiv and Sumy to Donetsk, Kharkiv and Kherson.

Three of the 390 released on Friday were women, officials said, and some of the soldiers had been held since 2022.

US President Donald Trump earlier posted his congratulations on his Truth Social platform, claiming that the swap was complete and that “this could lead to something big???”.

Families of Ukrainian soldiers held by Russia gathered in northern Ukraine on Friday in the hope that their sons and husbands would be among those released.

Natalia, whose son Yelizar was captured during the battle for the city of Severodonetsk three years ago, told the BBC she believed he would return, but did not know when.

Olha said that since her son Valerii had been captured with five other soldiers in the east, her life had stopped, as she did not know if they were still alive.

“They were captured two months ago in Luhansk. They went missing in a village.”

The prisoner swap was agreed in Turkey a week ago, when low-level delegations from Ukraine and Russia came face to face for the first time since March 2022, even though the meeting lasted only two hours and failed to make any progress towards a ceasefire.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said on Friday that there would be a second round of talks, when Moscow would hand a “memorandum” to the Ukrainian side.

Trump said earlier this week that Russia and Ukraine would “immediately” start negotiating towards a ceasefire and an end to the war, after a two-hour phone call with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Since then, Zelensky has accused Putin of “trying to buy time” to continue the war.

Italy’s Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni has backed a suggestion from Trump that the Vatican might mediate talks on negotiating a ceasefire, but Lavrov said that was “not a very realistic option”.

The Russian foreign minister repeated an unfounded claim that Zelensky was not a legitimate leader and suggested new elections should be held before a potential future peace agreement is signed.

Asked if Russia was ready to sign a deal, Lavrov said: “First we need to have a deal. And when it’s agreed, then we will decide. But, as President Putin has said many times, President Zelensky does not have legitimacy.”

He said after an agreement was ready, Russia would “see who out of those in power in Ukraine has legitimacy”.

“The key task now is to prepare a peace agreement which will be reliable and provide a long-term, stable and fair peace without creating security threats for anyone. In our case, we’re concerned with Russia.”

When Shreya Mishra Reddy was admitted to Harvard University in 2023, her parents were “ecstatic”.

It is “the ultimate school that anybody in India wants to get into,” she tells the BBC.

Now, with graduation around the corner, she has had to break the bad news to her family: she may not graduate in July from the executive leadership programme after the Trump administration moved to stop Harvard from enrolling international students “as a result of their failure to adhere to the law”.

“It has been very difficult for my family to hear. They’re still trying to process it,” she said.

Ms Reddy is one of around 6,800 international students at Harvard, who make up more than 27% of its enrolments this year. They are a crucial source of revenue for the Ivy League school. About a third of its foreign students are from China, and more than 700 are Indian, such as Ms Reddy.

All of them are now unsure of what to expect next. Harvard has called the move “unlawful”, which could lead to a legal challenge.

But that leaves the students’ futures in limbo, be it those who are waiting to enrol this summer, or are halfway through college, or even those awaiting graduation whose work opportunities are tied to their student visas.

Those who are already at Harvard would have to transfer to other American universities to remain in the US and retain their visas.

“I hope Harvard will stand for us and some solution can be worked out,” Ms Reddy says.

The university has said it is “fully committed to maintaining [its] ability to host our international students and scholars, who hail from more than 140 countries and enrich the University – and this nation – immeasurably”.

The move against Harvard has huge implications for the million or so international students in the US. And it follows a growing crackdown by the Trump administration on institutes of higher learning, especially those that witnessed major pro-Palestinian protests on campus.

Dozens of them are facing investigations, as the government attempts to overhaul their accreditation process and reshape the way they are run.

The White House first threatened to bar foreign students from Harvard in April, after the university refused to make changes to its hiring, admissions and teaching practices. And it also froze nearly $3bn in federal grants, which Harvard is challenging in court.

Still, Thursday’s announcement – which Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said came because they were allegedly “fostering violence” and “antisemitism” – left students reeling.

Chinese student Kat Xie, who is in her second year in a STEM programme, says she is “in shock”.

“I had almost forgotten about [the earlier threat of a ban] and then Thursday’s announcement suddenly came.”

But she adds a part of her had expected “the worst”, so she had spent the last few weeks seeking professional advice on how to continue staying in the US.

But the options are “all very troublesome and expensive”, she says.

Harvard has been given 72 hours to comply with a list of demands to have an “opportunity” to regain its ability to enrol these students, including providing the government with all disciplinary records for non-immigrant students enrolled at Harvard over the past five years.

Noem also demanded Harvard turn over electronic records, videos, or audio of “illegal” and “dangerous or violent” activity by non-immigrant students on campus.

But the Trump administration also appeared to single China out when Noem also accused Harvard of “coordinating with the Chinese Communist Party” in her statement.

Beijing responded on Friday by criticising the “politicisation” of education.

It said the move would “only harm the image and international standing of the United States”, urging for the ban to be withdrawn “as soon as possible”.

“None of this is what we’ve signed up for,” says 20-year-old Abdullah Shahid Sial from Pakistan, a very vocal student activist.

A junior majoring in applied mathematics and economics, he was one of only two Pakistani undergraduate students admitted to Harvard in 2023.

He was also the first person in his family to study abroad. It was a “massive” moment for them, he says.

The situation he now finds himself in, he adds, is “ridiculous and dehumanising”.

Both Ms Reddy and Mr Sial said foreign students apply to go to college in the US because they see it as a welcoming place where opportunities abound.

“You have so much to learn from different cultures, from people of different backgrounds. And everybody really valued that,” Ms Reddy says, adding that this had been her experience at Harvard so far.

But Mr Sial says that has changed more recently and foreign students no longer feel welcome – the Trump administration has revoked hundreds of student visas and even detained students on campuses across the country. Many of them were linked to pro-Palestinian protests.

Now, Mr Sial adds, there is a lot of fear and uncertainty in the international student community.

That has only been exacerbated by the latest development. A postgraduate student from South Korea says she is having second thoughts about going home for the summer because she fears she won’t be able to re-enter the US.

She did not want to reveal her name because she is worried that might affect her chances of staying in the US. She is one year away from graduating.

She said she had a gruelling semester and had been looking forward to “reuniting with friends and family” – until now.

The anxiety among foreign students is palpable, says Jiang Fangzhou, who is reading public administration in Harvard Kennedy School.

“We might have to leave immediately but people have their lives here – apartments, leases, classes and community. These are not things you can walk away from overnight.”

And the ban doesn’t just affect current students, the 30-year-old New Zealander says.

“Think about the incoming ones, people who already turned down offers from other schools and planned their lives around Harvard. They’re totally stuck now.”

It’s 2:30am.

Inside the Kremlin walls I’m wandering alone through the vast grounds trying – and failing – to find my way out.

I spot a checkpoint, approach and show my passport.

“Nyet vykhoda!” [“No exit!”] replies the guard. He points in the opposite direction.

I walk back and, eventually, come to another checkpoint.

“No way out!” says the sentry.

I’m lost. Inside the Kremlin. In the dead of night.

It’s like being in a John le Carré novel.

It’s been quite an evening. I arrived at 5pm. Along with a small group of journalists, I’d been invited to “an event with President Putin”. What kind of event? To begin with the Kremlin wouldn’t say. Eventually we were told Vladimir Putin would be taking questions.

Eight hours later, the president strode into the Malachite Hall of the Grand Kremlin Palace and sat at a desk.

But there’d been a change of plan. No press conference. No questions. Instead, live on Russian TV, Putin delivered a statement in which he proposed direct talks between Russia and Ukraine in Istanbul.

Event over, I walk out of the Kremlin Palace but take a wrong turn. Finally, I locate the correct exit and, bleary-eyed, take a taxi home.

This was the start of what has turned out to be a real rollercoaster of a fortnight. What began with a late-night Kremlin statement continued with peace talks in Turkey and then a two-hour telephone call between Putin and Donald Trump.

But, at the end of it, are we any closer to peace in Ukraine?

It doesn’t feel like it.

Although there is talk about more talks, and of а possible future “memorandum” on a “possible future peace”, it all sounds rather vague.

For now, the fighting goes on.

Russia is still refusing to sign up to an unconditional comprehensive ceasefire. It has no intention of returning any of the Ukrainian land it has seized, occupied and claims to have annexed. On the contrary: it’s pushing for more.

Right now, the Ukraine peace process resembles being lost in the Kremlin late at night.

It’s hard to see the exit.

And yet the past two weeks have revealed a lot.

First, how Russia neutralises potential threats and pressure points.

Kremlin critics would put this another way: how Russia plays for time.

On 10 May (a few hours before I got lost in the Kremlin), after a phone call with Donald Trump, European leaders had issued an ultimatum to President Putin: agree to an unconditional long-term ceasefire in Ukraine in two days or face crushing new sanctions.

Since March the Trump administration has been calling on Russia and Ukraine to accept a 30-day comprehensive ceasefire. Kyiv agreed. Moscow hasn’t.

The Kremlin leader sidestepped the European ultimatum with his counter proposal of direct talks in Turkey. The idea was greeted with scepticism in Ukraine and across Europe. But it was enough to placate Trump and convince him Russia was serious about wanting peace. He was all for the talks. “Crushing” new sanctions were delayed.

Ahead of the Istanbul meeting on 16 May, President Trump gave the impression that Vladimir Putin might attend. The Kremlin leader did not, sending instead a comparatively low-level delegation that once more rejected the idea of a long-term ceasefire. But, again, the modest results of the talks were sufficient to persuade the US president that progress was being made.

Then came the Trump-Putin phone call on 19 May.

By the end of it, Russia had still not agreed to an immediate comprehensive cessation of hostilities. Instead, according to President Trump, “Russia and Ukraine will immediately start negotiations toward a ceasefire and, more importantly, an END to the War”.

But Moscow is already casting doubt on whether it would sign any future peace treaty with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. For a year now the Russian authorities have been attempting to delegitimise Ukraine’s president since the expiry of his presidential term. However, Ukraine’s Constitution prohibits the holding of elections in wartime.

And the reason for martial law in Ukraine is Russia’s invasion.

“Would Russia sit down and sign a peace agreement with President Zelensky?” I asked Russia’s foreign minister Sergei Lavrov on Friday.

“You’re putting the cart before the horse,” Mr Lavrov replied. “First we need to have a deal. When it’s agreed, then we will decide. But, as President Putin has said many times, President Zelensky does not have legitimacy… Probably the best option would be new elections…”

The Russian media has concluded that, after two weeks of diplomacy, Moscow has strengthened its hand.

“Russia has won the latest round of global poker,” declared the Izvestia newspaper last week.

“Donald Trump’s stance couldn’t be more advantageous to Moscow,” wrote Kommersant. “In effect he backed Russia’s position of ‘Talks first, ceasefire later’ and refused to strengthen sanctions against Russia.”

A social scientist told Kommersant: “Donald Trump, at least for now, is our ideological partner on certain issues. His views are much closer to Russia’s than to Europe’s.”

And the ultra pro-Kremlin Komsomolskaya Pravda had this message for European leaders:

“You were warned. Don’t wave threats and ultimatums in the face of the bear. Don’t try to impose conditions in talks that have nothing to do with you.

“Just sit in the lobby and breathe in the smell of the new world order.”

Moscow’s confidence is also fuelled by the belief that, in Ukraine, it holds the initiative on the battlefield.

Back in 2023 Donald Trump had promised that, if he won the presidency, “we will have the horrible war between Russia and Ukraine settled… I’ll get them both. I know Zelensky, I know Putin. It’ll be done within 24 hours, you watch”.

Trump has been in the Oval Office for more than four months now, but the “horrible war” goes on.

On rare occasions, he has publicly rebuked the Kremlin and threatened further sanctions. Last month he said: “…there was no reason for Putin to be shooting missiles into civilian areas, cities and towns, over the last few days. It makes me think that maybe he doesn’t want to stop the war, he’s just tapping me along, and has to be dealt with differently, through ‘Banking’ or ‘Secondary Sanctions?'”

But there’s been no follow-through. The US president appears reluctant to ratchet up the pressure on the Kremlin, instead signalling to Moscow that he’s keen to reboot US-Russia relations.

Following the presidents’ telephone conversation, Putin’s foreign policy advisor Yuri Ushakov, who’d sat in on the call, told journalists: “Trump spoke rather emotionally about the prospects for [bilateral] relations. Trump sees Russia as one of America’s most important partners in trade and economic matters.”

President Trump seems determined to push on with his rapprochement with Russia, whatever happens on Ukraine.

And Moscow senses that.

“President Trump does not link continued US-Russia dialogue to the Ukraine peace process,” was a headline in the Russian government paper Rossiyskaya Gazeta this week.

That doesn’t mean the Kremlin has headed off the danger of additional restrictions completely. The US Senate has threatened tough new sanctions against Russia if Moscow doesn’t get serious about diplomacy.

Up to this point the Kremlin has been able to deflect or to sidestep whatever pressure it’s come under to make compromises and concessions regarding its war on Ukraine.

It seems confident it will continue to do so.

Eight people have been found guilty after US reality TV star Kim Kardashian was robbed at gunpoint of millions of dollars’ worth of jewellery in Paris nearly a decade ago.

The four who took part in the heist were given sentences of up to eight years, mostly suspended, and they will not return to prison because of time served. Two people were acquitted.

Nine men and one woman were accused of carrying out or aiding the armed burglary of $10m (£7.55m) worth of jewellery, including a diamond engagement ring, during Paris Fashion Week in 2016.

“The crime was the most terrifying experience of my life, leaving a lasting impact on me and my family,” Kardashian said in a statement after the verdicts.

“While I’ll never forget what happened, I believe in the power of growth and accountability and pray for healing for all.”

Kardashian’s lawyers said in a statement she “looks forward to putting this tragic episode behind her, as she continues working to improve the criminal justice system on behalf of victims, the innocent and the incarcerated seeking to redeem themselves”.

On the night between 3 and 4 October 2016, as Kardashian was in her room at the Hotel de Pourtales in central Paris, a gang of men made their way into the building.

DNA evidence for Aomar Ait Khedache, 69, and Yunice Abbas, 71, placed them at the scene of the crime, and the two have admitted their involvement.

Khedache, who is now disabled, deaf and mute, was sentenced to eight years in prison on Friday, five of which were suspended.

Due to time already served, he will not return to prison – like all the others convicted.

Abbas, who has Parkinson’s disease and recently underwent heart surgery, was sentenced to seven years jail with five suspended, alongside Didier Dubreucq.

The fourth member of the robbery gang, Marc-Alexandre Boyer, 35, was given the same sentence.

With most of those convicted now in their 60s and 70s, the group has been dubbed the “Grandpa robbers” by French media.

But since the beginning of the trial in April, both prosecutors and civil parties have vigorously pushed back against notions the robbers were harmless.

Prosecutor general Anne-Dominique Merville had urged the jury not to be swayed by their age and health conditions, describing the defendants as “seasoned robbers” when they carried out the heist.

But the sentences handed out on Friday were much lower than prosecutors were seeking.

“The sentences are quite lenient; I understand that you understand that you have caused harm,” Judge David De Pas told the defendants as he delivered the verdicts.

He said that “the state of health of the main protagonists ethically prohibits incarcerating anyone”.

He added: “It would have been unjust to take you to prison this evening.”

Kardashian told the court earlier this month that she forgave Khedache after receiving a letter of apology from him.

“I do appreciate the letter for sure. I do appreciate it, I forgive you,” she said.

During the trial, Kardashian recounted the events of that evening.

She said she retired to her hotel room at around 03:00 when two masked gunmen wearing police uniforms burst in, dragging with them the hotel’s receptionist who had been bound and gagged.

She managed to call her bodyguard before one of the men then took her phone off her.

They snatched her engagement ring, which had been lying on the bedside table, and then “picked me up off the bed and grabbed me and took me down the hallway to look for more jewellery”.

One of the men held a gun to her back and she was thrown onto the bed, her hands bound with zip ties.

At this point, she told the concierge: “Please translate to them that I have babies, I have to make it home.”

One of the men then pulled her towards him, which opened her robe, under which she wasn’t wearing anything.

She told the court she was afraid she was going to be raped, but then her legs were tied together.

A gun was pointed at her and she said she believed she was going to die.

The robbers then took the jewellery and dashed out of the suite, leaving Kardashian in the bathroom.

After managing to free herself with the help of her friend and stylist Simone Harouche, she ran out onto the balcony to call for help.

Kardashian said she was worried the men would return, and that when Parisian police turned up, she couldn’t trust them because the robbers had also been wearing police uniforms.

Several people have suffered life-threatening injuries in a knife attack at the main railway station in the German city of Hamburg, police have said.

The city’s fire department said 17 people were injured in the attack, while police said they did not yet have a valid figure for the number of victims.

Hamburg Police said officers arrested a 39-year-old German woman at the scene as they carried out a major operation.

The attack took place at the city’s Central Station at about 18:00 local time (16:00 GMT) on Friday.

A spokesman for the Hamburg fire department told AFP news agency 17 people had been injured and that some of the injuries were life-threatening.

In a post on X, Hamburg Police said several people who were hurt had sustained life-threatening injuries.

Speaking to the press outside the station, police said they believe the suspect acted alone and did not have a “political motive”.

Rather, they believe she may have been “in a state of mental distress,” Florian Abbenseth, a police spokesperson, told reporters.

The attack happened between platforms 13 and 14 – which are accessible via a busy main road – while a train was on one of the platforms.

Some of the victims were treated inside trains, according to reports.

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said the attack was “shocking” and thanked the emergency services on the ground for “their rapid assistance”.

German rail operator Deutsche Bahn said four platforms at the station were closed and some services would experience delays and diversions.

Pictures from the scene show a number of emergency service personnel and vehicles on the ground, and barriers that seem to be hiding the injured from public view.

One photograph used by German media shows a man being taken away by paramedics on a stretcher.

A video on social media appears to show the suspect with her hands behind her back being escorted out of the station platform by officers who put her in a police vehicle.

Hamburg Central Station is one of Germany’s busiest transport hubs, with more than 550,000 travellers per day according to its website. It is often crowded during Friday rush hour.

This is the latest in a series of violent attacks in Germany in recent months.

In January, a two-year-old boy and a 41-year-old man were killed in a stabbing in a park in Aschaffenburg, with several others hurt.

A Spanish tourist was stabbed just a month later at Berlin’s Holocaust Memorial.

Last December, six people were killed and hundreds were injured after a car drove into a crowd at a Christmas market in the eastern city of Magdeburg.

The suspects in these previous attacks were migrants, which has led Germany to tighten border control checks and saw immigration become a key issue for voters during the country’s federal elections in February.

Fans of viral Labubu dolls have reacted angrily online after its maker pulled the toys from all UK stores following reports of customers fighting over them.

Pop Mart, which makes the monster bag charms, told the BBC it had paused selling them in all 16 of its shops until June to “prevent any potential safety issues”.

Labubu fan Victoria Calvert said she witnessed chaos in the Stratford store in London. “It was just getting ridiculous to be in that situation where people were fighting and shouting and you felt scared.”

The soft toys became a TikTok trend after being worn by celebrities like Rihanna and Dua Lipa. Now some retail experts are warning the stop on stock will only heighten demand.

Labubu is a quirky monster character created by Hong Kong-born artist Kasing Lung, and popularised through a collaboration with toy store Pop Mart.

Since gaining celebrity status they’ve gone viral as a fashion accessory.

In the UK, prices can range from £13.50 to £50, with rare editions going for hundreds of pounds on resale sites such as Vinted and eBay.

Pop Mart said it was working on a fairer system for when the toys return to its shelves.

But fans on social media were not happy at the decision to pull the dolls.

“It’s your fault for drip feeding stock to us that’s caused this hype,” one commented on Pop Mart’s Instagram post.

Others vented their anger at resellers.

“Buyers are re-selling them for £100 for one Labubu, which is unacceptable. How come they get to buy and other people can’t?!” one said.

“Sooo upset that resellers ruin everything,” replied another.

Victoria said when she arrived at the store she met other customers who had been outside since 03:00 BST and others that had camped overnight.

“When I got there there were big crowds of people hovering around the shop and there was this really negative vibe,” she said.

“People were shouting, basically saying there were no more Labubus left. I even witnessed a fight between a worker and a customer.”

She said she left after feeling unsafe. “It was a pretty bad experience, it was really scary,” she said.

The store told the BBC: “Although no Pop Mart employees have been injured, we’ve chosen to act early and prevent any potential safety issues from occurring.”

Victoria said “it’s probably for the best” that Pop Mart paused in-store sales.

She believes some people at the front of the queue were resellers because “as soon as they got their ticket, apparently they were selling it for £150 and the ticket allowed you to get a Labubu.”

Jaydee, a marketing executive who posts Labubu unboxing videos on TikTok, blames resellers for ruining the fun of the Labubu trend.

“I’ve lived in London my whole life and there is a resale crowd who do this,” she told the BBC.

“It’s really unfortunate but for the real fans this is great news and the right decision,” she said. “Now I can go into Pop Mart without having to queue.”

Susannah Streeter, head of money and markets at Hargreaves Lansdown, said Pop Mart’s restricting stock and selling the dolls in blind boxes had led to the fan frenzy.

“But the big crowds building on stock drop days have clearly become a costly headache to manage,” she said.

“Out-of-control crowds could affect ultimately the brand’s playful and fun appeal which is likely to be why sales have been paused,” she said.

She warned the suspension would probably lead to demand building up and more attempts to buy the dolls online – but they sell out within seconds.

“It could also push more fans to resale sites, but counterfeit Labubus are being sold, so there is a risk customers could be duped into buying fakes.”

Sarah Johnson, the founder of consultancy Flourish Retail, said suspending sales was “a strategic decision”.

Collectible brands like Labubu use scarcity as “a powerful tool”, she added.

Pop Mart told the BBC there had been large queues with some fans arriving the night before and said this was “not the kind of customer experience it aimed to offer”.

“Labubu will return to physical stores in June, and we are currently working on a new release mechanism that is better structured and more equitable for everyone involved.”

South Africa’s President Cyril Ramaphosa and his delegation went to Washington this week hoping for a boost and a reset after months of acrimony with the Donald Trump administration.

Instead they got brutal, high-stakes diplomacy, peppered with insults, and played out to millions across the world in real time. It was like a painful job review carried out by a boss on a loud hailer.

Praised by many for remaining composed and reconciliatory in the face of an exercised Trump, while also criticised by some for not responding more forcefully to Tump’s accusations, reality awaits Ramaphosa back in South Africa where he and his African National Congress (ANC) face pressures on multiple fronts.

The ANC has been in an uneasy coalition – or government of national unity (GNU) – with 10 other parties for almost a year, forced into sharing power after dismal results in national elections.

There have been public fights between parties inside and outside the coalition over controversial land and healthcare legislation and attempts to push a budget through parliament which would hike taxes for the most vulnerable. That almost saw the end of the coalition earlier this year.

The economy is stagnating, crime rates are sky-high as is corruption and unemployment, public services are largely dysfunctional and infrastructure is crumbling. There also seems to be very little accountability for those who break the law.

This has meant uncomfortable and intense questions about Ramaphosa’s policies by various political parties, as well as civil society.

Meanwhile the ANC itself is unstable, as opposing factions begin jockeying for position ahead of a crucial elective conference in 2027 which is likely to see a new party leader emerge.

At the same time, Ramaphosa’s loudest critics, such as the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) leader Julius Malema – who featured prominently in Trump’s discredited dossier of “evidence” that genocide was being committed against white Afrikaners in South Africa – as well as former President Jacob Zuma, have been getting louder still.

So Ramaphosa was looking for a trade deal, desperately needing the business and stability this would bring to South Africa to stimulate real and lasting economic growth and put people back to work.

Ramaphosa said as much to Trump on Wednesday – that US investment was needed to help tackle the joblessness that was a key factor in the country’s high crime rate.

The risk that the Agoa trade deal with the US may not be renewed later this year because of Trump’s isolationist worldview have made this all the more urgent. This gave South Africa duty-free access to the US market for certain goods, and is credited with having boosted South Africa’s fragile economy.

But the talk of trade was overshadowed by Trump’s Oval Office ambush over discredited claims that white South Africans were being persecuted.

However, there may still be a silver lining for Ramaphosa, and by extension his party, at least domestically.

Yes, the to-do list is impossibly long, and yes the pressure for the South African president to hold a coalition and party together that is messy and deeply uncomfortable will be waiting for him on his return. And yes the ANC is in the weakest position since it came to power 30 years ago. But it’s still in power, even if it’s sharing it.

Crucially, Ramaphosa’s conduct with Trump reminded South Africans of his diplomatic pedigree, and of his importance to the country’s rules-based order.

He is, along with Nelson Mandela, South Africa’s greatest ever alliance builder and facilitator. He was at the nerve centre of negotiating an end to the racist system of apartheid in the early 1990s, and in keeping South Africa together when many had prophesised its fatal fracture. He has stayed calm, smiled and faced down far more bitter opponents before.

More recently, he steered the country out of the bleak “state capture” years of the Zuma administration and then through the difficult Covid lockdowns. And also kept the ANC on its feet – just – when it hobbled home after the 2024 elections. He then he took a wounded ANC into coalition politics and survived as president despite opposition from within his own party.

“I believe if a snap poll was done today, we would see his personal ratings go up,” says South African editor and founder of explain.co.za Verashni Pillay.

“He excels in these high-pressure situations. He has this wealth of negotiating experience in arguably far more tense environments where there has been actual blood on the streets and imminent civil war. That’s why you saw him looking particularly relaxed. He’s masterful at diffusing tension at key moments.”

Surveys have consistently referenced the Ramaphosa Effect – the most recent from the Social Research Foundation last month which suggests that without him, the ANC would haemorrhage support even more than it already has, despite equally consistent criticism of the South African president that he is too slow and indecisive in tackling the country’s biggest problems. To a large extent, that’s still the case.

But events this week, ostensibly meant to bully, ridicule and embarrass Ramaphosa around the world, actually reminded many South Africans of what he brings to the government and the country – a constant, stable and predictable centre.

• Fact-checking Trump’s Oval Office confrontation with Ramaphosa
• Ramaphosa keeps cool during Trump’s choreographed onslaught
• On the South African road incorrectly identified as a ‘burial site’ by Trump

“I think what happened in the Oval Office has reinforced the idea of ‘If not Ramaphosa then who?'” says Pillay.

In fact, some think that what South Africans saw in the White House will actually strengthen the GNU – backed as it is by big business, which will ultimately reassure South Africans who were watching the drama.

“The meeting displayed a united front from South Africa, a public-private performance that the country has been promoting for over a decade. This for the GNU is great political theatre that translates into political capital,” says Itumeleng Makgetla, a political analyst at the University of Pretoria.

And indeed, the optics were all there. Ramaphosa facilitated a passionate rebuttal of the worst of Trump’s misinformation through interventions from his partner in the GNU – Democratic Alliance (DA) leader John Steenhuisen – and one of South Africa’s wealthiest people, Johann Rupert – both white South Africans. If Trump understood the power of performance, so too did Ramaphosa.

“I do think the GNU comes out of this looking quite strong,” says Pillay. “The GNU happened at a really good moment for South Africa ahead of this crisis. If it was just the ANC government in the room, [Ramaphosa’s arguments] wouldn’t have landed. But being able to say that we have these parties that represent white people in government is such a strong statement.”

So what does this all mean for those on the extreme flanks of South African politics and discourse?

After the lights dimmed, Julius Malema was shown by Trump singing a song that some say calls for the murder of white farmers, although a court has ruled it is just political rhetoric. Might he reap domestic political capital from being thrust into the global spotlight?

Yes, say some. “For those in the country that are quite tired of the diatribe from President Trump and the US… this will likely strengthen Malema [and] parties like the MK because it’ll basically be saying: ‘Look, surely we can’t be bending over backwards for such individuals and lies,'” says South African political analyst Prof Kagiso “TK” Pooe from the University of the Witwatersrand in Johannesburg.

But Pillay disagrees.

“This will not translate into political power for Malema. Most of his top leaders have already defected to Jacob Zuma’s MK party. Things for the EFF were not looking good, even before Wednesday. Julius Malema’s brand of politics, of wanting everything to burn down, of blaming white people for everything… is entertaining but it hasn’t won votes because most South Africans don’t want their country to be burnt down.”

Having said that, there is a sizeable group of South Africans who want faster and more radical change – the election results for the MK party, a breakaway faction of the ANC, shows that.

And what of Afriforum – the Afrikaner interest group that tugged at the ears of Trump’s supporters for a number of years by lobbying and spreading right-wing propaganda, hoping to be heard?

Trump’s discredited audio-visual presentation of what he said was the systematic extermination of white Afrikaner farmers was the high-water mark of their lobbying efforts, amplified as they were in the Oval Office.

Yet, despite extraordinarily high levels of violent crime in South Africa, many are angry at the group. “In a way, I think a lot of South Africans – even those that don’t support the ANC – can finally see that there are certain people that are not for South Africa. Those people have been singled out and that’s a positive in a way,” says Prof Pooe.

“We know a large number of Afrikaans speakers are people of colour,” says Pillay. “Afriforum dealt a severe blow to the cause of Afrikaners in South Africa by racialising it.”

Afriforum’s Kallie Kriel has defended the group’s conduct on a local television channel, Newzroom Afrika: “It wasn’t Afriforum chanting genocidal calls for someone to be killed. If President Ramaphosa went there to tell the Americans that they don’t know what’s going on, they will see that as an insult because they have an embassy in South Africa and a State Department and intelligence services,” he said.

As the dust settles from Wednesday’s drama, Ramaphosa will be watching and calculating. He has consistently been at the centre of key inflection points in recent South African history when some kind of a rupture has occurred and the country has had to change course dramatically. He reads these moments so well.

Wednesday’s upheaval in Trump’s White House may not have been the economic and diplomatic reset with the US that was hoped, but could yet mark a dramatic reset for Ramaphosa and the GNU with the South African public.

• South Africa crime statistics debunk ‘white genocide’ claims – minister
• How Trump-Ramaphosa confrontation went down in South Africa
• Is there a genocide of white South Africans as Trump claims?
• Do Afrikaners want to take Trump up on his South African refugee offer?

Walk into any Starbucks in South Korea right now, and there are some names you definitely won’t be hearing.

Six to be exact – and they happen to be the names of the candidates running in the upcoming presidential race.

That’s because Starbucks has temporarily blocked customers who are ordering drinks from using these names, which would be called out by baristas.

The company said it needed to “maintain political neutrality during election season”, adding that this would be lifted after the election on 3 June.

South Korean businesses and celebrities usually strive to be seen as neutral. But it has become more crucial in recent months, as political turmoil triggered by former president Yoon Suk Yeol left the country more divided than ever.

Now, as South Korea gears up to pick its new president following Yoon’s impeachment, even the most mundane things can become politicised – a lesson Starbucks has learnt the hard way.

In recent months, it has seen an increasing number of customers ordering drinks through their app and keying in phrases such as “arrest Yoon Suk Yeol” or “[opposition leader] Lee Jae-myung is a spy” as their nicknames.

Starbucks baristas had little choice but to yell out these names once the drinks were ready for collection.

“Our goal is to make sure every customer has a great experience in our coffeehouses,” Starbucks said in a statement about its new move to ban the six presidential candidates’ names.

“To help with that, we sometimes block certain phrases that could be misunderstood by our employees or customers — like names of political candidates with messages of support or opposition during election season to maintain neutrality.”

But this marks the first time it has banned the names of all the candidates running in an election. Besides Lee, the other names are Kim Moon-soo, Lee Jun-seok, Kwon Young-kook, Hwang Kyo-ahn and Song Jin-ho.

Some think the coffee giant is taking things a bit too far.

“I think people are being too sensitive. What if your real name is the same as a candidate’s?” said 33-year-old Jang Hye-mi.

Ji Seok-bin, a 27-year-old who is a regular at Starbucks, said he thought the rule was “too trivial”, though he said he understood the logic behind it given the country’s heightened political tensions.

“After [Yoon’s impeachment] I don’t really talk about politics anymore. It feels like the ideological divide has grown so much that conversations often turn into arguments.”

Starbucks is not alone. The country’s biggest search engine, Naver, has disabled autocomplete and related search suggestions for candidates, as it usually does during election season.

A search on Google for Lee, who is widely tipped to win the election, yields phrases like “Lee Jae-myung trial” – a reference to the fact that he is currently embroiled in several criminal trials.

A search for the country’s conservative presidential candidate Kim Moon-soo brings up a related suggestion for “conversion”, as he is widely seen to have “converted” from being a fervent labour activist to a conservative politician.

Naver said it decided to do this to “provide more accurate and fair information during the election campaign”.

Celebrities and public figures are also being extra careful, as they are held to high standards of political impartiality. Even the clothes they wear during election time would be highly scrutinised.

Wearing colours like blue and red – which represent the country’s liberal Democratic Party (DP) and conservative People’s Power Party (PPP) respectively – has in the past been enough to trigger online backlash.

Sometimes, even a baseball cap or necktie alone is enough to spark accusations of partisan support.

During the last presidential election in 2022, Kim Hee-chul of K-pop group Super Junior was accused of being a PPP supporter when he was spotted wearing red slippers and a pink mask.

Last year, Shinji, lead vocalist of the popular trio Koyote, posted a black and white workout photo on Instagram a day before the general election, with the caption that she “made the photo black and white… [after] seeing the colour of my sweatpants.”

“Funny and sad at the same time,” she added.

Some celebrities go even further, deliberately wearing a mix of red and blue.

One makeup artist with over a decade of experience working with K-pop stars and actors told the BBC that during elections, styling teams steer clear of politically symbolic colours.

“We usually stick to neutral tones like black, white, or grey,” said the make-up artist, who declined to be named.

Celebrities even have to be careful when striking a pose, she added.

Flashing the peace sign for a photo? That could be read as the number two – and thus an endorsement of a political candidate. In South Korea, election candidates are each assigned a number.

Dr Cho Jin-man, of Duksung Women’s University, says it is “important to be able to talk about different things without crossing the line, and to be able to recognise and understand differences”.

But with so much division in the country, he adds that many are choosing to “remain silent to remain politically neutral”.

In 2010, Indian filmmaker Neeraj Ghaywan made a striking debut at Cannes with Masaan – a poignant tale of love, loss, and the oppressive grip of the caste system, set against the holy city of Varanasi.

The main lead in the film (Vicky Kaushal) performed a job assigned to one of the lowest castes in the rigid Hindu caste hierarchy – cremating dead bodies along the Ganges. Masaan played in the “Un Certain Regard” section at the festival, which looks at films with unusual styles and or that tells non-traditional stories. It won the FIPRESCI and the Avenir – also known as the Promising Future Prize – prizes.

Since then, Ghaywan was in search of a story about India’s marginalised communities. Five years ago in the middle of the pandemic, a friend, Somen Mishra – the head of creative development at Dharma Productions in Mumbai – recommended an opinion piece called Taking Amrit Home, published in The New York Times. It was written by the journalist Basharat Peer.

What drew Ghaywan to Peer’s article was that it tracked the journeys – sometimes of hundreds or even thousands of miles – taken by millions of Indians who travelled on foot to get home during the nation’s strict lockdown during the pandemic. But he was also drawn to the core of the story, which focused on the childhood friendship between two men – one Muslim and the other Dalit (formerly known as the untouchables).

Ghaywan’s new film Homebound, inspired by Peer’s article, premiered at Cannes Film Festival’s “Un Certain Regard” section this week, ending with a nine-minute long standing ovation.

Many in the audience were seen wiping away tears. Ghaywan gave the lead producer Karan Johar a tight hug, while he and his young lead actors – Ishan Khatter, Vishal Jethwa and Janhvi Kapoor – came together in a larger group hug later.

Since this was the biggest South Asian event at Cannes 2025, other film luminaries showed up to support the screening. India’s Mira Nair (who won the Camera d’Or in 1988 for Salaam Bombay) leaned across two rows of seats to reach out to Johar. Pakistan’s Siam Sadiq (who won the Un Certain Regard Jury Prize in 2022 for Joyland) was seen making a reel of the mood inside the theatre that he later posted on Instagram.

The film also received backing from a rather unexpected quarter. Its main producer is Johar, the leading Indian commercial filmmaker (known for blockbuster films like Kabhi Kushi Kabhie Gham and the recent Rocky Aur Rani Kii Prem Kahani). But last month Martin Scorsese stepped in as the executive producer after he was introduced to the film by the French producer Mélita Toscan du Plantier.

This is the first time Scorsese has stepped in to support a contemporary Indian film. Until now he has only backed restored classic Indian films.

“I have seen Neeraj’s first film Masaan in 2015 and I loved it, so when Mélita Toscan du Plantier sent me the project of his second film, I was curious,” Scorsese said in a statement last month.

“I loved the story, the culture and was willing to help. Neeraj has made a beautifully crafted film that’s a significant contribution to Indian cinema.”

According to Ghaywan, Scorsese helped nurture the film by mentoring the team through a number of rounds of edits. But he also tried to understand the cultural context which helped the exchange of ideas.

The context was important to Ghaywan, since he had been trying to capture the right spirit of the subject he was tackling.

The film’s two lead characters – Mohammed Shoaib Ali (Khatter) and Chandan Kumar (Jethwa) have shared histories – the weight of centuries of discrimination at the hand of upper caste Hindus, but also similar goals to rise above the barriers imposed on them – in this case by joining their state’s police force.

Ghaywan has openly shared that he was born into a Dalit family – a reality that has cast a long shadow over his life, haunting him since childhood.

As an adult, he went on to study business administration and then worked in a corporate job in Gurgaon outside the capital, Delhi. He said he never faced discrimination but was acutely aware of his position in the caste hierarchy and still lives with the weight of where he was born.

“I am the only acknowledged person from the community who is there behind and in the front of camera in all of Hindi cinema history. That is the kind of gap we are living with,” he says.

A majority of India lives in its villages, but Hindi filmmakers rarely talk about bringing the villages to their stories, says Ghaywan. What also offends him is that marginalised communities are only talked about as statistics.

“What if we pick one person out of that statistic and see what happened in their lives?” he says. “How did they get to this point? I felt it was worth narrating a story.”

When he sat down to write the script, he tried to fictionalise the backstories of the two protagonists until the point that they took the journey during Covid – which is the beginning of Peer’s article.

As a child in Hyderabad, Ghaywan had a close Muslim friend, Asghar, so he felt deeply connected to Ali and Kumar’s lived experiences in the film.

“What appealed to me more was the humanity behind it, the interpersonal, the interiority of the relationship,” he says, that took him back to his childhood in Hyderabad.

In Ghaywan’s hands, Homebound has the wonderful glow and warmth of the winter sun. It is gorgeously shot in India’s rural North, capturing simple joys and the daily struggles of its Muslim and Dalit protagonists. The two men, the woman one of them loves (Kapoor and Jethwa both portray Dalit characters), and their interactions offer much to reflect on and understand.

For the most part, Ghaywan’s script keeps viewers on the edge. Back in 2019, none of us truly grasped the scale of the coming pandemic – but the film subtly foreshadows a shift, reminding us that a crisis can cut across class, caste, and ethnicity, touching everyone.

Homebound’s seamless blend of fiction and reality has produced a powerful public document, grounding its characters in authenticity. More than just moving its audience to tears, the film is bound to spark meaningful conversations – and, one hopes, a deeper understanding of those who live in the shadows.

Billy Joel has cancelled all forthcoming tour dates after being diagnosed with a rare brain condition.

The 76-year-old singer-songwriter – known for classic hits like Piano Man, Uptown Girl and We Didn’t Start the Fire – is receiving “excellent care” and is “fully committed to prioritising his health”, a statement said.

He has Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus (NPH), which is caused by a build-up of fluid in the brain and causes problems with his hearing, vision and balance.

After being told by doctors to stop performing live, he has called off 17 dates in 2025 and 2026, including stadium shows at Murrayfield in Edinburgh and Anfield in Liverpool next summer.

“I’m sincerely sorry to disappoint our audience, and thank you for understanding,” he said.

A statement issued on his behalf said Joel’s condition “has been exacerbated by recent concert performances, leading to problems with hearing, vision and balance”.

It continued: “Under his doctor’s instructions, Billy is undergoing specific physical therapy and has been advised to refrain from performing during this recovery period.

“Billy is thankful for the excellent care he is receiving and is fully committed to prioritising his health.

“He is grateful for the support from fans during this time and looks forward to the day when he can once again take the stage.”

NPH is described by the NHS as an uncommon and poorly understood condition that most often affects people over the age of 60.

As well as the two UK dates, he had been due to perform in the US and Canada between this July and July 2026.

He had previously postponed shows in March because of a “medical condition”, which was not specified at the time, “to allow him to recover from recent surgery and to undergo physical therapy”.

Joel has regularly been on tour in recent years, and ended a record-breaking decade-long monthly residency at Madison Square Garden in New York last year.

He has been nominated for 23 Grammy Awards, winning five times, and was inducted into the Rock And Roll Hall Of Fame in 1999.

The resumption of the global trade war by Donald Trump comes after a period of relative calm.

But the US president’s threat of a 50% tariff on all goods from the European Union in a week’s time suggests the trade war tensions were merely on hold.

They have now resumed in earnest, alongside market uncertainty, and social media diplomacy.

It indicates significant volatility in the coming weeks, ahead of a crucial G7 summit in Canada next month.

The crux of what is happening right now is that after the US opted to row back on its trade-stopping tariff conflict with China, most of the rest of the world, especially key US allies, slowed up on their own negotiations with the US. Allies would not expect to be treated worse by the US than China.

Friday’s intervention by President Trump is much worse that what was considered the worst-case scenario – a 20% tariff rate on the EU in early July at the end of the 90-day pause.

As his Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent openly admitted, these threats are designed to “light a fire” under such stalled talks.

Many in the EU, and other countries such as Japan, believe the US administration is bluffing, and that it backed down against China in the face of rising inflation and market volatility, and will inevitably do so again.

So the scene is now set for an impasse or perhaps the EU to reinstate its own paused retaliation, while the rest of the world, apart from China and the UK, watches on.

The UK’s trade deals with both sides insulate the British economy to some extent, but full resumption of a transatlantic tariff war would cause a trade shock that would be difficult to escape.

Warheads raining down from beyond the Earth’s atmosphere. Faster-than-sound cruise missiles striking US infrastructure. Sky-high nuclear blasts.

These are just some of the nightmarish scenarios that experts warn could come true if the US’s dated and limited defence systems were overwhelmed in a future high-tech attack.

Even a single, relatively small nuclear detonation hundreds of miles above the heads of Americans would create an electromagnetic pulse – or EMP – that would have apocalyptic results. Planes would fall out of the sky across the country. Everything from handheld electronics and medical devices to water systems would be rendered completely useless.

“We wouldn’t be going back 100 years,” said William Fortschen, an author and weapons researcher at Montreat College in North Carolina. “We’d lose it all, and we don’t know how to rebuild it. It would be the equivalent of us going back 1,000 years and having to start from scratch.”

In response to these hypothetical – but experts say quite possible – threats, US President Donald Trump has set his eyes on a “next generation” missile shield: the Golden Dome.

But while many experts agree that building such a system is necessary, its high cost and logistical complexity will make Trump’s mission to bolster America’s missile defences extremely challenging.

An executive order calling for the creation of what was initially termed the “Iron Dome for America” noted that the threat of next-generation weapons has “become more intense and complex” over time, a potentially “catastrophic” scenario for the US.

Patrycja Bazylczyk, a missile defence expert at the Washington DC-headquartered Center for Strategic and International Studies, told the BBC that existing systems are geared towards intercontinental ballistic missiles, or ICBMs, such as those used by North Korea. But powerful nations like Russia and China are also investing in newer technologies that could strike not just neighbours, but adversaries an ocean away.

Among the threats publicly identified by US defence officials are hypersonic weapons able to move faster than the speed of sound and fractional orbital bombardment systems – also called Fobs – that could deliver warheads from space.

Each – even in limited numbers – are deadly.

“The Golden Dome sort of re-orients our missile defence policy towards our great power competitors,” Ms Bazylczyk said. “Our adversaries are investing in long-range strike capabilities, including things that aren’t your typical missiles that we’ve been dealing with for years.”

The White House and defence officials have so far provided few concrete details about what the Golden Dome – which is still in its conceptual stages – would actually look like.

Speaking alongside Trump in the Oval Office on 20 May, defence secretary Pete Hegseth said only that the system will have multiple layers “across the land, sea and space, including space-based sensors and interceptors”.

Trump added that the system will be capable of intercepting missiles “even if they are launched from other sides of the world, and even if they are launched in space”, with various aspects of the programme based as far afield as Florida, Indiana and Alaska.

In previous testimony in Congress, the newly named overseer of the programme, Space Force General Michael Guetlein, said that the Golden Dome will build on existing systems that are largely aimed at traditional ICBMs. A new system would – add multiple layers that could also detect and defend against cruise missiles and other threats, including by intercepting them before they launch or at the various stages of their flight.

Currently, the US Missile Defence Agency largely relies on 44 ground-based interceptors based in Alaska and California, designed to combat a limited missile attack.

Experts have warned that the existing system is woefully inadequate if the US homeland were to be attacked by Russia and China, each of which has an expanded arsenal of hundreds of ICBMs and thousands of cruise missiles.

“[Current systems] were created for North Korea,” said Dr Stacie Pettyjohn, a defence expert at the Center for a New American Security. “It could never intercept a big arsenal like Russia’s, or even a much smaller one like China’s.”

The Congressional Research Office, or CBO, has said that “hundreds or thousands” of space-based platforms would be necessary to “provide even a minimal defence” against incoming missiles – a potentially enormously expensive proposition.

Trump first revealed his concept for the Golden Dome during a joint address to Congress in March, when he said that “Israel has it, other places have it, and the United States should have it too”.

The president was referring to Israel’s “Iron Dome” system, which the country has used to intercept rockets and missiles since 2011.

Israel’s Iron Dome, however, is designed to intercept shorter-range threats, while two other systems – known as David’s Sling and the Arrow – combat larger ballistic missiles such as those that have been fired by Iran and the Houthis in Yemen.

Ms Bazylczyk described the Iron Dome as geared towards “lower tier” threats, such as rockets fired from Gaza or southern Lebanon.

The Golden Dome would go beyond that, to detect longer range missiles as well, she said.

To accomplish that, she said it will need to combine different capabilities.

“And I’ll be looking out for the command and control system that can weave all of this together,” she said, noting that such a thing does not currently exist.

Creating that system will be an incredibly complicated – and costly – proposition.

In the Oval Office, Trump suggested that the Golden Dome could be completed by the end of his term, with a total cost of $175bn over time, including an initial investment of $25bn already earmarked for it.

His estimate is far out of sync with the CBO’s, which has put the potential price tag at $542bn over 20 years on the space-based systems alone. Experts have said the total cost could eventually soak up a large chunk of the massive US defence budget.

“I think that’s unrealistic,” said Dr Pettyjohn. “This is complicated, with multiple systems that need to be integrated together. Every one of those steps has its own risks, costs and schedules.”

“And going fast is going to add more cost and risk,” she added. “You’re likely to produce something that isn’t going to be as thoroughly evaluated… there are going to be failures along the way, and what you produce may need major overhauls.”

The creation of the Golden Dome has also sparked fears that it may lead to a new “arms race”, with US foes gearing up their own efforts to find ways to overwhelm or circumvent its defences.

Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson Mao Ning, for example, told reporters that the plan “heightens the risk of space becoming a battlefield”.

Those involved in researching worst-case scenarios and US defence policy downplay these concerns. Potential foes, they argue, are already investing heavily in offensive capabilities.

“The Golden Dome aims to change the strategic calculus of our adversaries,” said Ms Bazylczyk. “Improving homeland air and missile defences reduces the confidence of a potential attacker in achieving whatever objectives they seek.”

“It raises the threshold for them to engage in this attack,” she added. “And it contributes to overall deterrence.”

Even a partially completed Golden Dome, Mr Fortschen said, could prevent a nightmare scenario from taking place.

“I will breathe a lot easier,” he said. “We need that type of system. The Golden Dome is the answer.”

When Shreya Mishra Reddy was admitted to Harvard University in 2023, her parents were “ecstatic”.

It is “the ultimate school that anybody in India wants to get into,” she tells the BBC.

Now, with graduation around the corner, she has had to break the bad news to her family: she may not graduate in July from the executive leadership programme after the Trump administration moved to stop Harvard from enrolling international students “as a result of their failure to adhere to the law”.

“It has been very difficult for my family to hear. They’re still trying to process it,” she said.

Ms Reddy is one of around 6,800 international students at Harvard, who make up more than 27% of its enrolments this year. They are a crucial source of revenue for the Ivy League school. About a third of its foreign students are from China, and more than 700 are Indian, such as Ms Reddy.

All of them are now unsure of what to expect next. Harvard has called the move “unlawful”, which could lead to a legal challenge.

But that leaves the students’ futures in limbo, be it those who are waiting to enrol this summer, or are halfway through college, or even those awaiting graduation whose work opportunities are tied to their student visas.

Those who are already at Harvard would have to transfer to other American universities to remain in the US and retain their visas.

“I hope Harvard will stand for us and some solution can be worked out,” Ms Reddy says.

The university has said it is “fully committed to maintaining [its] ability to host our international students and scholars, who hail from more than 140 countries and enrich the University – and this nation – immeasurably”.

The move against Harvard has huge implications for the million or so international students in the US. And it follows a growing crackdown by the Trump administration on institutes of higher learning, especially those that witnessed major pro-Palestinian protests on campus.

Dozens of them are facing investigations, as the government attempts to overhaul their accreditation process and reshape the way they are run.

The White House first threatened to bar foreign students from Harvard in April, after the university refused to make changes to its hiring, admissions and teaching practices. And it also froze nearly $3bn in federal grants, which Harvard is challenging in court.

Still, Thursday’s announcement – which Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said came because they were allegedly “fostering violence” and “antisemitism” – left students reeling.

Chinese student Kat Xie, who is in her second year in a STEM programme, says she is “in shock”.

“I had almost forgotten about [the earlier threat of a ban] and then Thursday’s announcement suddenly came.”

But she adds a part of her had expected “the worst”, so she had spent the last few weeks seeking professional advice on how to continue staying in the US.

But the options are “all very troublesome and expensive”, she says.

Harvard has been given 72 hours to comply with a list of demands to have an “opportunity” to regain its ability to enrol these students, including providing the government with all disciplinary records for non-immigrant students enrolled at Harvard over the past five years.

Noem also demanded Harvard turn over electronic records, videos, or audio of “illegal” and “dangerous or violent” activity by non-immigrant students on campus.

But the Trump administration also appeared to single China out when Noem also accused Harvard of “coordinating with the Chinese Communist Party” in her statement.

Beijing responded on Friday by criticising the “politicisation” of education.

It said the move would “only harm the image and international standing of the United States”, urging for the ban to be withdrawn “as soon as possible”.

“None of this is what we’ve signed up for,” says 20-year-old Abdullah Shahid Sial from Pakistan, a very vocal student activist.

A junior majoring in applied mathematics and economics, he was one of only two Pakistani undergraduate students admitted to Harvard in 2023.

He was also the first person in his family to study abroad. It was a “massive” moment for them, he says.

The situation he now finds himself in, he adds, is “ridiculous and dehumanising”.

Both Ms Reddy and Mr Sial said foreign students apply to go to college in the US because they see it as a welcoming place where opportunities abound.

“You have so much to learn from different cultures, from people of different backgrounds. And everybody really valued that,” Ms Reddy says, adding that this had been her experience at Harvard so far.

But Mr Sial says that has changed more recently and foreign students no longer feel welcome – the Trump administration has revoked hundreds of student visas and even detained students on campuses across the country. Many of them were linked to pro-Palestinian protests.

Now, Mr Sial adds, there is a lot of fear and uncertainty in the international student community.

That has only been exacerbated by the latest development. A postgraduate student from South Korea says she is having second thoughts about going home for the summer because she fears she won’t be able to re-enter the US.

She did not want to reveal her name because she is worried that might affect her chances of staying in the US. She is one year away from graduating.

She said she had a gruelling semester and had been looking forward to “reuniting with friends and family” – until now.

The anxiety among foreign students is palpable, says Jiang Fangzhou, who is reading public administration in Harvard Kennedy School.

“We might have to leave immediately but people have their lives here – apartments, leases, classes and community. These are not things you can walk away from overnight.”

And the ban doesn’t just affect current students, the 30-year-old New Zealander says.

“Think about the incoming ones, people who already turned down offers from other schools and planned their lives around Harvard. They’re totally stuck now.”

Taylor Swift will not be drawn into the legal battle between Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni after a court summons for the pop star was withdrawn.

Baldoni and Lively co-starred in 2024 film It Ends With Us, but are now embroiled in a bitter legal dispute after she sued the actor and director, accusing him of sexual harassment and a smear campaign.

Baldoni’s lawyers had sent subpoenas to Swift and her legal team in an attempt to obtain messages between lawyers representing Lively and the singer, who are friends, Variety reported.

But the subpoena was dropped after Swift’s legal team objected that the legal order amounted to an “unwarranted fishing expedition”, Variety said.

Lively’s spokesperson said they were “pleased” the subpoena had been withdrawn.

“We supported the efforts of Taylor’s team to quash these inappropriate subpoenas directed to her counsel and we will continue to stand up for any third party who is unjustly harassed or threatened in the process,” they said.

Earlier this month, Swift’s representatives told the BBC she was being brought into a legal row to create “tabloid clickbait”.

It was originally reported that Swift had been subpoenaed to give information after it was alleged she tried to pressure Baldoni to accept script rewrites by Lively for the film.

Baldoni had said he was invited to Lively’s New York home in 2023 to discuss script changes, where Lively’s husband, Ryan Reynolds, and Swift were there to serve as her “dragons”.

In response, Swift’s representatives said “she was not involved in any casting or creative decision” and “never saw an edit or made any notes on the film”.

Variety has now reported that Baldoni’s lawyers were using the subpoena to try to get messages relating to an allegation that Lively’s representatives had threatened to release old text messages if Swift didn’t issue a statement supporting her.

Lively’s lawyers denied those allegations as “unequivocally and demonstrably false”.

Lively’s spokesperson added: “The Baldoni and Wayfarer team have tried to put Taylor Swift, a woman who has been an inspiration for tens of millions across the globe, at the center of this case since day one.

“Faced with having to justify themselves in federal court, they folded. At some point they will run out of distractions from the actual claims of sexual harassment and retaliation they are facing.”

Baldoni is counter-suing Lively and Reynolds on claims of civil extortion, defamation and invasion of privacy.

A Nigerian senator has told the BBC she only learnt that the government was suing her “on the news” and that she was “shocked” by the action taken against her.

The government filed defamation charges against Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan after she accused one of the country’s top politicians of plotting to kill her.

In April, Akpoti-Uduaghan alleged that Senate President Godswill Akpabio and former state governor Yahaya Bell wanted to “eliminate” her. Both have denied this accusation.

She had previously accused Akpabio of sexually harassing her – an allegation he has also denied.

After learning of the charges against her, Akpoti-Uduaghan told the BBC: “I’m actually shocked. My first reaction when I read it is out of shock, because I have not been served [with papers] until now. I had to read it on the news.”

A spokesperson for the senate president said they had “evidence beyond reasonable doubt” that she had been served the court papers.

He added that he hoped Akpoti-Uduaghan would take advantage of the next court hearing to prove her allegations.

In the charge sheet, seen by the BBC, Nigeria’s attorney general referenced a live interview broadcast by Nigeria’s Channels TV last month.

Akpoti-Uduaghan alleged in the interview that there were “discussions that Akpabio had with Yahaya Bello… to eliminate me”.

The attorney general said that this statement, and others made in the same broadcast, could harm Bello and Akpabio’s reputations.

But Akpoti-Uduaghan stands by her allegation. She said she had even gone to the police with the accusation that Akpabio and Bello posed a threat to her life.

“Do you understand the twist? I was the one who ran to the police. I made my petitions, I appeared on television, I spoke publicly on the threat to my life,” she said.

“Instead, it is the senate president and [former] governor Yahaya Bello’s counter-petition, which is me defaming them, that is being attended to.”

Akpoti-Uduaghan said the charges were an attempt to “intimidate her” and make her “fall in line” after she accused Akabio of sexual harassment in February.

“It’s an ill that has been normalised in the society – sexual harassment. But here I am speaking about it… that was my first offence. Natasha is not supposed to speak about it. I’m supposed to bear it as a woman,” she told the BBC.

The charges mark the latest twist in a row that has engrossed Nigeria, raising questions about gender equality in the socially conservative nation.

Akpoti-Uduaghan is one of just four women out of 109 senators.

After accusing Akabio of sexual harassment, she was suspended from the Senate for six months without pay.

The Senate’s ethics committee said the suspension was for her “unruly and disruptive” behaviour while the Senate was debating her allegations.

However, Akpoti-Uduaghan and her supporters argued that the committee was targeting her because of the allegations she had made against the senate president.

No date has been set for her to appear in court.

• ‘Nigerian Senate is run like a cult’, suspended MP tells BBC
• How some Nigerian women are being cut out of their parents’ inheritance
• Nigeria’s fierce political rivals share joke at pope’s inaugural mass

A Ugandan activist who was arrested and held for days in Tanzania has been found at the border between the two countries with “indications of torture,” her rights group says.

Agather Atuhaire had been held incommunicado in Tanzania alongside fellow Kenyan activist Boniface Mwangi, who was on Thursday found at the border with his home country.

“We had been tortured, and we were told to strip naked and to go bathe. We couldn’t walk and were told to crawl and go wash off the blood,” Mwangi said in a post on X.

The two had gone to Tanzania to show solidarity with opposition leader Tundu Lissu, who appeared in court on Monday after being charged with treason.

Despite being allowed into the country, Mwangi and Atuhaire were not permitted to attend the hearing and were arrested.

Tanzania’s government has not commented on the torture claims.

But President Samia Suluhu Hassan on Monday warned that she would not allow activists from neighbouring countries to “meddle” in her country’s affairs and cause “chaos”.

• Why Samia’s hesitant reforms are fuelling Tanzanian political anger

On Thursday night, Atuhaire was found abandoned at the border by Tanzanian authorities after being held in custody since Monday, Agora Centre for Research, the Uganda-based rights group that she leads, posted on X.

Uganda’s high commissioner to Tanzania Fred Mwesigye said Atuhaire had “safely returned home” and had been “warmly received by her family”.

She had visibly swollen legs, allegedly resulting from torture during her detention, Ugandan local media reported, citing her close friends.

“She was dumped at the border at night by the authorities and there are indications of torture,” fellow activist at Agora Centre for Research Spire Ssentongo told AFP news agency.

Mwangi, who was earlier found abandoned on a roadside in northern Tanzania near the Kenyan border, said he had heard Atuhaire “groaning in pain” when they were held together on Tuesday.

“Any attempt to speak to each other during the night we were tortured was met with kicks and insults. We were removed from the torture location in different vehicles,” Mwangi added.

He said those who were holding them were getting orders from a “state security” official, who directed the activist to be given a “Tanzanian treatment”.

Atuhaire is yet to talk about her reported ordeal.

Mwangi’s disappearance had sparked widespread concern across Kenya, with his family, civil society and human rights groups staging protests and demanding his release.

On Wednesday, the Kenyan government formally protested against his detention, accusing Tanzanian authorities of denying consular access despite repeated requests.

Earlier on Thursday, Kenya’s foreign affairs ministry issued a statement saying it had not been able to access the activist.

Regional rights groups have called for an investigation into the alleged mistreatment of the activists by the Tanzanian authorities and urged all East African countries to uphold rights treaties.

• Could this be the end of the road for Tanzania’s great survivor, Tundu Lissu?
• X restricted in Tanzania after police targeted by hackers
• ‘Manhandled and choked’ – Tanzanian activist recounts abduction
• The Tanzanians searching for their grandfathers’ skulls in Germany

Sebastião Salgado, regarded as one of the world’s greatest documentary photographers, has died at the age of 81.

The Brazil-born photographer was known for his dramatic and unflinching black-and-white images of hardship, conflict and natural beauty, captured in 130 countries over 55 years.

His hard-hitting photos chronicled major global events such as the Rwanda genocide in 1994, burning oilfields at the end of the Gulf War in 1991, and the famine in the Sahel region of Africa in 1984.

“His lens revealed the world and its contradictions; his life, the power of transformative action,” said a statement from Instituto Terra, the environmental organisation he founded with his wife, Lélia Wanick Salgado.

Some of his most striking pictures were taken in his home country, including epic photos of thousands of desperate figures working in open-cast gold mines and striking images of the indigenous people of the Amazon.

Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva paid tribute, describing Salgado as “one of the best… photographers the world has given us”.

Salgado’s final major project, Amazônia, spotlighted the rainforest’s beauty and fragility.

A lifelong advocate for the Amazon’s indigenous people, Salgado documented the daily lives of a dozen of the tribes scattered throughout the rainforest – from hunting and fishing expeditions, to dances and rituals.

He spent seven years on an ambitious photographic journey, exploring the remote reaches of the Amazon rainforest and documenting its inhabitants.

The project culminated in an exhibition showcasing over 200 black-and-white images, offering a poignant glimpse into the region’s landscapes and communities.

The Amazônia exhibition was displayed at the Science Museum in London and the the Science and Industry Museum in Manchester in 2021 and 2022.

“Sometimes I ask myself, “Sebastião, was it really you that went to all these places?”‘ he said to an interviewer last year.

“Was it really me that spent years travelling to 130 different countries, who went deep inside the forests, into oil fields and mines?

“Boy, it really is me who did this. I’m probably one of the photographers who’s created the most work in the history of photography.”

Born in 1944, Salgado left a career in economics to start as a photographer in 1973.

He worked on international assignments for a variety of photography agencies before forming his own, Amazonas Images, with Lélia in 1994.

He received the Sony World Photography Awards’ Outstanding Contribution to Photography in 2024.

Other accolades included the Prince of Asturias Award and recognition as a Unicef Goodwill Ambassador.

Through the Instituto Terra, Salgado and Lélia also restored his father’s farm in Brazil to thriving rainforest by planting more than three million trees.

The institute’s statement added: “Sebastião was much more than one of the greatest photographers of our time.

“Alongside his life partner, Lélia Deluiz Wanick Salgado, he sowed hope where there was devastation and brought to life the belief that environmental restoration is also a profound act of love for humanity.”

Satellite images have for the first time shown the extent of a shipyard accident in North Korea that damaged a new warship in the presence of the secretive state’s leader, Kim Jong Un.

The image shows the warship lying on its side, covered by large blue tarpaulins. A portion of the vessel appears to be on land.

An official investigation into the accident – which Kim described as a “criminal act” – has begun, state media reported on Friday.

None of the reports mentioned any casualties or injuries as a result of Thursday’s incident in the eastern port city of Chongjin.

KCNA, North Korea’s official news agency, downplayed the damage in a report on Friday, saying it was “not serious” and that, contrary to initial reports, there were no holes on the ship’s bottom.

“The hull starboard was scratched and a certain amount of seawater flowed into the stern section through the rescue channel,” KCNA reported.

The manager of the shipyard, Hong Kil Ho, has been summoned by law enforcers, it said.

It would take around 10 days to restore the destroyer’s side, according to KCNA.

Kim said on Thursday that the accident was caused by “absolute carelessness, irresponsibility and unscientific empiricism”.

He added that those who made “irresponsible errors” will be dealt with at a plenary meeting next month.

It’s not clear what punishment they might face, but the authoritarian state has a woeful human rights record.

It is uncommon for North Korea to publicly disclose local accidents – though it has done this a handful of times in the past.

This particular accident comes weeks after North Korea unveiled a similar 5,000-ton destroyer, the Choe Hyon.

Kim had called that warship a “breakthrough” in modernising North Korea’s navy and said it would be deployed early next year.

Fans have reacted with a mixture of excitement and caution to the news that hit game Elden Ring is to be made into a live-action film.

The epic dark fantasy game will be adapted by Alex Garland, who is known for movies like Ex Machina and Warfare, along with US entertainment company A24.

“I am very excited,” said TikToker Blue Thunder, adding that he hopes it will stay faithful to the game. Grant Greenly added on TikTok: “All the lore, all the action, all the Elden lords, all the fights… it’s more than we could ask for. This is going to be awesome.”

However, gaming journalist Christopher Dring, host of the Games Business Show podcast, told the BBC that “translating something like Elden Ring is no small feat”.

“Video games have become the new comic books for Hollywood right now,” he said.

“After the huge success of Minecraft, Mario and Sonic at the box office, plus Fallout and The Last of Us on the smaller screen, movie producers have been scrambling to sign all sorts of games, from the biggest proven brands to entirely unproven properties that haven’t even come out yet.”

Elden Ring is “one of the most critically acclaimed fantasy games out there”, he said, with more than 30 million players and the involvement of Game of Thrones author George RR Martin, who helped create its original story. “So it has a lot going for it.”

But he added: “We have seen plenty of game adaptations fail to succeed on the big screen, including last year’s Borderlands movie, which had a strong cast and was directed by Eli Roth. But it’s very much the trend, and it’s only growing.”

Elden Ring is a role-playing adventure game set in the war-torn, devastated Lands Between, where players must collect runes which represent that world’s order and laws, in order to restore it and become the Elden Lord.

TikToker Everythingethan added a note of caution, saying: “I want to know what part of the timeline we’re adapting… I don’t know if I want to see this live action. I think it would be kind of cursed at times. I think animation is the best way to adapt video games nine times out of 10.”

Other fans speculated about which elements of the game’s story would become the focus of the film, while another simply said: “This will be very bad, or meh.”

Some suggested it would work better as a TV series, while others said they felt “conflicted”, with one saying: “You can’t really justify a gaming experience that takes your average player anywhere from 20-40 hours to beat and cram it all into a 2 hour movie.”

Some gamers also welcomed the involvement of A24, which has previously worked with Garland on films including Annihilation, Men and Civil War.

“I’m scared. I love this game too much to watch it be ‘tarnished’,” said another.

In a statement, the game’s publisher Bandai Namco said: “We’re truly excited to bring the world of Elden Ring to fans in a new form, outside the game.

“Stay tuned. The path ahead is only beginning.”

Gaming is a booming market that comes with a young, built-in fanbase.

The plan to bring Elden Ring to the big screen comes after recent successes for adaptations, following years of mixed results.

The latest wave began in earnest with the blockbuster triumph of 2023’s The Super Mario Bros Movie, which has now raked in a staggering $1.4bn (£1.1bn) at the global box office.

One of the film’s stars, Jack Black, told BBC News at the time: “We will be seeing more storytelling from the gaming universe.”

He’s been proved right – and was also on board for this year’s A Minecraft Movie, a global hit that has grossed more than $900m (£666m).

Beyond financials, it’s also seen unprecedented audience participation from younger fans at screenings – many of whom are more accustomed to streaming and gaming than the traditional cinema experience.

It’s no surprise that a spate of other game franchise adaptations are already in the works.

Mortal Kombat and Five Nights at Freddy’s film sequels are due later this year, with Super Mario Bros 2 and a new Resident Evil film hitting cinemas in 2026. A Legend of Zelda movie is also slated for release in 2027.

Yet while cinema has banked on gaming’s mass appeal, it is on the small screen where the depth of modern-day gaming storylines has really shone.

The critically-acclaimed The Last of Us, a post-apocalyptic survival drama centred around the heartfelt relationship between Joel and Ellie – played by Pedro Pascal and Bella Ramsey in HBO’s Emmy Award-winning live-action version – has proven that affecting, mature storylines can come from games just as readily as child-friendly technicolour.

Amazon’s popular adaptation of politically-tinged nuclear wasteland thriller Fallout is another example.

Elden Ring may look to transfer this grit to the big screen, produced by A24 – a studio known for thought-provoking titles like the Oscar-nominated Aftersun and horror Midsommar.

After all, the franchise is notoriously tough to play and complete, so is definitely not one for younger gamers.

Elden Ring might just be the adult gaming crossover Hollywood is looking for.

“This is a big deal for the King to do this,” says Jeremy Kinsman, former Canadian high commissioner to the UK, as King Charles prepares for a historic visit showing support for Canada, which is facing pressure from US President Donald Trump.

“I hope that Trump understands,” says Mr Kinsman, ahead of the King becoming the first monarch to open Canada’s Parliament in almost 70 years.

So what can we expect from his speech as Canada’s head of state, to be delivered in French and English in Ottawa on Tuesday?

It will be written on the advice of Canada’s government. But along with the workaday lines on policy plans, Mr Kinsman expects a message, loud and clear, that Canada will not be the US 51st state.

“It’s going to be very affirmative of Canadian sovereignty. And I can say personally that it’s something that King Charles will celebrate saying. I have no doubt,” says Mr Kinsman, who worked as a diplomat with the King when he was Prince of Wales.

“It will say the government will protect, pursue and preserve the sovereignty of Canada as an independent state,” he predicts about the speech, which follows an election won by Mark Carney on a wave of anti-Trump sentiment.

The King’s mother, the late Queen Elizabeth II, was the last monarch to open Canada’s Parliament in 1957 and was also the most recent to deliver the “speech from the throne” in 1977, in a ceremony that marks the start of a parliamentary session.

She began that speech with a few of her own personal comments – so there is scope for the King to add his own thoughts.

“I don’t know what pronoun they’ll use. He’ll be talking about the ‘government proposes’. But I don’t know if they’ll throw in an “I”. Either way he’ll be identified with it,” says Mr Kinsman about the personal nature of this speech from the King in Canada – a Commonwealth country and Nato partner.

It’s going to be a more dressed-down event than the pomp of the Westminster state opening of Parliament. The King will be in a suit rather than a gown and crown, reading a speech that could last about 25 minutes, much of which will be about the government’s legislative plans.

There are also likely to be nods to the importance of Canada’s First Nations communities, in a speech that comes on the first visit to Canada from King Charles and Queen Camilla since the start of their reign.

The King, invited by Mr Carney, will have to balance a message of solidarity with Canada, without jeopardising the UK’s relationship with the US.

“The King has long experience and great skill in walking that diplomatic tightrope,” says a royal source.

“He’s held in high regard around the globe and across the political spectrum, with good relations with world leaders who understand his unique position.”

Mel Cappe, a former Canadian minister and senior civil servant, has been involved in preparing such speeches from the throne, usually delivered by a governor general.

He expects the King to add a “few paragraphs of his own at the beginning” to “give his own personal view”, but the overall text of the speech will be approved by Canada’s prime minister and his officials.

“He’s not going to poke President Trump in the eye. That would cause a problem for Canada. On the other hand he isn’t going to suck up to Donald Trump,” says Prof Cappe, who was also a high commissioner to the UK.

He believes this intervention could have a big impact: “Symbolically this is huge. President Trump has a lot of admiration for the monarchy. He is impressed by the royals.”

This royal moment will be a platform for Canada’s government to talk about tariffs and to mention the visit to the White House where PM Carney said Canada would “never” be for sale, says Prof Cappe.

“So somewhere in that speech, look for the word “never”,” he says.

President Trump, as shown in his recent controversial White House meetings with South Africa’s President Ramaphosa and Ukraine’s President Zelensky, can be an unpredictable diplomatic partner.

“The old alliances are breaking down,” says Mr Kinsman. And against a background of such uncertainty, King Charles has been part of an unexpected international balancing act.

He became a key part of the charm offensive to maintain the UK’s good relations with President Trump, with an invite for a second state visit. Now he’s going with a message of reassurance to the Canadians.

Sir Keir Starmer has been using the King to get closer to Trump, while Mark Carney is using him to keep Trump further away.

“He isn’t anybody’s tool or fool. This is something that he believes… It genuinely is something that he wants,” says Mr Kinsman about the King’s support for Canada.

The former diplomat remembers how much the then Prince Charles showed a personal affection for Canada and a sense of duty towards its people. A planned trip last year had to be cancelled because of his cancer diagnosis.

There are many strong links. The throne on which the King will sit to make his speech includes wood from Windsor Great Park – part of the Crown Estate.

Mr Kinsman says that many Canadians have been traumatised and upset by what he calls the “appalling” language of President Trump over wanting to take over Canada. It’s shaken their view of the world and the new prime minister will be expected to stand up to the US.

Mr Carney has said that Canadians were not “impressed” by the UK’s invitation to President Trump for a state visit. But Mr Kinsman says that’s Canadian understatement for being “disgusted” by the invitation. It really rankled.

Nonetheless he says that many Canadians are pragmatic enough to see the UK needs to keep good relations with the US and that the King – who is head of state of both the UK and Canada – has to play both roles in this “strange duality”.

That’s rejected by Peter Donolo, a director of the Canadian International Council think tank, who believes there is an impossible contradiction in the King being different things for different countries.

“On the one hand they’re using Charles in the UK to curry favour with the Americans and then it seems our government wants to use him to stand up for Canada. You can’t have it both ways,” says Mr Donolo.

He sees the monarchy as “irrelevant” to this dispute with the US. “It won’t have any impact on how Trump views Canada,” says Mr Donolo.

In theory the King acts in two separate and distinct roles, taking advice from the UK government on UK matters and advice from the Canadian government in Canada. There are differences too. In Canada, the reference to the King as “defender of the faith” was scrapped from his title.

Elizabeth McCallion, who teaches political science at the University of Toronto, thinks many Canadians don’t really have much interest in the constitutional complications around the role of the King.

But she says people in Canada were profoundly offended by Trump’s aim to annexe their country – and were “disappointed” that they had relatively little backing from the UK, which seemed to be “buddying up to Donald Trump”.

They’re now watching to see what the King might say to support them.

“People are recognising that this is momentous,” she says.

Sign up here to get the latest royal stories and analysis every week with our Royal Watch newsletter. Those outside the UK can sign up here.

Denmark is set to have the highest retirement age in Europe after its parliament adopted a law raising it to 70 by 2040.

Since 2006, Denmark has tied the official retirement age to life expectancy and has revised it every five years. It is currently 67 but will rise to 68 in 2030 and to 69 in 2035.

The retirement age at 70 will apply to all people born after 31 December 1970.

The new law passed on Thursday with 81 votes for and 21 votes against.

However, last year Social Democrat Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen said the sliding scale principle would eventually be renegotiated.

“We no longer believe that the retirement age should be increased automatically,” she said, adding that in her party’s eyes “you can’t just keep saying that people have to work a year longer”.

Tommas Jensen, a 47-year-old roofer, told Danish media that the change was “unreasonable”.

“We’re working and working and working, but we can’t keep going,” he said.

He added that the situation may be different for those with desk jobs but that blue-collar workers with physically demanding professions would find the changes difficult.

“I’ve paid my taxes all my life. There should also be time to be with children and grandchildren,” Mr Jensen told outlet DK.

• Retiring in your 60s is becoming an impossible goal. Is 75 the new 65?

Protests backed by trade unions against the retirement age increase took place in Copenhagen over the last few weeks.

Ahead of Thursday’s vote, Jesper Ettrup Rasmussen, the chairman of a Danish trade union confederation, said the proposal to increase the retirement age was “completely unfair”.

“Denmark has a healthy economy and yet the EU’s highest retirement age,” he said.

“A higher retirement age means that [people will] lose the right to a dignified senior life.”

Retirement ages around Europe vary. Many governments have raised the retirement age in recent years to reflect longer life expectancy and to tackle budget deficits.

In Sweden, the earliest age individuals can start to claim pension benefits is 63.

The standard pension age in Italy is 67, although as in the case of Denmark, this is also subject to adjustments based on life expectancy estimates and may increase in 2026.

In the UK, people born between 6 October, 1954 and 5 April, 1960 start receiving their pension at the age of 66. But for people born after this date, the state pension age will increase gradually.

And in France, a law was passed in 2023 that raised the retirement age from 62 to 64. The highly unpopular change sparked protests and riots and had to be pushed through parliament by President Emmanuel Macron without a vote.

A judge has issued a temporary restraining order blocking the Trump administration’s plan to strip Harvard University of its ability to enrol foreign students.

The ruling came after Harvard filed a lawsuit – the latest escalation of a dispute between the White House and one of America’s most prestigious institutions.

The university said the administration’s decision on Thursday to bar international students was a “blatant violation” of the law and free speech rights.

The Trump administration says Harvard has not done enough to fight antisemitism, and change its hiring and admissions practices – allegations that the university has strongly denied.

US District Judge Allison Burroughs issued a temporary restraining order in a short ruling issued on Friday.

The order pauses a move that the Department of Homeland Security made on Thursday to revoke Harvard’s access to the Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) – a government database that manages foreign students.

The next hearing will occur on 29 May in Boston.

“With the stroke of a pen, the government has sought to erase a quarter of Harvard’s student body, international students who contribute significantly to the University and its mission,” Harvard argued in the lawsuit.

“We condemn this unlawful and unwarranted action,” Harvard President Alan Garber said in a letter.

• ‘We did not sign up for this’: Harvard’s foreign students are stuck and scared

“The revocation continues a series of government actions to retaliate against Harvard for our refusal to surrender our academic independence and to submit to the federal government’s illegal assertion of control over our curriculum, our faculty, and our student body,” he wrote.

In response, White House deputy press secretary Abigail Jackson said: “If only Harvard cared this much about ending the scourge of anti-American, anti-Semitic, pro-terrorist agitators on their campus they wouldn’t be in this situation to begin with.

After the restraining order was issued, Ms Jackson accused the judge in the case of having a “liberal agenda”.

“These unelected judges have no right to stop the Trump Administration from exercising their rightful control over immigration policy and national security policy,” she said.

It was quiet at Harvard on Friday. Classes have finished for the year and preparations are being made for commencements. Gazebos were going up on the quad as students rented their gowns and collected tickets for family members.

For those graduating, it should be a week of celebration. But for foreign students hoping to remain in the US, it’s been a 24-hour whirlwind.

All morning Harvard’s international student body scrambled to find out what was going to happen. Would they have to leave the US immediately? Were they now under the threat of deportation?

Cormac Savage from Downpatrick in Co Down Northern Ireland is six days from graduating with a degree in government and languages. He’s taking a job in Brussels, partly because of the uncertainty in the US.

“You know that you’re fine if you’re still legally in the United States for the next 90 days, but you don’t know that you can come back and finish your degree,” he said on Friday. “You don’t know if you can stay and work in the US if you’re about to graduate.

The order also complicates plans for students still enroled, like Rohan Battula, a junior from the UK who will rely on his visa to work in New York in June.

“I was worried if I went home I wouldn’t get to come back,” he told BBC, so he opted to stay on campus.

For a group of international students gathered on the banks of the Charles River, as rowing teams sculled by, the relief was palpable when news came in of the reprieve from the Boston court.

Mr Battula also felt relieved after Judge Burroughs issued her order. But the uncertainty still is taking a toll.

“It’s surreal to think that even for some period of time you’re unlawfully staying in a country, just because you’ve been to university there,” Mr Battula said.

There are around 6,800 international students at Harvard, who make up more than 27% of its enrolled students this year.

Around a fifth of them are from China, with significant numbers from Canada, India, South Korea and the UK. Among the international students currently enrolled is the future queen of Belgium, 23-year-old Princess Elisabeth.

Leo Ackerman was set to study education and entrepreneurship at Harvard beginning in August, fulfilling a “dream”.

“I was really excited, and I’m still really excited if I manage to go there,” Mr Ackerman said. “Having it taken away feels like a really sad moment for a lot of people.”

Eliminating foreign students would take a large bite out of Harvard’s finances. Experts say international students are more likely to pay full tuition, essentially subsidising aid for American students.

Undergraduate tuition – not including fees, housing, books, food or health insurance – will reach $59,320 (£43,850) in the coming academic year, according to the university. The total cost of a year at Harvard before any financial aid is usually significantly more than $100,000.

Isaac Bangura, a public administration student from Sierra Leone, moved to Harvard with his wife and two young daughters after surviving a civil war.

“Since yesterday, my kids has been asking, ‘Daddy, I understand they are coming to return us home again.’ They are referring to deportation,” he said.

He said he has to be strong for them and has faith. “I know the American people are always, whenever they are into issues, they will find ways of resolving it,” he said.

In addition to Harvard, the Trump administration has taken aim at other elite institutions, not only arguing that they should do more to clamp down on pro-Palestinian activists but also claiming they discriminate against conservative viewpoints.

On Friday, speaking from the Oval Office, President Donald Trump said, “Harvard is going to have to change its ways” and suggested he is considering measures against more universities.

In April, the White House froze $2.2bn (£1.7bn) in federal funding to Harvard, and Trump has threatened to remove the university’s tax-exempt status, a standard designation for US educational institutions.

The funding freeze prompted an earlier Harvard lawsuit, also asking the courts to stop the administration’s actions.

Carl Tobias, a University of Richmond law professor, said federal courts in Massachusetts and New England, where the initial stages of the case will play out, have consistently ruled against the Trump administration.

But the outcome may be less predictable in the US Supreme Court, where Harvard’s case may end up.

“These are tough issues for Harvard, but they have the resources and they seem to have the will to fight,” Mr Tobias said.

Harvard leaders have made concessions to the White House – including dismissing the leaders of its Center for Middle Eastern Studies, who came under fire for failing to represent Israeli perspectives.

But it also enlisted several high-profile Republican lawyers, including Robert Hur, a former special counsel who investigated Joe Biden’s retention of classified documents.

Foreign students currently attending Harvard have expressed worries that the row could force them to transfer to another university or return home. Being logged on the SEVP system is a requirement for student visas and, if Harvard is blocked from the database, students could be found in violation and potentially face deportation.

Several British students enrolled at Harvard, who spoke to the BBC on condition of anonymity out of fear of immigration authorities, worried their US education could be cut short.

“I definitely think freedom of speech is a problem on campus, but it’s being actively worked on… it was an absolute shock when yesterday’s announcement happened,” said one student

“There’s a lot of anger, people feeling like we’re being used as pawns in a game.”

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

US President Donald Trump reignited trade tensions on Friday, threatening a 50% tariff on all goods sent to the United States from the European Union.

He also warned Apple that he would impose a 25% import tax “at least” on iPhones not manufactured in America, later widening the threat to any smartphone.

The warning against the EU came just hours before the two sides were set to have trade talks. Trump last month announced a 20% tariff on most EU goods, but had halved it to 10% until 8 July to allow time for negotiations.

In a statement after the talks, the EU said it remained committed to securing a deal, while warning again that it was prepared to retaliate.

“EU-US trade is unmatched & must be guided by mutual respect, not threats,” European Union Trade Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič wrote on social media. “We stand ready to defend our interests.”

In remarks to reporters at the White House on Friday afternoon, Trump expressed impatience with the pace of negotiations, saying his plan to raise tariffs on 1 June was set.

“I’m not looking for a deal – we’ve set the deal,” he added, before immediately adding that a big investment in the US by a European company might make him open to a delay.

“We’re going to see what happens but right now it’s going on on June 1st,” he said.

Analysts said it remained to be seen whether Trump’s rhetoric would turn into reality.

Trade expert Aslak Berg from the Centre for European Reform told the BBC that he thought Trump’s post was intended to increase leverage ahead of the negotiations.

“But the fact of the matter is the EU is not going to budge. They are going to stay calm, carry on and it will be a very difficult discussion,” he said.

He added that Trump’s re-escalation of tariffs set a bad precedent for other deals the US might be working on.

“For a while there was this perception … that Trump was backing off, that we would have a bit of quiet and stability. This shows that is not at all the case,” he said.

Since re-entering the White House, Trump has imposed and threatened various tariffs on goods from countries around the world, arguing that the measures – which are a tax on imports – will boost US manufacturing and protect jobs from foreign competition.

The announcements have sparked worries globally, because they will make it more expensive and difficult for foreign businesses to sell goods in the world’s largest economy.

But Trump has also backed down from some of his most aggressive proposals after financial market turmoil and business outcry in the US.

Shares in the US and EU fell on Friday after the latest threats, with the S&P 500 down about 0.7% and Germany’s Dax and France’s Cac 40 ending the day down more than 1.5%.

Shares in Apple, which had won relief last month when Trump exempted key electronics including smartphones from his tariffs, fell about 3%.

Officials at the time warned it would be temporary. Speaking to reporters later on Friday, Trump said he did not intend to single out Apple but planned to apply the duties to all smart phones, which could start by the end of June.

The EU is one of the US’s largest trading partners, sending more than $600bn in goods to the US last year and buying about $370bn worth, according to US government figures.

Trump’s complaints about Europe have focused on that uneven trade relationship, as the EU sells more goods to the US than it buys from America.

He blames this trade deficit on policies that he says are unfair to American companies, and he has specifically raised concerns about policies related to cars and agricultural products.

He targeted goods from the EU with a 20% tariff in his so-called Liberation Day announcement last month, which set off a flurry of negotiations between the US and countries around the world.

While some countries, especially smaller ones, have taken a conciliatory approach, the EU, like China and Canada, has pushed back harder against the threats, saying it is prepared to retaliate by raising its own tariffs on US products.

On Friday, Trump said the EU had been “very difficult to deal with”.

US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told Fox News that he hoped the threat “would light a fire under the EU”.

Politicians from members of the bloc greeted it with dismay.

Ireland’s Taoiseach Micheál Martin said the EU had been engaging in “good faith” and warned that tariffs would be damaging to both sides.

“We do not need to go down this road,” he said. “Negotiations are the best and only sustainable way forward.”

“We are maintaining the same line: de-escalation, but we are ready to respond,” French Foreign Minister Laurent Saint-Martin wrote on social media on Friday morning, adding that the pressure was “not helping” the negotiations.

German Economy Minister Katherina Reiche said her country needed “more trade, not less”.

“We must do everything to ensure that the European Commission reaches a negotiated solution with the United States,” she said.

Trump has ploughed ahead with tariffs, despite widespread concern among experts that the new taxes will lead to economic damage while doing little to achieve his aims.

On Friday, Wedbush Securities analyst Dan Ives said the idea that Apple would make iPhones in the US was a “fairy tale that is not feasible”.

He added that he expected Apple to continue to be able to navigate the situation, despite the latest attack from Trump, who has long singled out the company as one he wants to see manufacturing in the US.

Trump met with Apple chief executive Tim Cook at the White House earlier this week, after expressing unhappiness about the firm’s response to the tariffs.

Earlier this month, company said it was shifting production of most of its iPhones and other devices destined to be sold in the US away from China, but towards countries such as India and Vietnam, rather than the US.

Trump earlier this month said he had a “little problem” with Mr Cook, and had warned him: ‘I don’t want you building in India.'”

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

Satellite images have for the first time shown the extent of a shipyard accident in North Korea that damaged a new warship in the presence of the secretive state’s leader, Kim Jong Un.

The image shows the warship lying on its side, covered by large blue tarpaulins. A portion of the vessel appears to be on land.

An official investigation into the accident – which Kim described as a “criminal act” – has begun, state media reported on Friday.

None of the reports mentioned any casualties or injuries as a result of Thursday’s incident in the eastern port city of Chongjin.

KCNA, North Korea’s official news agency, downplayed the damage in a report on Friday, saying it was “not serious” and that, contrary to initial reports, there were no holes on the ship’s bottom.

“The hull starboard was scratched and a certain amount of seawater flowed into the stern section through the rescue channel,” KCNA reported.

The manager of the shipyard, Hong Kil Ho, has been summoned by law enforcers, it said.

It would take around 10 days to restore the destroyer’s side, according to KCNA.

Kim said on Thursday that the accident was caused by “absolute carelessness, irresponsibility and unscientific empiricism”.

He added that those who made “irresponsible errors” will be dealt with at a plenary meeting next month.

It’s not clear what punishment they might face, but the authoritarian state has a woeful human rights record.

It is uncommon for North Korea to publicly disclose local accidents – though it has done this a handful of times in the past.

This particular accident comes weeks after North Korea unveiled a similar 5,000-ton destroyer, the Choe Hyon.

Kim had called that warship a “breakthrough” in modernising North Korea’s navy and said it would be deployed early next year.

The last memory Han Tae-soon has of her daughter as a child is in May 1975, at their home in Seoul.

“I was going to the market and asked Kyung-ha, ‘Aren’t you coming?’ But she told me, ‘No, I’m going to play with my friends’,” recalled Ms Han.

“When I came back, she was gone.”

Ms Han would not see her daughter again for more than four decades. When they reunited, Kyung-ha was almost unrecognisable as a middle-aged American woman named Laurie Bender.

Kyung-ha had been kidnapped near her home, brought to an orphanage, then sent illegally to the US to be raised by another family, alleges Ms Han, who is now suing the South Korean government for failing to prevent her daughter’s adoption.

She is among the hundreds of people who have come forward in recent years with damning allegations of fraud, illegal adoptions, kidnapping and human trafficking in South Korea’s controversial overseas adoption programme.

No other country has sent as many children abroad for adoption, and for so long, as South Korea. Since the programme began in the 1950s, about 170,000 to 200,000 children have been adopted overseas – most of them in the West.

In March, a landmark inquiry found that successive governments had committed human rights violations with their lack of oversight, allowing private agencies to “mass export” children for profit on an industrial scale.

Experts say the findings could open the door to more lawsuits against the government. Ms Han’s is set to go to court next month.

It is one of two landmark cases. Ms Han is the first biological parent of an overseas adoptee seeking damages from the government, while in 2019, a man who was adopted in the US was the first adoptee to sue.

A government spokesman told the BBC that it “deeply sympathises with the emotional pain of individuals and families who could not find each other for a long time”.

It added that it considered Ms Han’s case with “deep regret” and that it would take “necessary actions” based on the outcome of the trial.

Ms Han, 71, told the BBC she is determined the government takes responsibility.

“I spent 44 years ruining my body and mind searching for [my daughter]. But in all that time, has anyone ever apologised to me? No one. Not once.”

For decades, she and her husband visited police stations and orphanages, put up flyers, and went on television appealing for information. Ms Han said she spent all day pounding the streets looking for her daughter “till all 10 of my toenails fell out”.

Over the years she thought she came close. In 1990, after one of her TV appeals, Ms Han met a woman who she believed could be Kyung-ha, and even took her in to live with her family for a while. But the woman eventually confessed she was not her daughter.

A breakthrough finally happened in 2019 when Ms Han signed up with 325 Kamra, a group that connects overseas Korean adoptees with their birth parents by matching their DNA.

They soon reported a match – Laurie Bender, a nurse in California. After several phone calls, she flew over to Seoul to meet Ms Han, where the two had a tearful reunion at the airport.

As they embraced, Ms Han ran her fingers through Kyung-ha’s hair. “I’ve been a hairdresser for 30 years. I can quickly tell if it’s my daughter just by feeling her hair. I had mistakenly thought I found her before, so I had to touch and feel the hair to confirm it,” she said.

The first thing she told her daughter was “I’m so sorry”.

“I felt guilty because she couldn’t find her way home when she was a child. I kept thinking about how much she must have searched for her mother… Meeting her after all those years made me realise how much she must have longed for her mother, and it broke my heart.”

“It’s like a hole in your heart has been healed, you finally feel like a complete person,” Kyung-ha said about their reunion in an earlier interview with the Associated Press. She did not respond to the BBC’s requests for an interview.

The pair eventually pieced together what happened on that day in May 1975.

Kyung-ha, who was six years old at the time, was playing near her home when she was approached by a strange woman claiming to know her mother. Kyung-ha was told her mother “didn’t need” her any more and was taken to a train station.

After taking a train ride with the woman, Kyung-ha was abandoned at the final stop, where she was eventually picked up by police officers and placed in an orphanage. Soon, she was flown to the US to be adopted by a couple in Virginia.

Years later, checks revealed she was given false papers stating she was an abandoned orphan whose parents were unknown.

“It’s like you’ve been living a fake life and everything you know is not true,” Kyung-ha said previously.

Her case was far from an isolated one.

South Korea’s overseas adoption programme began in the ashes of the 1950-53 Korean War, when it was a deeply impoverished country with an estimated 100,000 orphaned and displaced children.

At that time, few families were willing to adopt non-biological children, and the government began an overseas adoption programme, billed as a humanitarian effort.

The programme was handled entirely by private adoption agencies. While they were under government oversight, over time these agencies gained significant autonomy through laws.

As their power grew, so did the number of children being sent abroad, rising in the 1970s and peaking in the 1980s. In 1985 alone, more than 8,800 children were sent overseas.

There was a massive demand from the West – with declining birth rates and fewer babies to adopt at home, families began seeking children elsewhere.

Photos from that era show planes heading to Western countries filled with Korean children, with swaddled babies strapped to seats – what the truth and reconciliation commission’s inquiry called the “mass transportation of children like cargo”.

The report alleges little care was taken of these children during these long flights. In one case it cited from 1974, a lactose-intolerant child was fed milk in transit and subsequently died upon arrival in Denmark.

Critics of the programme have long questioned why so many children needed to be sent overseas at a time when South Korea was already experiencing rapid economic growth.

A 1976 BBC Panorama documentary, which featured South Korea as one of several Asian countries sending children to the West, quoted an observer describing the situation as “out of control” and “almost like a trade in children… flowing from Asia into Europe and North America”.

According to the truth and reconciliation report, foreign adoption agencies set quotas for children, which Korean agencies willingly fulfilled.

It was a profitable business – the lack of government regulation allowed the Korean agencies to charge large amounts and demand hidden fees termed as “donations”.

Some of these children may have been obtained by unscrupulous means, with parents like Ms Han alleging their children were kidnapped. In the 1970s and 1980s, thousands of homeless or unattended children were rounded up and put in orphanages or welfare centres as part of a national campaign to “clean up the streets” of South Korea.

Other parents were told their babies had fallen sick and died, when they were actually alive and taken to adoption agencies. Agencies also did not obtain proper consent from birth mothers to take their children for adoption, according to the truth and reconciliation report.

The report also stated that adoption agencies deliberately falsified information in adoption records to cut corners and quickly meet the demand for children.

Lost children who were found without any identity documents would be made to appear, in paperwork, as if they had been abandoned and put up for adoption.

If a child intended for adoption had died or was reclaimed by their birth parents, another child would be swapped in and assigned the original child’s identity. This allowed agencies to avoid refunding adoption fees and expedite the adoption process.

Decades on, this has created immense difficulties for many overseas adoptees trying to track down their biological parents.

Some have wrong or missing information in their adoption records, while others have discovered they were given entirely false identities.

“We are victims of state violence but there is no trace of this – literally. This lack of documents must not make us victims for the second time,” said Han Boon-young, co-founder of an overseas adoptee rights group campaigning for greater access to birth information.

“This is a human rights issue. There were kidnappings, falsified documents – all of which were examples of violations committed during the inter-country adoption process.

“It is really necessary to move towards reconciliation, that we recognise these experiences, and that the people who committed these violations be held responsible.”

But some of the key players continue to stay silent or deny wrongdoing.

The BBC contacted Bu Chung-ha, who in the 1970s served as chairman of Holt International, South Korea’s largest adoption agency.

Holt is at the centre of numerous allegations of fraud and illegal adoptions, and the subject of two lawsuits so far, including Ms Han’s.

In a brief reply, Mr Bu denied that the agency had sent abroad any children wrongly identified as orphans during his tenure. Any parents alleging their children were kidnapped “did not lose their children, they abandoned them”, he said.

The current management of Holt International has yet to respond to the BBC’s request for comment.

Experts say the responsibility lay not only with the private agencies but also with the state.

“Adoption agencies exploited the system, and the government turned a blind eye – allowing illegal practices to take root,” said Dr Lee Kyung-eun, an international law scholar at Seoul National University.

“The government was the captain, and the agencies rowed the boat,” said Shin Pil-sik, a researcher on transnational adoption at Seokyeong University, who added that this structure enabled both sides to deflect accountability.

Dr Shin said the state was not a passive observer- it actively shaped adoption policy, setting annual quotas for overseas placements and even on occasion halted some adoptions.

An Associated Press news investigation last year found successive Korean governments had rewritten laws to remove minimal safeguards and judicial oversight, fit their laws to match American ones to make children adoptable, and allowed foreign families to adopt Korean children quickly without ever visiting the country.

While the government billed the programme as a humanitarian effort, observers say it also served to strengthen ties with Western countries.

A 1984 government document obtained by the BBC stated that the official goals of the adoption policy included not only the welfare of children but also “the promotion of future national strength and people-to-people diplomacy”.

When asked about the state’s role in past adoption practices, South Korea’s health and welfare ministry said they were “continuing efforts to strengthen state responsibility” in the system and that it plans to promote adoptions that comply with international standards.

In 2012, the government revised adoption laws to tighten screening of potential adoptive parents, and to track birthparent data and birth information better.

It has also enacted reforms to the adoption system ensuring that overseas adoptions are minimised and that all adoptions would be handled by the government instead of private agencies. The changes will take effect in July.

Meanwhile, overseas adoptions have declined. In the late 1980s, overseas adoptions dropped sharply, before stabilising in the 1990s and dropping again in the 2010s. Only 79 children were adopted abroad in 2023, according to the latest available data.

But as South Korea begins to address this dark chapter in its past, adoptees and birth parents like Ms Han continue to struggle with their trauma.

After their initial reunion, Ms Han and Kyung-ha have struggled to maintain a close connection.

Not only do they live on opposite sides of the world, her daughter has forgotten most of her Korean while Ms Han knows little English.

They keep in touch over texts occasionally, and Ms Han spends two hours every day practising her English by writing phrases in an exercise book.

But it isn’t enough for Ms Han.

“Even though I have found my daughter, it doesn’t feel like I’ve truly found her. All I know is where she is, but what good is that, if we can’t even communicate?

“My entire life has been ruined… no amount of money will ever make up for what I’ve lost.”

In his 1983 science fiction story, an Indian astrophysicist predicted what schools would look like in 2050.

Jayant Narlikar envisioned a scene where an alien, living among humans, would sit in front of a screen and attend online classes. The aliens are yet to manifest, but online classes became a reality for students far sooner, in 2020, when the Covid-19 pandemic hit.

Narlikar also famously proposed an alternative to the Big Bang Theory – the popular idea that the universe was created in a single moment from a single point. He believed that the universe had always existed, expanding continuously into infinity.

With his passing on Tuesday, India lost one of its most celebrated astrophysicists. Narlikar was 86 – a man far ahead of his times and someone who shaped a generation of Indian researchers through his lifelong dedication to science education.

His funeral was attended by hundreds, from school children to renowned scientists and even his housekeeping staff, underscoring the profound impact he had on society.

Born on 19 July, 1938, in the town of Kolhapur in the western state of Maharashtra, Narlikar was raised in a home steeped in academic tradition.

His father, Vishnu Narlikar, was a professor and mathematician, and mother Sumati was a scholar of the Sanskrit language.

Following in his parents footsteps, the studious Narlikar went to Cambridge University for higher studies where topped a highly prestigious mathematical course. He also took a deep interest in astrophysics and cosmology.

But his most significant episode at Cambridge was his association with his PhD guide, physicist Sir Fred Hoyle. Together, Narlikar and Hoyle laid the groundwork for a revolutionary alternative to the popular Big Bang theory.

The two physicists contested the Big Bang Theory, which posits that all matter and energy in the universe came into existence in one single instance about 13.8 billion years ago.

The Hoyle-Narlikar theory boldly proposed the continuous creation of new matter in an infinite universe. Their theory was based on what they called a quasi-steady state model.

In his autobiography, My Tale of Four Cities, Narlikar used a banking analogy to explain the theory.

“To understand this concept better, think of capital invested in a bank which offers a fixed rate of compound interest. That is, the interest accrued is constantly added to the capital which therefore grows too, along with the interest.”

He explained that the universe expanded like the capital with compound interest. However, as the name ‘steady state’ implies, the universe always looks the same to the observer.

Astronomer Somak Raychaudhury says that though Narlikar’s theory isn’t as popular as the Big Bang, it is still useful.

“He advanced mechanisms by which matter could be continually created and destroyed in an infinite universe,” Raychaudhary said.

“While the Big Bang model gained broader acceptance, many tools developed for the steady-state model remain useful today,” he added

Raychaudhary recollects that even after Hoyle began to entertain elements of the Big Bang theory, Narlikar remained committed to the steady-state theory.

A sign outside his office fittingly stated: “The Big Bang is an exploding myth.”

Narlikar stayed in the UK till 1971 as a Fellow at King’s College and a founding member of the Institute of Theoretical Astronomy.

As he shot to global fame in the astrophysics circles, the science community in India took note of his achievements.

In 1972, he returned to India and immediately took charge of the Theoretical Astrophysics Group at the coveted Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, which he led it till 1989.

But his biggest contribution to India was the creation of an institution dedicated to cutting-edge research and the democratisation of science.

This dream materialised in 1988, when Narlikar, along with other distinguished scientists, founded the Inter-University Centre for Astronomy and Astrophysics (IUCAA) in Pune city in western India.

From a modest 100sq ft room, IUCAA has gone on to become an internationally respected institution for astronomy and astrophysics.

Narlikar served as its founder-director till 2003, and continued to be an emeritus professor after that.

He insisted that IUCAA should include programs aimed at school children and the general public. Monthly lectures, science camps, and workshops became regular events.

Recalling Narlikar’s vision for the institution, science educator Arvind Gupta says, “He said PhD scholars don’t fall from the sky, you must catch them young. He offered me a place to stay, told me to try running the children’s science centre for six months, and I ended up staying 11 years. He gave me wings to fly.”

Despite being a prolific scholar who published over 300 research papers, Narlikar never confined himself to being just a scientist. He also authored many science fiction books that have been translated into multiple languages.

These stories were often grounded in scientific principles.

In a story called Virus, published in 2015, he envisioned a pandemic taking over the world; his 1986 book Waman Parat Na Ala (The Return of Vaman), tackled the ethical dilemmas of artificial intelligence.

Sanjeev Dhurandhar, who was part of the Indian team that contributed to the physical detection of gravitational waves in 2015, recalled how Narlikar inspired him to attempt the unthinkable.

“He gave me a complex problem early in my research. After I struggled for a week, he solved it on the board in 15 minutes – not to show superiority, but to guide and inspire. His openness to gravitational waves was what gave me the courage to pursue it.”

A well-known rationalist, Narlikar also took it upon himself to challenge pseudoscience. In 2008, he co-authored a paper that challenged astrology using a statistical method.

Raychaudhary said that his motivation to challenge pseudoscience came from the belief system of questioning everything that did not have a scientific basis.

But when it came to science, Narlikar believed in exploring the slimmest of possibilities.

In his last days, Narlikar continued doing what he loved most – replying to children’s letters and writing about science on his blog.

Several people have suffered life-threatening injuries in a knife attack at the main railway station in the German city of Hamburg, police have said.

The city’s fire department said 17 people were injured in the attack, while police said they did not yet have a valid figure for the number of victims.

Hamburg Police said officers arrested a 39-year-old German woman at the scene as they carried out a major operation.

The attack took place at the city’s Central Station at about 18:00 local time (16:00 GMT) on Friday.

A spokesman for the Hamburg fire department told AFP news agency 17 people had been injured and that some of the injuries were life-threatening.

In a post on X, Hamburg Police said several people who were hurt had sustained life-threatening injuries.

Speaking to the press outside the station, police said they believe the suspect acted alone and did not have a “political motive”.

Rather, they believe she may have been “in a state of mental distress,” Florian Abbenseth, a police spokesperson, told reporters.

The attack happened between platforms 13 and 14 – which are accessible via a busy main road – while a train was on one of the platforms.

Some of the victims were treated inside trains, according to reports.

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said the attack was “shocking” and thanked the emergency services on the ground for “their rapid assistance”.

German rail operator Deutsche Bahn said four platforms at the station were closed and some services would experience delays and diversions.

Pictures from the scene show a number of emergency service personnel and vehicles on the ground, and barriers that seem to be hiding the injured from public view.

One photograph used by German media shows a man being taken away by paramedics on a stretcher.

A video on social media appears to show the suspect with her hands behind her back being escorted out of the station platform by officers who put her in a police vehicle.

Hamburg Central Station is one of Germany’s busiest transport hubs, with more than 550,000 travellers per day according to its website. It is often crowded during Friday rush hour.

This is the latest in a series of violent attacks in Germany in recent months.

In January, a two-year-old boy and a 41-year-old man were killed in a stabbing in a park in Aschaffenburg, with several others hurt.

A Spanish tourist was stabbed just a month later at Berlin’s Holocaust Memorial.

Last December, six people were killed and hundreds were injured after a car drove into a crowd at a Christmas market in the eastern city of Magdeburg.

The suspects in these previous attacks were migrants, which has led Germany to tighten border control checks and saw immigration become a key issue for voters during the country’s federal elections in February.

Investigators are examining whether foggy conditions and technical glitches at a San Diego airport that cut off lights meant to guide pilots may have played a role in a fatal plane crash.

A Cessna 550 crashed early Thursday into a residential neighbourhood, burning cars and destroying at least one home.

Authorities say all six aboard are presumed dead, including a former drummer for the rock band The Devil Wears Prada and a high-profile music agent.

The National Transportation Safety Board is examining a mix of clues and said the aircraft did not have a flight data recorder, which would have provided more information. Officials have not yet determined what factors led to the crash.

In a news conference on Friday, NTSB investigator Dan Baker said the agency is receiving help from the FBI as it works to collect and preserve evidence from the scene.

He said investigators have found the plane had struck high-tension power lines before crashing into homes in the Murphy Canyon neighbourhood, about two miles from the Montgomery Field Airport – where the plane was heading.

The airport, a small regional airport with three runways, was experiencing two separate issues at the time of the crash, Mr Baker said. The Automated Surface Observing Station, which provides weather data to pilots, was “inoperative at the time of the accident due to an unrelated power surge”.

At the time, foggy conditions had been reported throughout the area.

Mr Baker attributed the outage to “some sort of technical glitch”, but cautioned that it is unclear whether this contributed to the crash since not all airports are equipped with this system.

The airport also had filed a notice to pilots called a Notam, informing them that one of the runways had experienced an issue with the lighting system that guides landing planes.

The pilot of the downed plane had been aiming for that runway when the crash occurred, Mr Baker said.

The pilot did not report any issues to air control and never declared an emergency, Mr Baker said.

The Cessna was not equipped with a flight data recorder, and officials are investigating whether it may have had a cockpit voice recorder onboard.

The crash happened around 3:45 local time (10:45 GMT) and about 100 people had to be evacuated from the neighbourhood, which is just northeast of the city of San Diego.

Eight people on the ground were injured, including one who was taken to hospital.

A preliminary report from the NTSB is expected to be released within 30 days, with a final report in the next 12 to 24 months.

The names of four of the six people aboard the flight when it crashed have thus far been released.

Emma Huke, 25, and Kendall Fortner, 24, were named as being on the plane by their employer, Sound Talent Group.

Fortner “was the life of the party and lit up any room she entered,” the company said in a statement on Friday.

Huke was “a beautiful soul who brought joy and a light to everyone in her presence”.

The company had earlier confirmed the death of its co-founder, prominent music agent Dave Shapiro. Shapiro had worked with rock groups including Sum 41, Story of the Year, Parkway Drive and singer Vanessa Carlton.

He was also an avid pilot and a certified flight instructor with 15 years of experience, according to his aviation company Velocity Aviation.

Former The Devil Wears Prada drummer Daniel Williams was also killed in the crash, members of the group confirmed in tributes posted online.

In the hours before the crash, he posted images on Instagram of himself and Shapiro sitting in the cockpit of the plane, according to the San Diego Union-Tribune.

Williams was a founding member of The Devil Wears Prada and part of the Christian metal band for more than 10 years before parting ways in 2016.

The band posted a series of photos of Williams on Instagram, showing him with drumsticks, flying in an aircraft and various moments with fellow bandmates.

“no words. We owe you everything,” the post reads. “Love you forever.”

A headline in Israel’s liberal daily Ha’aretz this week put it starkly: “Diplomatic tsunami nears,” it warned, “as Europe begins to act against Israel’s ‘complete madness’ in Gaza.”

This week’s diplomatic assault has taken many forms, not all of them foreseen.

From concerted international condemnation of Israel’s actions in Gaza, to the shocking murder of two young Israeli embassy staff members in Washington, this has been, to put it mildly, a tumultuous week for the Jewish state.

The waves started crashing on Israel’s shores on Monday evening, when Britain, France and Canada issued a joint statement condemning its “egregious” actions in Gaza.

All three warned of the possibility of “further concrete actions” if Israel continued its renewed military offensive and failed to lift restrictions on humanitarian aid.

They also threatened “targeted sanctions” in response to Israel’s settlement activity in the occupied West Bank.

A statement from 24 donor nations followed, condemning a new, Israeli-backed aid delivery model for Gaza.

But that was just the start.

On Tuesday, Britain suspended trade talks with Israel and said a 2023 road map for future cooperation was being reviewed.

A fresh round of sanctions was imposed on Jewish settlers, including Daniela Weiss, a prominent figure who featured in Louis Theroux’s recent documentary, The Settlers.

Israel’s ambassador in London, Tzipi Hotovely, was summoned to the Foreign Office, a move generally reserved for the representatives of countries like Russia and Iran.

To make matters worse for Israel, the EU’s foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas said a “strong majority” of the bloc’s members favoured reviewing the 25-year-old Association Agreement with Israel.

The reasons for this flurry of diplomatic condemnation seemed clear enough.

Evidence that Gaza was closer to mass starvation than at any time since the war began, following Hamas’s attack in October 2023, was sending ripples of horror across the world.

Israel’s military offensive, and the rhetoric surrounding it, suggested that conditions in the stricken territory were about to deteriorate once more.

Addressing MPs on Tuesday, UK Foreign Secretary David Lammy singled out the words of Israel’s hardline Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, who had spoken of “cleansing” Gaza, “destroying what’s left” and relocating the civilian population to third countries.

“We must call this what it is,” Lammy said. “It’s extremism. It is dangerous. It is repellent. It is monstrous. And I condemn it in the strongest possible terms.”

Smotrich is not a decision-maker when it comes to conduct of the war in Gaza. Before now, his incendiary remarks might have been set to one side.

But those days appear to be over. Rightly or wrongly, Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is seen as in thrall to his far-right colleagues. Critics accuse him of relentlessly pursuing a war, without regard for the lives of Palestinian civilians or the remaining Israeli hostages still being held in Gaza.

Countries that have long supported Israel’s right to defend itself are beginning to say “enough is enough.”

This week was clearly a significant moment for Britain’s Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, a staunch defender of Israel (he once said “I support Zionism without qualification”) who faced strong criticism from within the Labour Party for his reluctance last year to call for a ceasefire in Gaza.

On Tuesday, Sir Keir said the suffering of innocent children in Gaza was “utterly intolerable”.

In the face of this unusually concerted action from some of his country’s strongest allies, Netanyahu reacted furiously, suggesting Britain, France and Canada were guilty of supporting Hamas.

“When mass murderers, rapists, baby killers and kidnappers thank you, you’re on the wrong side of justice,” he posted on X.

“You’re on the wrong side of humanity and you’re on the wrong side of history.”

Israel’s Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar went further, suggesting there was a “direct line” between Israel’s critics, including Starmer, and Wednesday night’s killing of Yaron Lischinsky and Sarah Lynn Milgrim, the two Israeli embassy employees gunned down outside the Jewish Museum in Washington.

But despite the outpourings of sympathy following the shooting, the Israeli government seems increasingly isolated, with western allies and prominent members of the Jewish diaspora all voicing anger – and anguish – over the war in Gaza.

Lord Levy, former Middle East envoy and advisor to Tony Blair, said he endorsed the current government’s criticisms, even suggesting they might have come “a little late”.

“There has to be a stand, not just from us in this country but internationally, against what is going on in Gaza,” he told BBC Radio 4’s The World at One, describing himself as “a very proud Jew…who passionately cares for Israel”.

But silent, throughout all this, is the one man who could, if he wanted, stop the war.

At the end of his recent tour of the Gulf, Donald Trump said “a lot of people are starving”.

White House officials indicated the US president was frustrated with the war and wanted the Israeli government to “wrap it up”.

But while other western leaders release expressions of outrage, Trump is saying almost nothing.