“Who is responsible for this mess?”

The question recently echoed across India’s financial capital Mumbai as thousands of residents once again found themselves stranded, soaked and frustrated.

Heavy rains brought the city to a standstill, and this was before the monsoon had even begun in full swing. Roads turned into rivers, vehicles broke down mid-commute and low-lying neighbourhoods were waterlogged within hours.

Even a newly-built underground metro station could not withstand the heavy downpour as photos and videos of the station flooded with muddy water went viral.

The pre-monsoon deluge once again exposed the city’s fragile infrastructure and sparked widespread outrage on social media.

The Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC), one of India’s richest civic organisations responsible for maintaining Mumbai’s infrastructure, initially blamed the problem on rubbish clogging the drains and debris from metro construction, The Hindustan Times newspaper reported.

Following criticism, the BMC installed de-watering pumps in flood-prone areas and began manually clearing waste from drains to prevent further waterlogging. But for many residents, the action came too late.

The crisis is neither new – nor is it unique to Mumbai.

From Delhi in the north to Bengaluru in the south, India’s biggest cities flood every monsoon season. Roads collapse, drains overflow, infrastructure is overwhelmed and traffic grinds to a halt.

Experts blame rapid unplanned urbanisation, poor infrastructure and years of environmental neglect as the root causes of this problem.

“The pace of urban expansion has far exceeded the evolution of supporting infrastructure, particularly in water and drainage systems,” says Dikshu Kukreja, an architect and urban planner based in Delhi.

“Many cities rely on outdated systems designed decades ago. And in the process of unchecked expansion, natural drainage channels, wetlands and water bodies that once absorbed excess rainwater have been built over or neglected,” he adds.

Experts say there’s no one-size-fits-all solution as each city faces unique challenges and factors such as geography, population and climate must be considered when designing effective responses.

India receives 80% of its annual rainfall during the monsoon season, which usually starts from June and continues until September.

The monsoon is crucial for agriculture and the livelihoods of millions of Indian farmers. They rely on seasonal showers in parts of the country where proper irrigation channels are absent.

But experts say climate change has made erratic weather – such as unseasonal rains, flash floods and droughts linked to extreme heat – a more regular phenomenon, directly affecting millions of people.

This year the monsoon arrived a week early in parts of southern India, catching authorities unprepared.

“A depression developed over the eastern central Arabian Sea which was instrumental in pulling up the monsoon current,” says Mahesh Palawat, vice-president of meteorology and climate change at weather forecasting company Skymet.

In Delhi, the Minto bridge has become a symbol of the city’s annual monsoon chaos. Almost every year, after heavy rain, a bus or lorry gets stuck under the bridge – an image that highlights the city’s struggle with urban flooding.

This year, Delhi recorded its wettest May since 1901, with more than 185mm of rainfall, according to the Indian weather department.

Many residents reported damage to their property.

At least four people were killed and dozens more were injured in one of the two heavy storms that hit the city in May, according to media reports.

Meanwhile, in Bengaluru, more than 2,000kms (1,240 miles) from the capital, the problem looks different but its root cause is the same.

Once known for its network of lakes that helped manage excess rainwater, Bengaluru has seen many of these water bodies encroached upon. In their place now stand apartment complexes, business hubs and roads – leaving the city vulnerable to flooding.

“Bengaluru is made up of three major valleys through which water naturally flows. Most of the city’s lakes are located in these valleys,” explains Ram Prasad, a lake conservation activist.

These valleys were originally designated as no-construction zones but over the years, encroachment has taken place and later changes in the law permitted infrastructure projects to be built in the area, he says.

“When you convert lakes – which traditionally act as flood buffers – into built-up areas, the water has nowhere to go. So, what we’re seeing in Bengaluru today is the result of poor urban planning.”

Mr Prasad points out that Bengaluru, which sits atop a hill, was never meant to flood and the current situation is entirely man-made.

Violations of building norms, especially construction that narrows stormwater drains or builds directly over them, have only made things worse, he says.

Meanwhile, Mumbai faces natural challenges due to its geography. For example, many parts of Mumbai are low-lying and close to the sea, which makes them more vulnerable to flooding during heavy rains and high tides.

But experts say it’s human actions that have made things much worse: cutting down mangroves, which normally act like natural barriers against floods, and building on floodplains where water is supposed to drain.

“The breakdown is systemic – it begins with planning that often doesn’t account for future climate variabilities, gets exacerbated by poor execution and is compounded by weak enforcement of regulations,” Mr Kukerja says. “Political will is often reactive – responding to disasters rather than investing in long-term resilience.”

This isn’t just a big city problem. Smaller towns often suffer equally, if not more.

Over the weekend, at least 30 people died in India’s northeastern states after heavy rains triggered flooding and landslides. Tens of thousands have been affected, with rescue efforts under way.

So, can anything be done to prevent this?

“Yes,” says Mr Kukreja, but only if it is part of a long-term, co-ordinated strategy.

He suggests using mapping and real-time sensors to identify high-risk zones and alert communities. Predictive models can also help authorities plan better responses.

“But technology alone is not a fix, it needs to be paired with responsive governance and community involvement,” he said.

For India’s cities to withstand the rains, they need more than just de-watering pumps and quick fixes. They need forward-thinking planning, before the damage is done.

Elon Musk-owned electric vehicle (EV) giant Tesla is “not interested in manufacturing in India”, the country’s heavy industries minister has said.

The remarks were made on Monday as the Indian government issued detailed guidelines for a scheme to promote EV manufacturing in the country.

This is the first time that India has publicly admitted that it has not been able to lure investment dollars from Musk, even after unveiling incentives for global EV giants last March.

Minister HD Kumaraswamy confirmed that Tesla would open two showrooms in India and have a retail presence.

“Mercedes Benz, Skoda-Volkswagen, Hyundai and Kia have shown interest [in manufacturing electric cars in India]. Tesla – we are not expecting from them,” Kumaraswamy said.

Another official told the Press Trust of India news agency that a Tesla representative had participated in the first round of stakeholder discussions for the manufacturing scheme but “was not part of the second and third round”.

The comments come on the back of US President Donald Trump saying in February that it would be “unfair” for the US if Tesla built a factory in India.

Over the years Tesla has had several rounds of negotiations to enter India.

• Can Tesla’s EVs win over India’s price-conscious buyers?

The company’s original plans to open a base were shelved in 2022 after the Indian government insisted that Tesla make cars locally. The carmaker had said it wanted to export to India first so that it could test demand.

In 2023, Musk said he was “trying to figure out the right timing” to invest in the Indian market.

Musk met Prime Minister Narendra Modi earlier this year in Washington DC where the two discussed the “immense potential” for collaboration in technology and innovation.

Last year India cut import taxes on EVs for global carmakers which committed to investing $500m (£369m) and starting local production within three years. This came after Musk complained that high import duties were preventing the carmaker from entering India.

But analysts say the Indian EV market may not be mature enough yet for Tesla to invest locally – EV sales still make up less than 3% of overall passenger vehicle sales in India, and locally made alternatives can cost half of what consumers will have to shell out for Tesla’s base model.

Charging infrastructure and local road conditions could be further deterrents.

India’s Tata Motors currently leads India’s EV market with over 60% market share. MG Motors – jointly owned by India’s JSW and a Chinese firm – is second at 22%.

Globally, Tesla has been facing growing competition from Chinese players such as BYD.

Its sales plummeted to their lowest level in three years in the first three months of 2025 after a backlash against Musk and his role in the Trump administration.

Musk announced his departure from his government role last week.

A man accused of throwing Molotov cocktails at demonstrators attending a march for Israeli hostages in Colorado on Sunday planned the attack for a year, investigators say.

Mohammed Sabry Soliman, 45, who is charged with a federal hate crime as well as state charges of attempted murder, assault and use of an explosive device, made a brief appearance in court on Monday.

Officials say the Egyptian national targeted a group of pro-Israel protesters at an outdoor mall in Boulder and shouted “Free Palestine” as he threw incendiary devices, injuring eight of them.

At least 16 unlit Molotov cocktails were found nearby afterwards. Investigators say he targeted the group after finding them online.

It is the latest attack on members of America’s Jewish community.

The weekly demonstration was organised by Run for Their Lives, which raises awareness about Israeli hostages still held in Gaza.

Officials say Mr Soliman threw two incendiary devices into the gathering at the Pearl Street Mall, with eight of the victims suffering burns.

Twelve people, including four men and four women between the ages of 52 and 88, were taken to the hospital, with injuries ranging from minor to serious.

Officials previously said there were eight victims, but on Monday four more came forward with minor injuries.

• What we know about the attack in Colorado

The eldest of the victims is a Holocaust survivor, Rabbi Israel Wilhelm, the Chabad director at the University of Colorado Boulder, told the BBC’s US partner CBS News.

The attacked happened on the beginning of the Jewish holiday of Shavuot.

The suspect appeared in court on Monday via a video feed from the Boulder County Jail for less than five minutes, standing and wearing an orange jumpsuit.

He answered “yes” to some procedural questions from the judge, but otherwise did not speak. The court scheduled a date for the formal filing of charges this Thursday.

Officials said on Monday they believe he acted alone.

In an interview after his arrest, Mr Soliman told police he had been planning the attack for a year, to take place after his daughter’s high school graduation, according to an arrest warrant affidavit from the FBI.

He told police he wanted to “kill all Zionists” and would carry out the attack again, the court documents stated.

In addition to the unlit Molotov cocktails, backpack weed sprayer containing octane gasoline was found nearby.

Mr Soliman dressed up as a gardener with an orange vest to get as close to the group of people as possible, according to police.

He said he had been watching YouTube videos on how to make Molotov cocktails, according to the affidavit.

Investigators say he told them he learned to shoot a gun in hope of obtaining a concealed-carry permit, but ended up using Molotov cocktails because his immigration status prevented him from accessing firearms.

Mr Soliman drove from his home in Colorado Springs to Boulder, arriving five minutes before the group’s meeting, according to court documents. He allegedly said he bought petrol on his way to the attack.

According to the FBI, throughout the interview, Mr Soliman said he hated Zionists and targeted them because they need to stop taking over “our land”, which he said was a reference to the Palestinian territories.

Mr Soliman allegedly told officials he left his iPhone hidden in a desk drawer with messages to his family, wife and five children. His wife later brought the iPhone to officials, according to court documents.

Law enforcement officials said on Monday there was no previous indication that the defendant was a threat.

“We fully intended to hold Mr Soliman accountable for his actions, and these charges are the first step,” Acting US Attorney for the District of Colorado J Bishop Grewell told a press conference on Monday.

Mr Soliman moved to Colorado Springs three years ago and previously spent 17 years living in Kuwait.

In 2022, Mr Soliman arrived in California on a non-immigrant visa that expired in February 2023, multiple sources have told CBS News.

Homeland security officials said he filed for asylum a month after arriving, but did not provide details about the outcome of that immigration case or whether it was resolved.

President Donald Trump’s deputy chief of staff for policy, Stephen Miller, said on X that Mr Soliman was given a work permit by the Biden administration after he had overstayed his visa.

“In light of yesterday’s horrific attack, all terrorists, their family members, and terrorist sympathizers here on a visa should know that under the Trump administration we will find you, revoke your visa, and deport you,” US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said on X.

Mr Soliman has been working as a food delivery driver for Uber since 2023, a company spokesperson told CBS.

According to the company, when he began working for them, he met all Uber requirements, including passing a criminal and driving history background check, providing a photo ID and holding a valid Social Security number.

Trump said in a social media post that attacks like the one Mr Soliman allegedly carried out would not be tolerated.

“This is yet another example of why we must keep our Borders SECURE, and deport Illegal, Anti-American Radicals from our Homeland,” he said.

The Jewish community in the US has faced a series of attacks during the war in Gaza.

Last month two Israel embassy aides were shot and killed outside Washington DC’s Capital Jewish Museum. Investigators said the assailant shouted “Free Palestine”.

In April, a suspect firebombed the residence of Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro, who is Jewish. Officials said they were considering hate crime charges.

The Israel-Gaza war began on 7 October 2023 when Hamas launched a cross-border attack, killing about 1,200 people and taking 251 others hostage.

At least 54,470 people have been killed since then in Gaza as a result of Israel’s military campaign, according to the territory’s Hamas-run health ministry.

Mongolian prime minister Luvsannamsrain Oyun-Erdene has resigned after losing a confidence vote in parliament.

The vote followed days of mass protests over corruption allegations – fuelled by social media posts about his son’s lavish birthday party and engagement.

Oyun-Erdene, who took office in 2021, will remain as caretaker PM until a successor is appointed within 30 days.

“It was an honour to serve my country and people in times of difficulties, including pandemics, wars, and tariffs,” he said after the vote.

He had to stand down as he fell short of a majority, or 64 of the 126-seat parliament. Some 82 lawmakers took part in the secret ballot, 44 of whom voted for Oyun-Erdene, while 38 voted against him.

Hundreds of protesters, many of them young people, had been taking to the streets for two weeks before the vote, demanding Oyun-Erdene’s resignation.

In particular, they pointed to his family’s – especially his son’s – apparent lavish lifestyle, questioning the source of their wealth.

Mongolians have circulated on social media an extravagant wedding proposal by Oyun-Erdene’s son, as well as expensive fashion items.

Oyun-Erdene has rejected allegations of corruption, accusing critics of launching a smear campaign against him.

According to Transparency International, a watchdog, Mongolia has seen worsening corruption since Oyun-Erdene came into power. Last year, it was ranked 114th out of 180 countries in terms of government transparency.

A former communist state sanwiched between Russia and China, Mongolia has been transitioning to democracy since the fall of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s.

Corruption is a persistent problem. Last year, US prosecutors sought to forfeit former Mongolian PM Sukhbaatar Batbold’s two New York apartments that he allegedly bought using stolen mining funds.

Batbold, who served from 2012 to 2015, denied wrongdoing.

In recent years, Mongolia has sought to build closer ties with the West, counting the United States and European countries as part of its “third neighbour” foreign policy.

MI5 is facing fresh scrutiny in the case of a violent neo-Nazi agent after a High Court judge said he had “no confidence” in the Security Service’s account of how a senior officer gave false evidence.

Ahead of a court hearing on Tuesday, the BBC can reveal Mr Justice Chamberlain ordered MI5 to hand over secret documents about the case.

He also said there was a further issue about the “correctness” of new evidence provided by a very senior MI5 officer.

Tuesday’s hearing comes four months after the BBC revealed MI5 had lied to three courts about a misogynistic agent known as X. The agent used his MI5 role to coerce and terrorise his girlfriend, attacking her with a machete.

The most senior judge in England and Wales, Lady Chief Justice Baroness Sue Carr, and the President of the King’s Bench Division Dame Victoria Sharp, will now join Mr Justice Chamberlain to consider what, if any, action should be taken about MI5’s false evidence.

There are a range of potential options, from accepting the conclusions of MI5’s investigations to initiating contempt of court proceedings against MI5 itself or individual officers – or both.

Usually, contempt of court proceedings are referred to the Attorney General, currently Lord Hermer, but in this case, he is technically representing MI5.

Details about MI5’s internal investigation into how it came to give the false evidence, which were included in the secret documents given to the court, may also be made public on Tuesday.

MI5 gave the evidence in 2022 after then-Attorney General Suella Braverman sought an injunction to stop a BBC investigation about X. She won him legal anonymity but failed to prevent the story being published.

During that case, a senior spy known only as Witness A said MI5 had stuck to its policy to “neither confirm nor deny” (NCND) that X was an MI5 agent during conversations with me in 2020, when I was investigating X’s conduct.

But, in February this year, the BBC was able to reveal Witness A’s evidence was false.

In fact, MI5 had disclosed X’s status in phone calls to me, which I had made notes of and recorded, as the Security Service tried to persuade me to drop my investigation.

MI5’s false claim was repeated in two other courts considering a legal claim against the Security Service by X’s former girlfriend, known publicly as “Beth”.

During hearings in recent weeks, Mr Justice Chamberlain raised the new concerns regarding MI5’s account of how it came to give the false evidence.

These concerns centred on accounts of the two investigations launched after the BBC exposed MI5’s false claims in February this year – an internal one, and an external review by the government’s former chief lawyer Sir Jonathan Jones KC, commissioned by Home Secretary Yvette Cooper.

In April, the court and the BBC were provided with a witness statement by the very senior MI5 officer – known as Witness B – purporting to summarise the investigations. They were also given an open, non-secret version of Sir Jonathan’s external review.

Although the court can receive sensitive information – and had security-cleared barristers, known as special advocates, acting on behalf of the BBC – it was not given a secret, closed version of the external review, nor a copy of the internal investigation report and its underlying documents.

After a request by the special advocates, Mr Justice Chamberlain made clear he wanted disclosure of the closed version of the external review. During a later hearing he ordered that MI5 also hand over the internal investigation report described by Witness B, as well as policy documents and interview notes with MI5 officers.

He also raised concerns about whether the open, non-secret documents originally provided to the court and the BBC were an accurate reflection of the closed versions.

He said Witness B had claimed the original open version of the report was a “fair and accurate” reflection of the closed version. But, having read the closed report, Mr Justice Chamberlain gave his provisional view that:

• It contained “potentially significant material” not in the open version of the report
• This material “raises real questions about whether Witness B could properly rely on the open version as a fair and accurate report of the closed report”
• Because of “the piecemeal way this has come to light”, he had “no confidence that the court has been given the full picture of how Witness A came to give false evidence”
• New material raised “a separate issue about the correctness of Witness B’s recent evidence in these proceedings”

The court will also hear on Tuesday whether MI5 will be able to continue to apply its policy of NCND in relation to the agent status of X within the legal case itself, despite publicly accepting it had departed from the policy in phone calls to me.

The NCND policy has allowed MI5 to withhold material from the BBC as well as the separate case brought by X’s former girlfriend Beth.

She had complained about MI5 to a specialist court, the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT), and then sought a judicial review in a third court of an IPT ruling that allowed MI5 to apply NCND.

It meant that material confirming X’s agent status has been confined to secret hearings, where she was represented by the tribunal’s own barristers and her lawyers were excluded.

It was an attack of astonishing ingenuity – unprecedented, broad, and 18 months in the making.

On 1 June more than 100 Ukrainian drones struck air bases deep inside Russia, targeting nuclear-capable long-range bombers.

The scale of the operation dubbed “Spider Web” became clear almost as soon as it began, with explosions reported across several time zones all over Russia – as far north as Murmansk above the Arctic Circle, and as far east as the Amur region, over 8,000km from Ukraine.

The Russian Defence Ministry confirmed the attacks had occurred in five regions of Russia – Murmansk, Irkutsk, Ivanovo, Ryazan and Amur – but stated planes had been damaged only in Murmansk and Irkutsk, while in other locations the attacks had been repelled.

In photos released shortly after the attack, Vasyl Maliuk, the head of the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU), can be seen looking at a satellite map of airfields in which the bases in the locations listed by Russia are clearly identifiable.

Maliuk said the drones were smuggled into Russia inside wooden cabins mounted on the back of lorries and concealed below remotely operated detachable roofs.

The lorries were then apparently driven to locations near airbases by drivers who were seemingly unaware of their cargo; then, the drones were launched and set upon their targets.

Videos circulating online show drones emerging from the roof of one of the vehicles involved. One lorry driver interviewed by Russian state outlet Ria Novosti said he and other drivers tried to knock down drones flying out of a lorry with rocks.

“They were in the back of the truck and we threw stones to keep them from flying up, to keep them pinned down,” he said.

According to unverified reports by Russian Telegram channel Baza – which is known for its links to the security services – the drivers of the lorries from which the drones took off all told similar stories of being booked by businessmen to deliver wooden cabins in various locations around Russia.

Some of them said they then received further instructions over the phone on where to park the lorries; when they did so, they were stunned to see drones fly out of them.

In a triumphant post shared on social media on Sunday night, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky – who directly supervised the operation – said 117 drones had been used in the daring attack that took “one year, six months and nine days” to prepare.

He also said one of the targeted locations was right next to one of the offices of the FSB Russian security services.

Russia has said it has detained people in connection with the attack, although Zelensky stated the people who had helped facilitate the operation “were withdrawn from Russian territory… they are now safe”.

In a now-deleted Telegram post, local authorities from the city of Ust-Kut in the Irkutsk region said they were looking for a Ukrainian-born 37-year-old in connection with the drone attack on the Belaya military airfield.

Images shared by the SBU show dozens of small black drones neatly stashed in wooden cabins inside a warehouse, which Russian military bloggers pinpointed to a location in Chelyabinsk.

Dr Steve Wright, a UK-based drone expert, told the BBC the drones used to hit Russian aircraft were simple quadcopters carrying relatively heavy payloads.

He added that what made this attack “quite extraordinary” was the ability to smuggle them into Russia and then launch and command them remotely – which he concluded had been achieved through a link relayed through a satellite or the internet. Zelensky said each of the 117 drones launched had its own pilot.

Dr Wright also suggested it was likely the drones were able to fly in using GPS but may have also overcome localised Russian jamming measures by manually piloting drones remotely.

Kyiv has not shared details on the origin of the drones, but since the start of the war Ukraine has become extremely efficient at manufacturing them – and it is possible the ones used in this operation were produced at home.

“Russia has had very tangible losses, and justifiably so,” said Zelensky in his nightly video address.

According to Ukraine, 41 strategic bombers were hit and “at least” 13 destroyed. Moscow has not confirmed any losses of aircraft beyond saying some planes had been damaged.

Videos verified by the BBC show damaged aircraft at the Olenegorsk air base in Murmansk and the Belaya air base in Irkutsk.

The strategic missile-carrying bombers targeted in the attack are thought to be – among others – the Tu-95, Tu-22 and Tu-160. Repairing them will be difficult and, because none are still in production, replacing them is impossible.

Radar satellite imagery shared by Capella Space reveals at least four badly damaged or destroyed Russian long-range bombers at Belaya airbase. This matches Ukrainian drone footage also showing an attack on a Tu-95 bomber.

“According to the laws and customs of war, we have worked out absolutely legitimate targets – military airfields and aircraft that bomb our peaceful cities,” said SBU head Vasyl Malyuk.

Tu-95 bombers are said to have launched a large-scale Kh-101 missile attack on Ukraine as recently as last week. Each bomber can carry eight guided cruise missiles and each missile itself carries a 400kg (882lb) warhead.

A-50 military spy planes were also reportedly targeted. They are valuable aircraft that boost Russia’s ability to both intercept Ukrainian missiles and to launch its own strikes.

It is not known how many A-50s Russia has – but in February 2024 military intelligence chief Kyrylo Budanov put that number at eight, so any loss or damage could be a serious blow to Moscow.

In a post on social media, the SBU said operation Spider Web cost Russia $7bn (£5.2bn).

Russian state media stayed studiously quiet on the attacks, with primetime Sunday TV shows merely quoting statements by regional authorities. By Monday morning, the story had disappeared from the bulletins.

On the internet and beyond Ukrainians celebrated, with one lauding the operation as “titanic”.

“Of course, not everything can be revealed at this moment,” Zelensky wrote on Telegram, “but these are Ukrainian actions that will undoubtedly be in history books.”

Disney says it is laying off several hundred more people around the world, with workers in its film, television and finance departments impacted.

The entertainment giant has been under pressure as viewers move away from cable TV subscriptions in favour of streaming platforms.

“As our industry transforms at a rapid pace, we continue to evaluate ways to efficiently manage our businesses while fuelling the state-of-the-art creativity and innovation that consumers value and expect from Disney,” a spokesperson told the BBC.

The latest job cuts follow major layoffs announced in 2023, when around 7,000 workers were let go as part of a drive by chief executive Bob Iger to save $5.5bn (£4.1bn).

The cuts will impact multiple teams including marketing departments for its film and television units.

Workers in Disney’s casting and development and corporate finance departments will also be affected.

“We have been surgical in our approach to minimise the number of impacted employees,” said a spokesperson. The company also said that no teams will be closed down entirely.

The California-based firm employs 233,000 workers, with just over 60,000 of those based outside the US.

Disney owns a host of companies across the entertainment industry including Marvel, Hulu and ESPN.

The firm reported stronger than expected earnings in May, with overall revenue of $23.6bn for the first three months of the year. That was a 7% increase from the same period in 2024.

It said the growth was fuelled by new subscribers to its Disney+ streaming service.

The company has released a number of new films this year including Captain America: Brave New World and Snow White.

The live action remake of the iconic Snow White animated film did not perform as well as expected at cinemas, after facing a number of negative reviews.

But Disney’s latest release, Lilo & Stitch, broke box office records in the US for the Memorial Day holiday weekend.

The animated film has seen global ticket sales of more than $610m since its release in May, according to industry data firm Box Office Mojo.

A second round of direct peace talks between Russia and Ukraine have ended without a major breakthrough, and only a deal to swap more prisoners of war.

Ukrainian negotiators said Russia had again rejected an “unconditional ceasefire” – a key demand by Kyiv and its allies in Europe and the US – but the two committed to return the bodies of 12,000 soldiers.

The Russian team said it had proposed a two- or three-day truce “in certain areas” of the vast front line, but gave no further details.

At Monday’s talks, which were held in the Turkish city of Istanbul and lasted just over an hour, the two sides did agree to exchange all sick and heavily wounded prisoners of war, as well those aged under 25.

Expectations were low even before the talks started, with both sides remaining deeply divided on how to end a war that has been raging since Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.

Moscow currently controls about 20% of Ukrainian territory, including the southern Crimea peninsula it annexed in 2014.

• Ukraine accuses Russia of undermining next round of peace talks
• The terrifying new weapon changing the war in Ukraine

Speaking at a briefing after the meeting, Ukrainian Defence Minister Rustem Umerov, who led Kyiv’s negotiating team, said Ukraine was insisting on a “full and and unconditional ceasefire” for at least 30 days on land, at sea and in the air to “end the killings now”.

He said Ukraine had handed over its truce proposals to Russia “a few days ago” – but Moscow failed to do the same, presenting its plan only at the talks in Istanbul.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky hit back at Russia’s proposal of a temporary ceasefire to collect their dead.

“I think ‘idiots’, because the whole point of a ceasefire is to stop people from becoming dead,” he wrote on the social media site, X.

The texts of both the Russian and Ukrainian ceasefire proposals have not officially been made public.

However, Russian state-run media published what they say are key points of Moscow’s position after the talks concluded. These include unchanged demands of a Ukrainian military withdrawal from its four partly occupied regions in the south-east, and the demobilisation of its soldiers.

Russia also demands international recognition of Ukraine’s Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions, as well as the annexed Crimea.

Other conditions include a ban on Ukraine’s membership in any military alliances, a limit on the size of the Ukrainian army, Russian as an official language, and the lifting of international sanctions on Russia.

Ukrainian Deputy Foreign Minister Serhiy Kyslytsia said that Russia had rejected the unconditional ceasefire.

Ukraine also handed over a list of hundreds of children Kyiv says have been forcefully taken to Russia.

Ukraine’s negotiators said they were expecting Russia’s response to their proposals by the end of June, stressing the need to prepare for direct talks between Zelensky and Russia’s Vladimir Putin.

But so far there is no sign of any progress towards a meeting between the two presidents.

Speaking at a separate news briefing, Russian delegation head Vladimir Medinsky confirmed all sick and heavily wounded prisoners of war, as well as those younger than 25, would be exchanged. No timeframe was given as to when this would happen.

Medinsky also said that Russia would hand over the bodies of 6,000 Ukrainian soldiers to Kyiv next week. Zelensky also said later on Monday that Ukraine would return the bodies of 6,000 Russian soldiers, but did not specify when this would occur.

Rejecting an unconditional ceasefire, Russia prefers to talk about “lasting peace”, repeating its previous tough demands which Ukraine and its allies say are tantamount to Kyiv’s de facto capitulation.

Zelensky, who was attending a summit in Vilnius, Lithuania on Monday, said that “while there are no meaningful signals from Russia to end the war, it is important to strengthen our defence”.

He also called for more pressure through sanctions on Russia.

In the first round of direct peace talks, held on 16 May, Ukraine and Russia failed to bridge their differences on how to end the war, agreeing only to swap 1,000 prisoners of war each.

Zelensky and his European allies have repeatedly accused Russia of deliberately delaying any meaningful negotiations to seize more Ukrainian territory.

US President Donald Trump, who has been pushing for a quick settlement, has so far delayed hitting Russia with tougher sanctions.

However, Trump has indicated that he is “open” to a three-way summit with Zelensky and Putin “if it comes to that”, according to White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt.

“He wants both of these leaders and both sides to come to the table together,” she said.

In a rare rebuke last month, Trump called Putin “absolutely crazy” following a massive drone and missile attacks on Ukraine. In response, the Kremlin said Trump was showing signs of “emotional overload”.

The UK government has threatened to sue former Chelsea Football Club owner Roman Abramovich to make sure the money from the club’s sale goes to Ukraine.

The £2.5bn in proceeds have been frozen in a UK bank account since the sale, with Mr Abramovich sanctioned after Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.

The UK government wants the money to be for Ukrainian humanitarian aid, but Mr Abramovich has said he wants it to go to “all victims of the war in Ukraine”.

In a joint statement, Chancellor Rachel Reeves and Foreign Secretary David Lammy said: “While the door for negotiations will remain open, we are fully prepared to pursue this through the courts if required.”

They said they wanted “to ensure people suffering in Ukraine can benefit from these proceeds as soon as possible”.

They added: “The government is determined to see the proceeds from the sale of Chelsea Football Club reach humanitarian causes in Ukraine, following Russia’s illegal full-scale invasion.

“We are deeply frustrated that it has not been possible to reach agreement on this with Mr Abramovich so far”.

The delay in releasing the funds centres on a disagreement between the UK government and his lawyers.

Mr Abramovich – a Russian billionaire who made his fortune in oil and gas – was granted a special licence to sell Chelsea following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, providing he could prove he would not benefit from the sale.

He is alleged to have strong ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin, something he has denied.

He cannot access the £2.5bn sale proceeds under UK sanctions but the money still legally belongs to him.

When he announced his decision to sell the club, he said proceeds from the sale would be donated via a foundation “for the benefit of all victims of the war in Ukraine”, which would include those in Russia.

The UK government has pushed back and argued that the funds should only be spent on humanitarian efforts inside Ukraine.

A House of Lords committee said last year said it was “incomprehensible” that Mr Abramovich’s promise to use the funds to support Ukraine remained unfulfilled, and that the assets remained frozen.

“This impasse reflects badly on both Mr Abramovich and the government, which ought to have pushed for a more binding commitment,” the report said.

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

South Korea will elect a new president on 3 June to replace Yoon Suk Yeol, who was removed from office for placing the country under martial law for six hours in December.

The winner will be tasked with managing the political and economic fallout of Yoon’s move, which plunged the country in deep turmoil and divided opinions.

The snap election is also being held as South Korea faces an unpredictable ally in US President Donald Trump – and that will shape long-running challenges such as the threat from North Korea, and Seoul’s frosty relationship with China.

Here is what you need to know as the nation of about 52 million people chooses a new president who will lead it for the next five years.

Yoon was supposed to serve as president until 2027, but his term ended in disgrace.

He shocked the nation by declaring martial law on 3 December, citing threats from “anti-state forces” and North Korea – but it soon became clear that he was spurred by his own political troubles.

A week later, he was impeached by parliament. On 4 April, a constitutional court upheld his impeachment and removed him from office permanently, setting the stage for a snap presidential election within 60 days, as required by law.

In the six turbulent months since Yoon’s martial law attempt, the country has had three acting presidents, the most recent being Lee Ju-ho, the education minister who assumed the role one month before the election.

Lee replaced Prime Minister Han Duck Soo, who himself was impeached just weeks after taking over from Yoon as acting president. Finance minister Choi Sang-mok was acting president before Han was reinstated in March.

Yoon’s martial law laid bare the deep political divisions in the country, as those who supported his decision to impose martial law and those who opposed it took to the streets in protest.

The following months of uncertainty shook public confidence in South Korea’s economy. And this was at a time when US President Donald Trump unleashed his tariffs on America’s trading partners, with South Korean goods facing a 25% levy.

Closer to home, relations with North Korea are a persistent challenge. While 2025 has been relatively uneventful, the year before saw heightened tensions as Kim Jong Un escalated the rhetoric, and both sides spent months sending balloons and drones carrying propaganda materials across the border.

South Korea’s new leader must also balance Seoul’s relations between its biggest trading partner, Beijing, and its most important security ally, Washington.

Then there is the task of arresting the country’s declining birth rate, which is among the lowest in the world – 0.75.

Polls have placed Lee Jae-myung of the main opposition Democratic Party as the frontrunner among six candidates, followed by Kim Moon-soo from the ruling PPP.

Lee, who lost to Yoon by a razor-thin margin in 2022, is hailed by his supporters as a working class hero. He worked in a factory before he became a human rights lawyer and politician. He has promised to establish a “real Republic of Korea” with jobs and a fair society.

Kim, a former labour minister, has positioned himself as a president for the economy, promising to create a business-friendly environment.

The other candidates are Lee Jun-seok of the New Reform Party, Kwon Young-guk of the Democratic Labor Party and two independents – Hwang Kyo-ahn and Song Jin- ho.

For the first time in 18 years, there is no woman running for president. The first woman to run for president was Hong Suk-Ja in 1987, but she withdrew before the vote. The election in 2012 saw four female candidates contest for the top job.

The election is scheduled on 3 June and voting precincts will be open from 06:00 local time (22:00 GMT) to 20:00. South Koreans overseas were allowed to vote early from 20 to 25 May.

Results are expected to come in after polls close and the winner will likely be known in the early hours of the following day.

When Yoon defeated Lee in 2022, he was proclaimed the winner nine hours after the close of voting, or at 04:40 the morning after election day.

That was the closest presidential contest in the country’s history, which saw Yoon win by a 0.73% difference in votes.

The new president will take office immediately and unlike many of his predecessors, will not have the advantage of a formal transition from Yoon.

Yoon faces trial for an insurrection charge as a result of his attempt to impose martial law.

In January this year he became South Korea’s first sitting president to be arrested after investigators scaled barricades and cut through barbed wire to take him into custody. He was released from detention weeks later on a technicality.

He was also recently indicted for abuse of power, a separate charge to insurrection.

Before the election, Yoon quit his party in what analysts said was an attempt to shore up the chances of PPP’s presidential candidate Kim Moon-soo.

Before the events of 3 December 2024, Lee Jae–myung’s path to South Korea’s presidency was littered with obstacles.

Ongoing legal cases, investigations for corruption and allegations of abusing power all looked set to derail the former opposition leader’s second presidential bid.

Then a constitutional crisis changed everything.

On that night, former president Yoon Suk Yeol’s abortive attempt to invoke martial law set in motion a series of events that appears to have cleared the path for Lee.

Now, as the Democratic Party candidate, he is the frontrunner to win South Korea’s election on 3 June.

It’s a dramatic reversal of fortunes for the 61-year-old, who at the time of Yoon’s martial law declaration stood convicted of making false statements during his last presidential campaign in 2022.

Those charges still cast a long shadow over Lee, and could yet threaten his years-long pursuit of the top job. But they are also just the latest in a string of controversies that have dogged him throughout his political career.

A rags-to-riches origin story combined with a bullish political style has made Lee into a divisive figure in South Korea.

“Lee Jae-myung’s life has been full of ups and downs, and he often takes actions that stir controversy,” Dr Lee Jun-han, professor of political science and international studies at Incheon National University, tells the BBC.

These actions typically include attempts at progressive reform – such as a pledge, made during his 2022 presidential campaign, to implement universal basic income scheme – which challenge the existing power structure and status quo in South Korea.

“Because of this, some people strongly support him, while others distrust or dislike him,” Dr Lee says. “He is a highly controversial and unconventional figure – very much an outsider who has made a name for himself in a way that doesn’t fit traditional Democratic Party norms.”

In a recent memoir, Lee described his childhood as “miserable”. Born in 1963 in a mountain village in Andong, Gyeongbuk Province, he was the fifth of five sons and two daughters, and – due to his family’s difficult circumstances – skipped middle school to illegally enter the workforce.

As a young factory worker, Lee suffered an industrial accident where his fingers got caught in a factory power belt, and at the age of 13 suffered a permanent injury to his arm after his wrist was crushed by a press machine.

Lee later applied for and was allowed to sit entrance exams for high school and university, passing in 1978 and 1980 respectively. He went on to study law with a full scholarship, and passed the Bar Examination in 1986.

In 1992, he married his wife Kim Hye-kyung, with whom he has two children.

He worked as a human rights lawyer for almost two decades before entering politics in 2005, joining the social-liberal Uri Party, a predecessor of the Democratic Party of Korea and the ruling party at the time.

While his poor upbringing has drawn scorn from members of South Korea’s upper class, Lee’s success in building his political career from the ground up has earned him support from working-class voters and those who feel disenfranchised by the political elite.

He was elected mayor of Seongnam in 2010, rolling out a series of free welfare policies during his tenure, and in 2018 became governor of the broader Gyeonggi Province.

Lee would go on to receive acclaim for his response to the Covid-19 pandemic, during which he clashed with the central government due to his insistence on providing universal relief grants for all residents of the province.

It was also during this time that Lee became the Democratic Party’s final presidential candidate for the first time in October 2021 – losing by 0.76 percentage points. Less than a year later, in August 2022, he was elected as the party’s leader.

From that point on, Dr Lee says, Lee dialled back on the controversial, fire-and-brimstone approach for which he had become notorious – opting instead to play it safe and keep a low profile.

“After [Lee’s] term as a governor, his reformist image faded somewhat as he focused more on his presidential ambitions,” he says. “Still, on certain issues – like addressing past wrongs [during the Japanese colonial era], welfare and corruption – he has built a loyal and passionate support base by taking a firm and uncompromising stance.”

This uncompromising attitude has its detractors, with many members and supporters of the ruling People Power Party (PPP) viewing Lee as aggressive and abrasive in his approach.

Lee’s political career has also been marred by a series of scandals – including a drink driving incident in 2004, disputes with relatives in the late 2010s and allegations of an extramarital affair that emerged in 2018.

While in other parts of the world voters have shown forgiveness and even support for controversial politicians, in South Korea – a country that is still relatively conservative in what it expects of public figures – such scandals have not typically played well.

In recent years, Lee’s political ambitions have been saddled with even more pressing controversies – including the ongoing legal cases that continue to hang over him, threatening to hamstring if not scuttle his chances at election.

One of these concerns a string of high-profile charges, including corruption, bribery and breach of trust, associated with a land development project in 2023.

Another, perhaps more critical legal battle concerns allegations that Lee made a knowingly false statement during a debate in the last presidential campaign.

During the debate, which aired on South Korean television in December 2021, Lee had denied personally knowing Kim Moon-ki, a key figure in a corruption-ridden land development scandal who had taken his own life just days earlier.

Prosecutors allege that claim was false, thus violating the Public Official Election Act, and in November 2024 Lee was convicted of the false statements charge and given a one-year suspended prison sentence.

Then, in March, an appeals court cleared him of the charges – only for that ruling to be overturned by South Korea’s Supreme Court. At the time of writing, the case is still awaiting a verdict.

Other threats against Lee’s future political ambitions posed a more fatal danger.

In January 2024, while answering questions from reporters outside the construction site of a planned airport in Busan, Lee was stabbed in the neck by a man who had approached him asking for an autograph.

The injury to Lee’s jugular vein, though requiring extensive surgery, was not critical – but he now campaigns behind bulletproof glass, wearing a bulletproof vest, surrounded by agents carrying ballistic briefcases.

The assailant, who had written an eight-page manifesto and wanted to ensure that Lee never became president, was later sentenced to 15 years in prison.

The attack raised concerns about deepening political polarisation in South Korea – embodied perhaps most publicly in the bitter rivalry between Lee and Yoon, and more privately in the country’s increasingly extreme online discourse.

In December 2023, just weeks before Lee was attacked, a survey sponsored by the newspaper Hankyoreh found that more than 50% of respondents said they felt South Korea’s political divide worsening.

Some claim that, as Democratic Party leader, Lee played a major role in fuelling the problem, frequently blocking motions by Yoon’s government and effectively rendering him a lame duck president.

Such constant stonewalling by the Democratic Party only exacerbated Yoon’s leadership struggles – which also included repeated impeachment attempts against administration officials and constant opposition to his budget.

Finally, as the pressure against him mounted, the former president took the drastic step of declaring martial law.

Yoon’s declaration of martial law on 3 December – made in a self-proclaimed bid to eliminate “anti-state forces” and North Korea sympathisers – served as the catalyst for Lee to emerge as a leading presidential candidate.

Within hours of the declaration, Lee appealed to the public via a livestream broadcast and urged them to assemble in protest outside the National Assembly building in central Seoul.

Thousands responded, clashing with police and blocking military units as opposition lawmakers rushed into the assembly building, clambering over fences and walls in a desperate attempt to block Yoon’s order.

Lee was among them, climbing over the fence to enter the National Assembly and helping to pass the resolution to lift martial law.

The Democratic Party later decided to impeach President Yoon – a decision that was unanimously upheld by South Korea’s Constitutional Court on 4 April, 2025.

It was then that Lee began the path to a full-fledged election bid, announcing his resignation as leader of the Democratic Party on 9 April ahead of his presidential run. In the Democratic Party presidential primary held on April 27, he was selected as the general candidate with overwhelming support.

The result of Yoon’s abortive martial law attempt was a political maelstrom from which South Korea is still reeling: a constitutional crisis that ended the former president’s career and left his PPP in tatters.

But of the small few who have managed to leverage that chaos to their advantage, none have benefitted more than Lee.

Now the controversial presidential candidate awaits the verdict on his political future – not only from the South Korean people, but also the courts.

If his guilty ruling is ultimately confirmed, Lee will likely lose his seat in the National Assembly. As a candidate, that would prevent him from running for president for a period of five years.

But with the courts having now approved Lee’s request to postpone his legal hearings until after the election, another possibility has emerged: that Lee, who remains the electoral favourite, could be convicted after winning the presidency.

And that could mean that South Korea, having just endured a months-long period of political turmoil, may not be done with its leadership dramas just yet.

The striking feature of this election has been the leading opposition candidate, Lee Jae-myung, campaigning in a bullet-proof vest.

At a recent rally, he was escorted to the podium by close protection officers, ready to shield him with their ballistic briefcases. He then addressed the crowd from behind bullet-proof glass, under the gaze of rooftop watchers.

This is not South Korean politics as usual. But South Korea has not been itself lately.

It is still recovering from the martial law crisis last December, when the president, Yoon Suk Yeol, tried to orchestrate a military takeover.

He failed, because of resistance from the public and politicians, and was impeached, triggering this snap election to choose his successor.

But the chaos Yoon unleashed that night has festered.

While stuck in limbo, without a president, the country has become more polarised and its politics more violent.

At street protests earlier this year it became commonplace to chant for various political leaders to be executed. And since launching his presidential bid, Lee has been receiving death threats, and his team say they have even uncovered a credible plot to assassinate him.

This election is an opportunity to steer South Korea back onto safer, more stable ground, and heal these fractures.

Given this, the ruling party was always going to struggle, marred by President Yoon’s self-defeating coup. But rather than break away from the disgraced former president, the conservative People Power Party (PPP) has chosen a candidate who repeatedly defended Yoon and his actions.

Kim Moon-soo, Yoon’s former labour minister, was the only cabinet member who refused to stand and apologise during a parliamentary hearing into martial law. He said sorry only well into his campaign, after he had won Yoon’s public endorsement.

This has turned the election into more of a referendum on martial law than anything else. Given most of the public overwhelmingly rejected the move, it has also virtually gilded the path for the opposition leader Lee, who famously livestreamed himself scaling the walls of the parliament complex, to get inside and vote down the president’s order.

Now the Democratic Party politician portrays himself as the only candidate who can ensure this never happens again. He has said he will change the constitution to make it more difficult for future presidents to declare martial law.

“We must prevent the return of the rebellion forces,” Lee urged voters at his recent rally from behind fortified glass.

Such promises have pulled in people from across the political spectrum. “I didn’t like Lee before, but since martial law I now trust and depend on him,” said 59-year-old Park Suh-jung, who admitted this was the first time she had attended a political event.

One man in his 50s said he was a member of another smaller political party, but had decided to back Lee this time: “He is the only person who can end Yoon’s martial law insurrection. We need to stop those who destroyed our democracy.”

Most recent polls put Lee about 10 points ahead of his rival Kim, but he was not always so popular. This is his second time running for president, having lost out to Yoon three years ago. He is a divisive character, who has been embroiled in a series of court cases and political scandals. There are many who do not trust him, who loathe him even.

Kim, hoping to capitalise on this, has branded himself “the fair and just candidate”. It is a slogan his supporters have adopted, many seemingly backing him not for his policies, but because he is not Lee.

“I don’t like Kim but at this point there’s no real choice. The other candidate has too many issues,” said one elderly woman who is planning to vote for him.

Kim has charted an unusual political path. As a student who campaigned for workers’ rights, he was tortured and imprisoned under South Korea’s right-wing dictatorship in the 1980s but then moved sharply to the right himself.

He was picked by the party base, many of whom are still loyal to Yoon. The party leadership, realising he was not the best choice, tried to replace him at the last minute with a more moderate, experienced politician, only to be blocked by furious members.

This has left the party weak and divided, with many suspecting it will splinter into rival factions after voting day. “Haven’t we already imploded?” one party insider said to me recently, their face crumpled in their hands. “This is a miserable campaign.”

“Choosing Kim is the biggest mistake the conservative party have made in this election, and they do know that. They will have to be held accountable for this decision,” said Jeongmin Kim, the executive director of Korea Pro, a Seoul-based news and analysis service.

Lee has seized this opportunity to hoover up centrist votes. He has shifted his policies to the right, and even claimed his left-leaning party is, in fact, conservative.

This, despite his reputation as a staunch leftist. He grew up in a slum outside Seoul, working in factories rather than attending school, and is someone who has previously quoted US senator Bernie Sanders.

But gone are his previous pledges to introduce a universal basic income. This time, he is courting South Korea’s powerful conglomerate businesses, the chaebols. He has even incorporated the conservative colour red into his own blue logo, and hits the campaign trail wearing red and blue trainers.

He has rebranded his foreign policy too. Typically, his Democratic Party is cautious about Korea’s security alliance with the US, preferring to prioritise relations with China and North Korea.

But Lee is casting himself as a “pragmatist” who can adapt to a changing security environment. “The US-Korea alliance is the backbone of our national security. It should be strengthened and deepened,” he said in a recent televised debate.

All this has left voters and diplomats here unsure of what he really stands for, and what he will do if elected – though this seems to be the point.

Ms Kim, Korea Pro’s analyst, believes his makeover is more genuine than might appear. “He was already high up in the polls, so he didn’t need to work hard to win votes,” she said. “I think he is playing a longer game. He wants to be a popular leader, someone who can be trusted by more than half of the country.”

Bringing the country together will be the biggest challenge for whoever wins.

When people vote on Tuesday, it will be six months to the day since they came out onto the streets to resist a military takeover.

After months of chaos, they are desperate to move forward, so the country can start addressing pressing issues that have been on hold, including tariff negotiations with US President Donald Trump.

But more than anything they hope this election can restore their own confidence in their democracy, which has been badly shaken.

At a baseball game in the capital Seoul last week – arguably the only place where Koreans are as tribal as they are about politics – both sides were united, acutely aware of this election’s importance.

“I’m really concerned about our democracy,” said Dylan, a data engineer. “I hope we have the power to save it and make it greater than before. My vote is a piece of power.”

“The next president needs to show people clearly and transparently what he is doing,” said one man in his mid-20s. “We need to watch him carefully.”

If Lee is to win, and by the margin the polls suggest, he would have a solid mandate, as well as control of parliament, giving him three years to implement major political reforms.

That could be good for rebuilding South Korea’s stability but would come with its own challenges, said the political analyst Ms Kim.

“If Lee wins, he will have a lot of power. {Given how Yoon behaved} he will need to be very responsible when using it.”

An Byunghui was in the middle of a video game on the night of 3 December when she learned that the South Korean president had declared martial law.

She couldn’t quite believe it – until the internet blew up with the evidence. The shock announcement from then-president Yoon Suk Yeol, the now-famous shots of soldiers breaking down the windows of the National Assembly and MPs scaling the walls to force their way into the building so they could vote the motion down.

Within hours, thousands had spurred into protest, especially young women. And Byunghui joined them, travelling hundreds of miles from Daegu in the south-east to the capital Seoul.

They turned up not just because Yoon’s decision had alarmed and angered them, but to protest against a president who insisted South Korea was free of sexism – despite the deep discrimination and flashes of violence that said otherwise.

They returned week after week as the investigation into Yoon’s abuse of power went on – and they rejoiced when he was impeached after four dramatic months.

And yet, with the country set to elect a new president on 3 June, those very women say they feel invisible again.

The two main candidates have been largely silent about equality for women. A polarising subject, it had helped Yoon into power in 2022 as he vowed to defend men who felt sidelined in a world that they saw as too feminist. And a third candidate, who is popular among young men for his anti-feminist stance, has been making headlines.

For many young South Korean women, this new name on the ballot symbolises a new fight.

“So many of us felt like we were trying to make the world a better place by attending the [anti-Yoon] rallies,” the 24-year-old college student says.

“But now, I wonder if anything has really improved… I can’t shake the feeling that they’re trying to erase women’s voices.”

When Byunghui arrived at the protests, she was struck by the atmosphere.

The bitter December cold didn’t stop tens of thousands of women from gathering. Huddling inside hooded jackets or under umbrellas, waving lightsticks and banners, singing hopeful K-pop numbers, they demanded Yoon’s ouster.

“Most of those around me were young women, we were singing ‘Into the World’ by Girls’ Generation,” Byunghui says.

Into the World, a hit from 2007 by one of K-pop’s biggest acts, became an anthem of sorts in the anti-Yoon rallies. Women had marched to the same song nearly a decade ago in anti-corruption protests that ended another president’s career.

“The lyrics – about not giving up on this world and dreaming of a new world,” Byunghui says, “just overwhelmed me. I felt so close to everyone”.

There are no official estimates of how many of the protesters were young women. Approximately one in three were in their 20s or 30s, according to research by local news outlet Chosun Daily.

An analysis by BBC Korean found that women in their 20s were the largest demographic at one rally in December, where there were 200,000 of them – almost 18% of those in attendance. In comparison, there were just over 3% of men in their 20s at that rally.

The protests galvanised women in a country where discrimination, sexual harassment and even violence against them has long been pervasive, and the gender pay gap – at 31% – is the widest among rich nations.

Like in so many other places, plummeting birth rates in South Korea too have upped the pressure on young women to marry and have children, with politicians often encouraging them to play their part in a patriarchal society.

“I felt like all the frustration that has built up inside me just burst forth,” says 23-year-old Kim Saeyeon . “I believe that’s why so many young women turned up. They wanted to express all that dissatisfaction.”

For 26-year-old Lee Jinha, it was the desire to see Yoon go: “I tried to go every week. It wasn’t easy. It was incredibly cold, super crowded, my legs hurt and I had a lot of work to do… but it was truly out of a sense of responsibility.”

That is not surprising, according to Go Min-hee, associate professor of political science at Ewha Women’s University, who says Yoon had the reputation of being “anti-feminist” and had “made it clear he was not going to support policies for young women”.

There were protests on the other side too, backing Yoon and his martial law order. Throughout, many young South Korean men have supported Yoon, who positioned himself as a champion of theirs, mirroring their grievances in his presidential campaign in 2022.

These men consider themselves victims of “reverse discrimination”, saying they feel marginalised by policies that favour young women. One that is often cited is the mandatory 18 months they must spend in the military, which they believe puts them at a severe disadvantage compared to women.

They label as “man haters” those women who call themselves feminists. And they have been at the heart of a fierce online backlash against calls for greater gender equality.

These groups have long existed, mostly out of the public eye. But over the years they moved closer to the mainstream as their traction online grew, especially under Yoon.

It was them that Yoon appealed to in his campaign pledges, vowing to abolish the Ministry of Gender Equality and Family, saying it focused too much on women’s rights.

And he consistently denied systemic gender inequality existed in South Korea, which ranks near the bottom on the issue among developed countries.

But his message hit home. A survey by a local newspaper the year before he was elected had found that 79% of young men in their 20s felt “seriously discriminated against” because of their gender.

“In the last presidential election, gender conflict was mobilised by Yoon’s party,” says Kim Eun-ju, director of the Center for Korean Women and Politics. “They actively strengthened the anti-feminist tendencies of some young men in their 20s.”

During Yoon’s term, she says, government departments or publicly-funded organisations with the word “women” in their title largely disappeared or dropped the reference altogether.

The impact has been polarising. It alienated young women who saw this as a rollback of hard-won rights, even as it fuelled the backlash against feminism.

Byunghui saw this up-close back home in Daegu. She says anti-Yoon protests were overwhelmingly female. The few men who came were usually older.

Young men, she adds, even secondary school students, would often drive past the protests she attended cursing and swearing at them. She says some men even threatened to drive into the crowd.

“I wondered if they would have acted this way had the protest been led by young men?”

With Yoon gone, his People Power Party (PPP) is in disarray and still reeling from his fall.

And this is the first time in 18 years that there is no woman among the six candidates runnning for president. “It’s shocking,” Jinha says, “that there’s no-one”. In the last election, there were two women among 14 presidential candidates.

The PPP’s Kim Moon-soo is trailing frontrunner Lee Jae-myung, from the main opposition Democratic Party (DP). But young women tell the BBC they have been disappointed by 61-year-old Lee.

“It’s only after criticism that that there were no policies targeting women that the DP began adding a few,” Saeyeon says. “I wish they could have drawn a blueprint for improving structural discrimination.”

When he was asked at the start of his campaign about policies targeting gender inequality, Lee responded: “Why do you keep dividing men and women? They are all Koreans.”

After drawing critcism, the DP acknowledged that women still “faced structural discrimination in many areas”. And it pledged to tackle inequality for women with more resources at every level.

During his presidential bid in 2022, Lee was more vocal about the prejudice South Korean women encounter, seeking their votes in the wake of high-profile sexual harassment scandals in his party.

He had promised to put women in top positions in the government and appointed a woman as co-chair of the DP’s emergency committee.

“It’s evident that the DP is focusing significantly less on young women than they did in the [2022] presidential election,” Ms Kim says.

Prof Go believes it’s because Lee “lost by a very narrow margin” back then. So this time, he is “casting the widest net possible” for votes. “And embracing feminist issues is not a good strategy for that.”

That stings for young women like Saeyeon, especially after the role they played in the protests calling for Yoon’s impeachment: “Our voices don’t seem to be reflected in the [campaign] pledges at all. I feel a bit abandoned.”

The ruling party’s Kim Moon-soo, who served in Yoon’s cabinet as labour minister, has emphasised raising birth rates by offering more financial support to parents.

But many women say rising costs are not the only obstacle. And that most politicians don’t address the deeper inequalities – which make it hard to balance a career and family – that are making so many women reconsider the usual choices.

The Ministry of Gender Equality and Family, which Yoon had wanted to shut down, has also re-emerged as a sticking point.

Lee has vowed to strengthen the ministry, while Kim says he will replace it with a Ministry of Future Youth and Family.

The ministry already focuses on family services, education and welfare for children. Just under 7% of its total funding, which is about 0.2% of the government’s annual budget, goes towards improving equality for women. But Prof Go says the ministry was “politicised by Yoon and has since been weaponised”.

“The ministry itself is not huge but it’s symbolic… abolishing it would show that gender equality is unimportant.”

It’s also the target of a third candidate, 40-year-old Lee Jun-seok, a former leader of Yoon’s party, who has since launched his own Reform Party.

Although trailing Kim in polls, Lee Jun-seok has been especially popular with many young men for his anti-feminist views.

Earlier this week, he drew swift outrage after a presidential debate in which he said: “If someone says they want to stick chopsticks in women’s genitals or some place like that, is that misogyny?”

He said the “someone” was frontunner Lee Jae-myung’s son, who he claimed made the comment online, an allegation which the Lee camp has sidestepped, apologising for other controversial posts.

But watching Lee Jun-seok say that on live TV “was genuinely terrifying,” Byunghui says. “I had the scary thought that this might boost incel communities.”

Saeyeon describes “anger and even despair” sinking the “hopes I had for politics, which weren’t that great to begin with”.

She believes his popularity “among certain sections of young men is one of the “significant repercussions” of South Korea “long neglecting structural discrimination” against women.

The only candidate to address the issue, 61-year-old Kwon Young-gook, didn’t fare well in early polling.

“I’m still deliberating whether to vote for Lee Jae-myung or Kwon Young-gook,” Saeyeon says.

While Kwon represents her concerns, she says it’s smart to shore up the votes for Lee because she is “much more afraid of the next election, and the one after that”.

She is thinking about Lee Jun-seok, who some analysts believe could eat into the votes of a beleagured PPP, while appealing to Yoon’s base: “He is in the spotlight and as the youngest candidate, he could have a long career ahead.”

That is all the more reason to keep speaking out, Byunghui says. “It’s like there is dust on the wall. If you don’t know it’s there, you can walk by, but once you see it, it sticks with you.”

It’s the same for Jinha who says things can “never go back to how they were before Yoon declared martial law”.

That was a time when politics felt inaccessible, but now, Jinha adds, it “feels like something that affects me and is important to my life”.

She says she won’t give up because she wants to be free of “things like discrimination at work… and live my life in peace”.

“People see young women as weak and immature but we will grow up – and then the world will change again.”

A Chinese Harvard graduate’s speech calling for unity in a divided world, delivered days after the US vowed to “aggressively” revoke Chinese students’ visas, has sparked mixed reactions in the US and her home country.

“We don’t rise by proving each other wrong. We rise by refusing to let one another go,” Jiang Yurong said on Thursday, the same day a US federal judge blocked the Trump administration’s ban on foreign students at Harvard.

Her speech went viral on the Chinese internet, with some saying it moved them to tears. However, others said her elite background is not representative of Chinese students.

In the US, some have flagged her alleged links with the Chinese Communist Party.

In their efforts to restrict Harvard from enrolling foreign students, US authorities had accused the institution of “co-ordinating with the Chinese Communist Party”.

Ms Jiang, who studied international development, was the first Chinese woman to speak at a Harvard graduation ceremony.

In her address, Ms Jiang emphasised the value of Harvard’s international classrooms, noting how that taught her and her classmates to “dance through each other’s traditions” and “carry the weight of each other’s worlds”.

“If we still believe in a shared future, let us not forget: those we label as enemies – they, too, are human. In seeing their humanity, we find our own,” said Ms Jiang, who spent her final two years of school at Cardiff Sixth Form College in Wales before going to Duke University in the US for her undergraduate degree.

A conservative X account, with the handle @amuse, criticised Harvard for choosing a graduation speaker who is “a representative of a CCP-funded and monitored non-government organisation”, alleging that her father works for a non-government organisation that “serves as a quasi-diplomatic agent for the [party]”.

The account, which has 639,000 followers, has previously posted pro-Donald Trump content, such as the US leader fighting Darth Vader and sexualised imagery of former Vice-President Kamala Harris.

Some Chinese social media users, on the other hand, allege that the organisation Ms Jiang’s father works for is backed by prominent American companies and foundations.

The BBC has not independently verified these allegations.

“This is why she could get a scholarship to go to the UK for high school, and later also to Harvard,” wrote a user on China’s X-like platform, Weibo.

Others called for her to stay on in the US, with comments that reeked with sarcasm. “Such talent should be left to the United States,” one wrote. “I hope she will continue to glow abroad and stay away from us!” read another.

But Ms Jiang’s vision of a “shared humanity” also struck a chord.

“That she is able to stand on an international stage and speak the heart of Chinese students has moved me to tears,” wrote a user on Red Note, another Chinese social media platform.

Another user defended Jiang by hitting back at those who criticised her: “You may not have changed them, but they’ve heard you… As more and more people speak out like you, you will eventually move and change others.”

There are around 6,800 international students at Harvard, who make up more than 27% of its enrolments in the past academic year.

About a third of these foreign students are from China, and more than 700 are Indian.

It’s a grim paradox, doctors say.

On the one hand, antibiotics are being overused until they no longer work, driving resistance and fuelling the rise of deadly superbugs. On the other hand, people are dying because they can’t access these life-saving drugs.

A new study by the non-profit Global Antibiotic Research and Development Partnership (GARDP) looked at access to antibiotics for nearly 1.5 million cases of carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative (CRGN) infections across eight major low- and middle-income countries, including India, Brazil and South Africa. CRGN bacteria are superbugs resistant to last-line antibiotics – yet only 6.9% of patients received appropriate treatment in the countries studied.

India bore the lion’s share of CRGN infections and treatment efforts, procuring 80% of the full courses of studied antibiotics but managing to treat only 7.8% of its estimated cases, the study in The Lancet Infectious Diseases journal reports. (A full drug course of antibiotics refers to the complete set of doses that a patient needs to take over a specific period to fully treat an infection.)

Common in water, food, the environment and the human gut, Gram-negative bacteria cause infections such as urinary tract infections (UTIs), pneumonia and food poisoning.

They can pose a serious threat to newborns and the elderly alike. Especially vulnerable are hospital patients with weakened immunity, often spreading rapidly in ICUs and proving difficult – and sometimes impossible – to treat. Treating carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative bacterial infections is doubly difficult because those bacteria are resistant to some of the most powerful antibiotics.

“These infections are a daily reality across all age groups,” says Dr Abdul Ghafur, infectious disease consultant at Apollo Hospital in India’s Chennai city. “We often see patients for whom no antibiotic works – and they die.”

The irony is cruel. While the world tries to curb antibiotic overuse, a parallel tragedy plays out quietly in poorer nations: people dying from treatable infections because the right drugs are out of reach.

“For years, the dominant narrative has been that antibiotics are being overused, but the stark reality is that many people with highly drug-resistant infections in low- and middle-income countries are not getting access to the antibiotics they need,” says Dr Jennifer Cohn, GARDP’s Global Access Director and senior author of the study.

• India’s ‘blockbuster’ drugs to take on deadly superbugs
• India facing a pandemic of antibiotics-resistant superbugs

The study examined eight intravenous drugs active against carbapenem-resistant bacteria – ranging from older antibiotics including Colistin to newer ones such as Ceftazidime-avibactam. Of the few available drugs, Tigecycline was the most widely used.

Researchers blame the treatment gap on weak health systems and limited access to effective antibiotics.

For example, only 103,647 full treatment courses were procured of Tigecycline across eight countries – far short of the 1.5 million patients who needed them, the study found. This highlighted a major shortfall in the global response to drug-resistant infections.

What prevents patients with drug-resistant infections in India from getting the right antibiotics?

Physicians point to multiple barriers – reaching the right health facility, getting accurate diagnostic tests, and accessing effective drugs. Cost remains a major hurdle, with many of these antibiotics priced far beyond the reach of poorer patients.

“Those who can afford these antibiotics often overuse them; those who can’t, don’t get them at all,” says Dr Ghafur. “We need a system that ensures access for the poor and prevents misuse by the well-to-do.”

To improve access, these drugs must be made more affordable. To prevent misuse, stronger regulation is key.

“Ideally, every antibiotic prescription in hospitals should require a second sign-off – by an infection specialist or microbiologist,” says Dr Ghafur. “Some hospitals do this, but most don’t. With the right oversight, regulators can ensure this becomes standard practice.”

To fix the access problem and curb misuse, both smarter policies and stronger safeguards are essential, say researchers. But access alone won’t solve the crisis – the pipeline of new antibiotics is drying up. The decline in antibiotic R&D – and the limited availability of existing drugs – is a global issue.

India bears one of the world’s heaviest burdens of antimicrobial resistance (AMR), but it may also hold the key to combating it – both at home and globally, researchers say.

“India is also one of the largest markets for new antibiotics and can successfully advocate for the development and access of new antibiotics,” says Dr Cohn. With a strong pharmaceutical base, the country is emerging as a hub for AMR innovation, from promising new antibiotics to advanced diagnostics.

Dr Cohn says India can strengthen its antibiotic response by generating local data to better estimate needs and pinpoint gaps in the care pathway.

This would allow for more targeted interventions to improve access to the right drugs.

Innovative models are already emerging – Kerala state, for instance, is using a “hub-and-spoke approach” to support lower-level facilities in managing serious infections. Coordinated or pooled procurement across hospitals or states could also reduce the cost of newer antibiotics, as seen with cancer drug programmes, researchers say.

Without access to the right antibiotics, modern medicine begins to unravel – doctors risk losing the ability to safely perform surgery, treat complications in cancer patients, or manage everyday infections.

“As an infectious disease doctor, I see appropriate use as one part – but only one part – of access,” says Dr Ghafur. “When we get new antibiotics, it’s important to save them on one hand – and save them for right patients.”

Clearly, the challenge is not just to use antibiotics wisely, but to ensure they reach those who need them most.

The striking feature of this election has been the leading opposition candidate, Lee Jae-myung, campaigning in a bullet-proof vest.

At a recent rally, he was escorted to the podium by close protection officers, ready to shield him with their ballistic briefcases. He then addressed the crowd from behind bullet-proof glass, under the gaze of rooftop watchers.

This is not South Korean politics as usual. But South Korea has not been itself lately.

It is still recovering from the martial law crisis last December, when the president, Yoon Suk Yeol, tried to orchestrate a military takeover.

He failed, because of resistance from the public and politicians, and was impeached, triggering this snap election to choose his successor.

But the chaos Yoon unleashed that night has festered.

While stuck in limbo, without a president, the country has become more polarised and its politics more violent.

At street protests earlier this year it became commonplace to chant for various political leaders to be executed. And since launching his presidential bid, Lee has been receiving death threats, and his team say they have even uncovered a credible plot to assassinate him.

This election is an opportunity to steer South Korea back onto safer, more stable ground, and heal these fractures.

Given this, the ruling party was always going to struggle, marred by President Yoon’s self-defeating coup. But rather than break away from the disgraced former president, the conservative People Power Party (PPP) has chosen a candidate who repeatedly defended Yoon and his actions.

Kim Moon-soo, Yoon’s former labour minister, was the only cabinet member who refused to stand and apologise during a parliamentary hearing into martial law. He said sorry only well into his campaign, after he had won Yoon’s public endorsement.

This has turned the election into more of a referendum on martial law than anything else. Given most of the public overwhelmingly rejected the move, it has also virtually gilded the path for the opposition leader Lee, who famously livestreamed himself scaling the walls of the parliament complex, to get inside and vote down the president’s order.

Now the Democratic Party politician portrays himself as the only candidate who can ensure this never happens again. He has said he will change the constitution to make it more difficult for future presidents to declare martial law.

“We must prevent the return of the rebellion forces,” Lee urged voters at his recent rally from behind fortified glass.

Such promises have pulled in people from across the political spectrum. “I didn’t like Lee before, but since martial law I now trust and depend on him,” said 59-year-old Park Suh-jung, who admitted this was the first time she had attended a political event.

One man in his 50s said he was a member of another smaller political party, but had decided to back Lee this time: “He is the only person who can end Yoon’s martial law insurrection. We need to stop those who destroyed our democracy.”

Most recent polls put Lee about 10 points ahead of his rival Kim, but he was not always so popular. This is his second time running for president, having lost out to Yoon three years ago. He is a divisive character, who has been embroiled in a series of court cases and political scandals. There are many who do not trust him, who loathe him even.

Kim, hoping to capitalise on this, has branded himself “the fair and just candidate”. It is a slogan his supporters have adopted, many seemingly backing him not for his policies, but because he is not Lee.

“I don’t like Kim but at this point there’s no real choice. The other candidate has too many issues,” said one elderly woman who is planning to vote for him.

Kim has charted an unusual political path. As a student who campaigned for workers’ rights, he was tortured and imprisoned under South Korea’s right-wing dictatorship in the 1980s but then moved sharply to the right himself.

He was picked by the party base, many of whom are still loyal to Yoon. The party leadership, realising he was not the best choice, tried to replace him at the last minute with a more moderate, experienced politician, only to be blocked by furious members.

This has left the party weak and divided, with many suspecting it will splinter into rival factions after voting day. “Haven’t we already imploded?” one party insider said to me recently, their face crumpled in their hands. “This is a miserable campaign.”

“Choosing Kim is the biggest mistake the conservative party have made in this election, and they do know that. They will have to be held accountable for this decision,” said Jeongmin Kim, the executive director of Korea Pro, a Seoul-based news and analysis service.

Lee has seized this opportunity to hoover up centrist votes. He has shifted his policies to the right, and even claimed his left-leaning party is, in fact, conservative.

This, despite his reputation as a staunch leftist. He grew up in a slum outside Seoul, working in factories rather than attending school, and is someone who has previously quoted US senator Bernie Sanders.

But gone are his previous pledges to introduce a universal basic income. This time, he is courting South Korea’s powerful conglomerate businesses, the chaebols. He has even incorporated the conservative colour red into his own blue logo, and hits the campaign trail wearing red and blue trainers.

He has rebranded his foreign policy too. Typically, his Democratic Party is cautious about Korea’s security alliance with the US, preferring to prioritise relations with China and North Korea.

But Lee is casting himself as a “pragmatist” who can adapt to a changing security environment. “The US-Korea alliance is the backbone of our national security. It should be strengthened and deepened,” he said in a recent televised debate.

All this has left voters and diplomats here unsure of what he really stands for, and what he will do if elected – though this seems to be the point.

Ms Kim, Korea Pro’s analyst, believes his makeover is more genuine than might appear. “He was already high up in the polls, so he didn’t need to work hard to win votes,” she said. “I think he is playing a longer game. He wants to be a popular leader, someone who can be trusted by more than half of the country.”

Bringing the country together will be the biggest challenge for whoever wins.

When people vote on Tuesday, it will be six months to the day since they came out onto the streets to resist a military takeover.

After months of chaos, they are desperate to move forward, so the country can start addressing pressing issues that have been on hold, including tariff negotiations with US President Donald Trump.

But more than anything they hope this election can restore their own confidence in their democracy, which has been badly shaken.

At a baseball game in the capital Seoul last week – arguably the only place where Koreans are as tribal as they are about politics – both sides were united, acutely aware of this election’s importance.

“I’m really concerned about our democracy,” said Dylan, a data engineer. “I hope we have the power to save it and make it greater than before. My vote is a piece of power.”

“The next president needs to show people clearly and transparently what he is doing,” said one man in his mid-20s. “We need to watch him carefully.”

If Lee is to win, and by the margin the polls suggest, he would have a solid mandate, as well as control of parliament, giving him three years to implement major political reforms.

That could be good for rebuilding South Korea’s stability but would come with its own challenges, said the political analyst Ms Kim.

“If Lee wins, he will have a lot of power. {Given how Yoon behaved} he will need to be very responsible when using it.”

The UN secretary-general has called for an independent investigation into the killing of Palestinians near an aid distribution centre in Gaza on Sunday, amid disputed reports that Israeli forces had opened fire on people waiting to collect aid.

Witnesses reported being shot at while waiting for food from the centre in Rafah run by the US and Israel-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF).

The Red Cross said its hospital received 179 casualties, 21 of whom were dead. The Hamas-run Civil Defence agency put the death toll at 31.

On Sunday, the Israeli military denied its troops fired at civilians near or within the site and said reports to this effect were false.

The GHF said the reports were “outright fabrications” and that it was yet to see evidence of an attack at or near its facility.

Israel does not allow international news organisations, including the BBC, into Gaza, making verifying what is happening in the territory difficult.

UN Secretary-General António Guterres said in a statement on Monday: “I am appalled by the reports of Palestinians killed and injured while seeking aid in Gaza yesterday.

“I call for an immediate and independent investigation into these events and for perpetrators to be held accountable.”

Israel’s foreign ministry responded by branding his comments a “disgrace” in a post on X, and criticised him for not mentioning Hamas.

Later on Monday, UN human rights chief Volker Türk told the BBC the way humanitarian aid is now being delivered is “unacceptable” and “dehumanising”.

“I think what it shows is utter disregard for civilians. Can you imagine people that have been absolutely desperate for food, for medicine, for almost three months and then they have to run for it or try to get it in the most desperate circumstances?” he told the BBC World Service’s Newshour programme.

“It does show a huge dehumanisation of the people who are desperately in need.”

The Civil Defence agency said 31 people were killed and 176 wounded “after Israeli gunfire targeted thousands of civilians near the American aid centre in Rafah” early on Sunday morning.

According to the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), the Red Cross Field Hospital in Rafah received a “mass casualty influx” of 179 cases, including women and children, at that time.

The majority suffered gunshot or shrapnel wounds, and 21 were declared dead upon arrival, it said, adding “all patients said they had been trying to reach an aid distribution site”.

Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) said its teams at Nasser hospital in Khan Younis also treated people with serious injuries, some of whom were in a critical condition.

It added the patients “reported being shot at from all sides by Israeli drones, helicopters, boats, tanks and soldiers”, and that one staff member’s brother was “killed while attempting to collect aid from the distribution centre”.

Mohammed Ghareeb, a local journalist in Rafah, told the BBC that a crowd of Palestinians had gathered near al-Alam roundabout, close to the GHF aid centre, at around 04:30 local time (02:30 BST) when Israeli tanks approached and opened fire.

“The dead and wounded lay on the ground for a long time,” he said.

“Rescue crews could not access the area, which is under Israeli control. This forced residents to use donkey carts to transport victims to the field hospital.”

One video posted online on Sunday morning appeared to show Palestinians taking cover in an open area of sandy terrain while what sounds like automatic gunfire rings out. However, the BBC was unable to verify the location because there are not enough features visible.

The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) put out a statement on Sunday afternoon that said an initial inquiry indicated its troops “did not fire at civilians while they were near or within the humanitarian aid distribution site and that reports to this effect are false”.

Spokesman Brig Gen Effie Defrin accused Hamas of “spreading rumours” and “trying bluntly and violently to stop the people of Gaza from reaching those distribution centres”.

The IDF also released drone video it said showed armed men firing at civilians on their way to collect aid, although the BBC was unable to verify where or when it was filmed.

Later on Sunday, an Israeli military official briefed reporters that soldiers had acted to “prevent a number of suspects from approaching the forces” approximately 1km from the GHF site, before it opened.

“Warning shots were fired,” the official said, before insisting there was “no connection between the incident in question and the false allegations against the IDF”.

The GHF said in a statement on Monday that the reports were “the most egregious in terms of outright fabrications and misinformation fed to the international media community.

“There were no injuries, fatalities or incidents during our operations yesterday. Period. We have yet to see any evidence that there was an attack at or near our facility.”

The US ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee, accused major news outlets of “reckless and irresponsible reporting” on the matter.

“Drone video and first-hand accounts clearly showed that there were no injuries, no fatalities, no shooting, no chaos,” he said on Monday.

“The only source for these misleading, exaggerated, and utterly fabricated stories came from Hamas sources, which are designed to fan the flames of antisemitic hate that is arguably contributing to violence against Jews in the United States,” he added.

Meanwhile on Monday, health officials and local media reported that another three Palestinians were killed by Israeli fire near the same GHF centre in Rafah’s Tal al-Sultan area.

A Red Cross spokesman told the Associated Press that its field hospital in Rafah received 50 wounded people, mostly with gunshot and shrapnel wounds, including two declared dead on arrival, while Nasser hospital in nearby Khan Younis said it received a third body.

The Israeli military said in a statement that “warning shots were fired toward several suspects who advanced toward” troops approximately 1km from the site.

The military added it was “aware of reports regarding casualties, and the details of the incident are being thoroughly looked into”.

Also on Monday, the Civil Defence reported that 14 people, including six children and three women, were killed in an Israeli strike on a house in the northern town of Jabalia. More than 20 others were believed to be missing under the rubble of the destroyed building, it said.

There was no immediate comment from the IDF, but it said in a statement that its aircraft had struck dozens of targets across Gaza over the past day, including “military structures belonging to terror organisations”, underground tunnels, and weapons stores.

Israel imposed a total blockade on Gaza on 2 March and resumed its military offensive two weeks later, collapsing a two-month ceasefire with Hamas. It said the steps were meant to put pressure on the armed group to release the 58 hostages still held in Gaza, at least 20 of whom are believed to be alive.

On 19 May, the Israeli military launched an expanded offensive that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said would see troops “take control of all areas” of Gaza. The following day, he said Israel would also temporarily ease the blockade and allow a “basic” amount of food into Gaza.

Israel launched a military campaign in Gaza in response to Hamas’ cross-border attack on 7 October 2023, in which about 1,200 people were killed and 251 others were taken hostage.

At least 54,470 people have been killed in Gaza since then, including 4,201 since Israel resumed its offensive, according to the territory’s Hamas-run health ministry.

“Who is responsible for this mess?”

The question recently echoed across India’s financial capital Mumbai as thousands of residents once again found themselves stranded, soaked and frustrated.

Heavy rains brought the city to a standstill, and this was before the monsoon had even begun in full swing. Roads turned into rivers, vehicles broke down mid-commute and low-lying neighbourhoods were waterlogged within hours.

Even a newly-built underground metro station could not withstand the heavy downpour as photos and videos of the station flooded with muddy water went viral.

The pre-monsoon deluge once again exposed the city’s fragile infrastructure and sparked widespread outrage on social media.

The Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC), one of India’s richest civic organisations responsible for maintaining Mumbai’s infrastructure, initially blamed the problem on rubbish clogging the drains and debris from metro construction, The Hindustan Times newspaper reported.

Following criticism, the BMC installed de-watering pumps in flood-prone areas and began manually clearing waste from drains to prevent further waterlogging. But for many residents, the action came too late.

The crisis is neither new – nor is it unique to Mumbai.

From Delhi in the north to Bengaluru in the south, India’s biggest cities flood every monsoon season. Roads collapse, drains overflow, infrastructure is overwhelmed and traffic grinds to a halt.

Experts blame rapid unplanned urbanisation, poor infrastructure and years of environmental neglect as the root causes of this problem.

“The pace of urban expansion has far exceeded the evolution of supporting infrastructure, particularly in water and drainage systems,” says Dikshu Kukreja, an architect and urban planner based in Delhi.

“Many cities rely on outdated systems designed decades ago. And in the process of unchecked expansion, natural drainage channels, wetlands and water bodies that once absorbed excess rainwater have been built over or neglected,” he adds.

Experts say there’s no one-size-fits-all solution as each city faces unique challenges and factors such as geography, population and climate must be considered when designing effective responses.

India receives 80% of its annual rainfall during the monsoon season, which usually starts from June and continues until September.

The monsoon is crucial for agriculture and the livelihoods of millions of Indian farmers. They rely on seasonal showers in parts of the country where proper irrigation channels are absent.

But experts say climate change has made erratic weather – such as unseasonal rains, flash floods and droughts linked to extreme heat – a more regular phenomenon, directly affecting millions of people.

This year the monsoon arrived a week early in parts of southern India, catching authorities unprepared.

“A depression developed over the eastern central Arabian Sea which was instrumental in pulling up the monsoon current,” says Mahesh Palawat, vice-president of meteorology and climate change at weather forecasting company Skymet.

In Delhi, the Minto bridge has become a symbol of the city’s annual monsoon chaos. Almost every year, after heavy rain, a bus or lorry gets stuck under the bridge – an image that highlights the city’s struggle with urban flooding.

This year, Delhi recorded its wettest May since 1901, with more than 185mm of rainfall, according to the Indian weather department.

Many residents reported damage to their property.

At least four people were killed and dozens more were injured in one of the two heavy storms that hit the city in May, according to media reports.

Meanwhile, in Bengaluru, more than 2,000kms (1,240 miles) from the capital, the problem looks different but its root cause is the same.

Once known for its network of lakes that helped manage excess rainwater, Bengaluru has seen many of these water bodies encroached upon. In their place now stand apartment complexes, business hubs and roads – leaving the city vulnerable to flooding.

“Bengaluru is made up of three major valleys through which water naturally flows. Most of the city’s lakes are located in these valleys,” explains Ram Prasad, a lake conservation activist.

These valleys were originally designated as no-construction zones but over the years, encroachment has taken place and later changes in the law permitted infrastructure projects to be built in the area, he says.

“When you convert lakes – which traditionally act as flood buffers – into built-up areas, the water has nowhere to go. So, what we’re seeing in Bengaluru today is the result of poor urban planning.”

Mr Prasad points out that Bengaluru, which sits atop a hill, was never meant to flood and the current situation is entirely man-made.

Violations of building norms, especially construction that narrows stormwater drains or builds directly over them, have only made things worse, he says.

Meanwhile, Mumbai faces natural challenges due to its geography. For example, many parts of Mumbai are low-lying and close to the sea, which makes them more vulnerable to flooding during heavy rains and high tides.

But experts say it’s human actions that have made things much worse: cutting down mangroves, which normally act like natural barriers against floods, and building on floodplains where water is supposed to drain.

“The breakdown is systemic – it begins with planning that often doesn’t account for future climate variabilities, gets exacerbated by poor execution and is compounded by weak enforcement of regulations,” Mr Kukerja says. “Political will is often reactive – responding to disasters rather than investing in long-term resilience.”

This isn’t just a big city problem. Smaller towns often suffer equally, if not more.

Over the weekend, at least 30 people died in India’s northeastern states after heavy rains triggered flooding and landslides. Tens of thousands have been affected, with rescue efforts under way.

So, can anything be done to prevent this?

“Yes,” says Mr Kukreja, but only if it is part of a long-term, co-ordinated strategy.

He suggests using mapping and real-time sensors to identify high-risk zones and alert communities. Predictive models can also help authorities plan better responses.

“But technology alone is not a fix, it needs to be paired with responsive governance and community involvement,” he said.

For India’s cities to withstand the rains, they need more than just de-watering pumps and quick fixes. They need forward-thinking planning, before the damage is done.

From allegations of infidelity to swinging scandals, The Secret Lives of Mormon Wives offers a look into a version of Mormon life far removed from traditional public perception.

Set in suburban Utah, the TV series follows a group of Mormon women – most of whom rose to fame on TikTok and became MomTok influencers – as they manage scandals, confront marital breakdowns and clash over everything from business ventures to party invitations.

But beneath the sensational plotlines is a more complex story about the evolving dynamics within a tight-knit community.

The group of Mormon mothers have been making content online for the past five years but say the concept of reality TV still feels very new to them.

“I’ve heard that eventually people learn how to play the reality TV game but that’s not us yet, we’re still trying to figure it out,” Jessi Ngatikaura tells the BBC. “So you’re getting to see the real us.”

What started off as a hobby has now become a job and the women speak openly on the show about the amount of money they make from reality TV and brand deals.

“It is totally our job now but we chose this and we could all walk away any time if we didn’t want to be part of it,” Jessi says.

Whitney Leavitt explains that “naturally dynamics will change when there’s more money and family involved and definitely some people get competitive” but reassures me the group are still friends off camera.

Across the two seasons of the show, Jessi and Whitney have had challenging storylines play out – Whitney is presented as the villain in season one and at the end of season two it is alleged Jessi has had an affair.

The pair speak candidly about the impact having your life watched and commented on by millions of people worldwide has had on them.

“It’s been hard coming to terms with the fact we have no control over the narrative and you don’t ever really get over it,” Whitney explains. “But you have to accept that and let it go.”

As the show follows the lives of nine friends, it’s easy to see how some of them may create more drama for themselves in order to guarantee some screen time but Jessi insists that’s not the case and no one “plays up but naturally emotions are heightened”.

“We’re actually recording four or five days a week so we don’t know what will make the final edit.”

Jessi says her explosive Halloween party was not manufactured by producers and there is just “naturally so much drama that we don’t need to create more just for the show”.

Given the intensity of drama and filming demands, the presence of strong aftercare is essential and both women praise the production for its duty of care standards.

“There are always therapists on hand and at first I was like why are Taylor and Jen having therapy all the time and now I’m having five or six hours of it a week,” Jessi confesses. “I’ve found it’s useful even if you’re not going through a hard time.”

Whitney also accessed some aftercare in season one after being presented as the villain of the show.

“It totally sucked being the villain and I was angry, had a lot of resentment and was really sad. There were so many overwhelming emotions for me but I was proud that instead of running away I stayed and had those hard conversations I didn’t want to have,” Whitney says.

Whitney was one of the members of the MomTok group that Taylor Frankie Paul publicly revealed was involved in “soft swinging”, something she denies and caused a rift to form in their friendship.

The open discussions around sex, marital affairs and alcohol on the show has caused some backlash from the Mormon church.

“When the first trailer came out there was some backlash from the church because they were scared but actually we’re showing you how we live the Mormon life and we all live it differently,” Whitney says.

Jessi adds the docudrama shows how “we are all normal and everyday girls, not people wearing bonnets and churning butter like you might think”.

The women say that not only has the church come to accept the show, they are also helping young women think about their faith differently.

“We’ve definitely influenced people to question their faith, dive deeper into it or be more honest about it and I’ve had messages from some people saying that they’re joining the church because of me,” Jessi says.

While their religion plays an important part of their life, they’re keen to tell me that they are not the face of Mormonism.

“There are Mormons who still get upset about it but we’re just showing our version of it and I think that’s empowering as hopefully people can relate to our stories and struggles.”

Top secret intelligence files uncovered by the BBC confirm for the first time that missing American journalist Austin Tice was imprisoned by the regime of the now-deposed Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

Former Syrian officials have also confirmed Mr Tice’s detention to the BBC.

The US government has previously stated that it believed he had been held by the Syrian government, but the Assad regime continuously denied this, and nothing was known about the details of his detention.

The intelligence files – along with testimony from several former regime officials – now reveal what happened to the journalist after his abduction.

Austin Tice vanished near the Syrian capital of Damascus in August 2012, just days after his 31st birthday. He had been working as a freelance journalist.

Around seven weeks later, a video posted online showed him blindfolded and with his hands bound being forced to recite an Islamic declaration of faith by a group of armed men.

However, the impression given – that Mr Tice had been abducted by a jihadist group – was quickly questioned by analysts and US officials, who said the scene “may have been staged”.

No group or government has ever claimed responsibility for his disappearance and he has not been heard from since, fuelling widespread speculation as to his whereabouts.

The BBC uncovered the material as part of an ongoing investigation that began over a year ago for a Radio 4 podcast series, while accompanying a Syrian investigator to an intelligence facility.

The intelligence files are the first evidence to surface of the Syrian regime’s detention of Mr Tice since search efforts began to find him following the fall of Bashar al-Assad in early December 2024.

The files labelled “Austin Tice” comprised communications from different branches of Syrian intelligence. Their authenticity has been verified by the BBC and law enforcement.

One communication, marked “top secret” shows that he was held in a detention facility in the capital Damascus in 2012.

Additional sources confirmed this to be in Tahouneh and a former senior Syrian intelligence officer also confirmed that Mr Tice had been held in Damascus by a paramilitary group.

The fallen regime consistently denied knowing of his whereabouts; the BBC investigation proves this was false.

Austin Tice is understood to have been arrested near the Damascus suburb of Darayya, and then held by members of a paramilitary force who are loyal to President Assad, called the National Defence Forces (NDF).

A Syrian official confirmed to the BBC that the journalist was there until at least February of 2013.

At that time, he developed stomach issues and was treated by a doctor at least twice. Blood tests are said to have revealed that Mr Tice was suffering from a viral infection at the time.

A man who visited the facility where he was held and saw him told the BBC that Mr Tice was treated better than the Syrian detainees, but that “he looked sad, and that the joy had gone from his face”.

Separately, a former member of the NDF with intimate knowledge of Austin Tice’s detention told the BBC “that Austin’s value was understood” and that he was a “card” that could be played in diplomatic negotiations with the US.

Mr Tice is reported to have briefly escaped his captivity by squeezing through a window in his cell, but was later recaptured. He was also interrogated at least twice by a Syrian government intelligence officer. The incident is believed to have taken place between late 2012 and early 2013.

When Assad was ousted in December 2024, then-US President Joe Biden said he believed Mr Tice was still alive. Two days previously, his mother, Debra Tice, said that a “significant source” had confirmed that he son was alive and being “treated well”.

But when prisons were emptied after the fall of the government, there was no sign of Mr Tice and his whereabouts are still unknown.

The Tice family are aware of the existence of these intelligence files seen by the BBC, as are US authorities, and also a Syrian group that is working to gather information on crimes committed by the Assad regime.

Austin Tice is believed to be one of the longest-held American hostages. His mother Debra and father Marc have led a tireless campaign to highlight their son’s disappearance.

A former US marine captain, Austin Tice has served in both Iraq and Afghanistan and was a law student at the prestigious Georgetown University in Washington DC.

In 2012 he travelled to Syria to report on the civil war as a freelance journalist.

He vanished into a vast and complex system of detention. The UK-based monitoring group the Syrian Network for Human Rights estimates that 100,000 people disappeared under the Assad regime.

The BBC has again accused Iran of escalating a campaign of intimidation against its Persian journalists and increasingly targeting the relatives of staff inside the country.

The British broadcaster said on Monday that its BBC Persian journalists were witnessing “a disturbing rise in the persecution of their family members”.

People had endured random interrogations, travel bans, passport confiscations and asset seizure threats, it said.

Staff – both in the UK and elsewhere – had not been able to return to Iran, and had also been directly targeted with violence and threats aimed at pressuring them to abandon their work, the BBC said.

“We call on the Iranian authorities to immediately cease this campaign of intimidation,” the BBC’s director general Tim Davie said in a statement on Monday.

Tehran is yet to respond to the latest allegations from the BBC. The Iranian regime has previously been accused of conducting unlawful operations against journalists abroad.

It has denied those allegations and accused the BBC of spreading false information to encourage its overthrow.

BBC News Persian reaches a weekly global audience of almost 22 million people, including around 13 million in Iran, where the service is banned.

The BBC has previously said that the Iranian regime has targeted its Persian language journalists covering the country over the past decade – prompting the broadcaster to lodge urgent complaints with the UN Human Rights Council in 2018 and again in 2022.

But there had been a “significant and increasingly alarming escalation” recently, the BBC said on Monday.

“In addition to enduring personal security threats from Iranian state actors operating beyond Iran’s borders, BBC News Persian journalists are now witnessing a disturbing rise in the persecution of their family members inside Iran,” said Mr Davie.

“This persecution is a direct assault on press freedom and human rights. It must end now.”

The broadcaster said it was preparing a fresh complaint to the UN.

The UN’s secretary general and its special rapporteurs have previously raised concerns about Iran’s treatment of BBC staff and warned that harassment, surveillance and death threats violated international human rights law.

The official death toll after deadly floods hit the Nigerian town of Mokwa on Thursday has risen to more than 200, officials say.

Another 500 people are still missing in the town in the central Niger State however, local official Musa Kimboku told the BBC that rescue efforts had ceased because authorities no longer believe anyone could still be found alive.

The floods, said to be worst in the area for 60 years, swept through the Mokwa districts of Tiffin Maza and Anguwan Hausawa after torrential rains.

In an effort to prevent disease in the area, authorities will soon start to dig out corpses buried underground, Mokwa’s district head Muhammadu Aliyu said.

Recounting scenes of catastrophe, local residents told the BBC that they saw their homes and family members get washed away.

One man, Adamu Yusuf, lost his wife and newborn baby.

“I watched helplessly as water washed away my family. I survived because I could swim,” he told the BBC.

Another resident, Saliu Sulaiman, said the floods had left him homeless and destroyed some of his cash business profits.

“I lost at least $1,500 to the floods. It was the proceeds from the sale of my farm produce the previous day. I contemplated going back into the room to get it, but the pressure of the water scared me.”

Some local residents have said that the flooding was so devastating because a nearby dam had burst, however the authorities have not confirmed this.

Residents said the pressure of the floodwater was so intense that bodies had been washed up in the town of Rabba, at least an hour’s drive from Mokwa.

Mokwa’s Deputy Vice-Chairman Musa Kimboku said they had told neighbouring villages to bury “any corpse that they find.”

District head Mr Aliyu said some bodies were unrecoverable because they had gone “through the River Niger”.

On Sunday, the National Emergency Management Agency (Nema) announced it had started the process of providing relief packages to people affected.

The agency added in a post on Facebook that roads and bridges were also affected by the flood, which has had a knock-on effect on the local economy and traffic.

The Nigerian Red Cross also released a statement on Friday saying the floods had caused “significant loss of life and widespread distress”.

Floods are not uncommon during the Nigerian rainy season, which lasts from April until October.

In 2024, Nigeria experienced flooding from heavy rain which caused deaths and drove people from their homes.

There was also severe flooding in 2022, when more than 600 people died and 1.3 million were displaced.

• ‘I watched helplessly as water washed my family away’ in Nigeria floods
• Could Nigeria’s careful ethnic balancing act be under threat?
• Blank questions, power cuts and a suicide: Nigeria’s exams fiasco
• ‘How I survived Nigeria attack that killed my 16 friends’

Northern Ireland-born fashion designer Jonathan Anderson has announced he is to take on the role of creative director of both women’s and men’s collections at Dior.

In April, Anderson confirmed he was to become the artistic director of the luxury French fashion house menswear, one month after stepping back as creative director at Loewe after more than 10 years in the job.

He becomes the first designer to head both the women’s and men’s lines at the well-known brand.

The 40-year-old, who was born in Magherafelt in County Londonderry, said it was a “great honour” to take on the role.

“I have always been inspired by the rich history of this House, its depth, and empathy,” he said in an Instagram post on Monday.

“I look forward to working alongside its legendary Ateliers to craft the next chapter of this incredible story.”

Anderson is to take on the womenswear collection after its artistic director, Maria Grazia Chiuri, announced her departure after almost a decade in the job last week.

In January, British designer Kim Jones stepped down as artistic director for Dior’s menswear.

Anderson’s move to Dior is part of a major reshuffling of jobs at global fashion brands following some resignations and forced departures.

He is set to debut his first collection, Dior Men Summer 2026, during Paris Fashion Week on 27 June.

Bernard Arnault, chair of luxury conglomerate Louis Vuitton Moët Hennessy (LVHM) and Dior’s parent company, described Anderson as “one of the greatest creative talents of his generation”.

“His incomparable artistic signature will be a crucial asset in writing the next chapter of the history of the House of Dior.”

Dior’s chairperson, Delphine Arnault, said she is “delighted” that Anderson’s creativity will be brought to life at the House.

“I have followed his career with great interest since he joined the LVMH group over 10 years ago,” she said in a statement.

“I am convinced he will bring a creative and modern vision to our House, inspired by the fabulous story of Monsieur Dior and the codes he created.”

Anderson is known for his innovative styles and gender-fluid designs, and has created some iconic and recognisable looks throughout his career.

In 2023, he crafted Rihanna’s Super Bowl half-time performance outfit, which she used to announce her pregnancy and Ariana Grande’s 2024 Met Gala gown.

Anderson trained at the London College of Fashion, before beginning his career in Prada’s marketing department.

He launched his eponymous brand JW Anderson in 2008, before being appointed as the creative director at Loewe – a Spanish leather goods brand founded in 1846 – in 2013.

One of his designs, a colourful patchwork crochet cardigan worn by singer Harry Styles which inspired a viral TikTok trend amongst fans during the Covid-19 pandemic, was added to London’s Victoria and Albert Museum fashion collection earlier this year.

Anderson has won a number of high-profile awards, including Designer of the Year at the 2024 Fashion Awards in December for the second year in a row.

He is also the son of former Ireland rugby captain, Willie Anderson.

The French government is reviewing its policies to tighten up policing around small boats, Home Secretary Yvette Cooper has told MPs.

Cooper faced criticism after more than 1,100 migrants crossed the Channel on Saturday – the highest number recorded on a single day so far this year.

Conservative shadow home secretary Chris Philp said French Police continued to stand by and watch as migrants made their way into boats just off the French coast.

Cooper replied that she was pressing for action on an agreement with French authorities, which would allow police to apprehend migrants in shallow waters.

Criminal gangs are exploiting a loophole in French law that prevents police from intervening when migrants are in the water, so people increasingly wait in the surf for a boat to arrive and then clamber in.

French Interior Minister Bruno Retailleau told the BBC he would close the loophole earlier this year, but the change has yet to be made.

Updating the Commons during Home Office questions, Cooper said: “The French interior minister and the French cabinet have now agreed their rules need to change.

“A French maritime review is looking at what new operational tactics they will use, and we are urging France to complete this review and implement the changes as swiftly as possible.

“I’ve been in touch with the French interior minister, who supports stronger action, again this weekend and there are further discussions underway this week.”

Philp suggested the government needed to take a more hardline approach to stop French police standing on beaches and watching small boats sail away.

“They’re not smashing gangs, they’re smashing records,” he said.

Philp added that a recent deal giving EU fishing boats continued access to UK waters until 2038 “should be suspended until the French agree to stop those small boats at sea and prevent illegal immigration”.

Responding, Cooper pointed out that Philp was a former immigration minister who had not secured action from the French.

She said: “This government has reached a new agreement with France and we’re now pressing for that to be operationalised as swiftly as possible – but we won’t take lessons from a former immigration minister who let legal migration treble and small boat crossings soar more than tenfold on his watch.”

Sign up for our Politics Essential newsletter to read top political analysis, gain insight from across the UK and stay up to speed with the big moments. It’ll be delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

An al-Qaeda linked group says it carried out a major attack on the Malian town of Boulikessi and the seizure of an army base there.

More than 30 soldiers were killed in Sunday’s attack, according to sources quoted by the news agency Reuters, however that figure has not been confirmed by the authorities.

On Monday the same group, Jama’a Nusrat ul-Islam wa al-Muslimin (JNIM), said it targeted the military in the historic city of Timbuktu, with residents reporting hearing gunfire and explosions.

Mali’s army said in a statement late on Monday that it had repelled an “infiltration attempt by terrorist fighters” in Timbuktu, “neutralising” 14 militants and arresting 31 suspects.

It added that weapons, vehicles and other items were seized, but did not name the group responsible for the attack. The army said search operations across Timbuktu were ongoing.

In an earlier statement, the army said it “reacted vigorously” to Sunday’s attack, before “withdrawing” – suggesting a tactical retreat.

“Many men fought, some until their last breath, to defend the Malian nation,” the statement added.

An unnamed local source told Reuters that JNIM had left many casualties and “cleared the camp”.

Unverified video footage showed dozens of militants storming the base, including one which captured them stepping on bodies, according to Reuters.

In Monday’s attack, JNIM said its fighters had attacked a military airport and Russian mercenaries.

Military and security sources told the AFP news agency they were “fighting back”, but that the militants were “everywhere in the city”.

A local official said the attackers had arrived “with a vehicle packed with explosives” that detonated close to the army camp.

Timbuktu, a UN World Heritage Site, was captured by Islamist militants in 2012 before they were driven out, but has once more been under siege in recent years.

The attacks, the latest sign of collapsing security in Mali and the wider Sahel region, came after the United States Africa Command warned about growing efforts by various different Islamist militant groups which operate in the Sahel to gain access to West Africa’s coastline.

During a press conference on Friday, the commander of United States Africa Command (Africom), Gen Michael Langley, described recent attacks in Nigeria, the wider Sahel, and the Lake Chad Basin as deeply troubling, warning that the groups’ access to the coast would significantly boost their capacity for smuggling and arms trafficking.

It is thought that more than 400 soldiers have been killed by militants since the beginning of last month in Mali, Burkina Faso and Niger, Reuters reports.

• Niger, Mali and Burkina Faso to form joint force to fight jihadists
• The region with more ‘terror deaths’ than rest of world combined
• ‘I thought I would die’ – freed captive tells BBC of life in West African jihadist base

The UK government has threatened to sue former Chelsea Football Club owner Roman Abramovich to make sure the money from the club’s sale goes to Ukraine.

The £2.5bn in proceeds have been frozen in a UK bank account since the sale, with Mr Abramovich sanctioned after Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.

The UK government wants the money to be for Ukrainian humanitarian aid, but Mr Abramovich has said he wants it to go to “all victims of the war in Ukraine”.

In a joint statement, Chancellor Rachel Reeves and Foreign Secretary David Lammy said: “While the door for negotiations will remain open, we are fully prepared to pursue this through the courts if required.”

They said they wanted “to ensure people suffering in Ukraine can benefit from these proceeds as soon as possible”.

They added: “The government is determined to see the proceeds from the sale of Chelsea Football Club reach humanitarian causes in Ukraine, following Russia’s illegal full-scale invasion.

“We are deeply frustrated that it has not been possible to reach agreement on this with Mr Abramovich so far”.

The delay in releasing the funds centres on a disagreement between the UK government and his lawyers.

Mr Abramovich – a Russian billionaire who made his fortune in oil and gas – was granted a special licence to sell Chelsea following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, providing he could prove he would not benefit from the sale.

He is alleged to have strong ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin, something he has denied.

He cannot access the £2.5bn sale proceeds under UK sanctions but the money still legally belongs to him.

When he announced his decision to sell the club, he said proceeds from the sale would be donated via a foundation “for the benefit of all victims of the war in Ukraine”, which would include those in Russia.

The UK government has pushed back and argued that the funds should only be spent on humanitarian efforts inside Ukraine.

A House of Lords committee said last year said it was “incomprehensible” that Mr Abramovich’s promise to use the funds to support Ukraine remained unfulfilled, and that the assets remained frozen.

“This impasse reflects badly on both Mr Abramovich and the government, which ought to have pushed for a more binding commitment,” the report said.

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

A Chinese Harvard graduate’s speech calling for unity in a divided world, delivered days after the US vowed to “aggressively” revoke Chinese students’ visas, has sparked mixed reactions in the US and her home country.

“We don’t rise by proving each other wrong. We rise by refusing to let one another go,” Jiang Yurong said on Thursday, the same day a US federal judge blocked the Trump administration’s ban on foreign students at Harvard.

Her speech went viral on the Chinese internet, with some saying it moved them to tears. However, others said her elite background is not representative of Chinese students.

In the US, some have flagged her alleged links with the Chinese Communist Party.

In their efforts to restrict Harvard from enrolling foreign students, US authorities had accused the institution of “co-ordinating with the Chinese Communist Party”.

Ms Jiang, who studied international development, was the first Chinese woman to speak at a Harvard graduation ceremony.

In her address, Ms Jiang emphasised the value of Harvard’s international classrooms, noting how that taught her and her classmates to “dance through each other’s traditions” and “carry the weight of each other’s worlds”.

“If we still believe in a shared future, let us not forget: those we label as enemies – they, too, are human. In seeing their humanity, we find our own,” said Ms Jiang, who spent her final two years of school at Cardiff Sixth Form College in Wales before going to Duke University in the US for her undergraduate degree.

A conservative X account, with the handle @amuse, criticised Harvard for choosing a graduation speaker who is “a representative of a CCP-funded and monitored non-government organisation”, alleging that her father works for a non-government organisation that “serves as a quasi-diplomatic agent for the [party]”.

The account, which has 639,000 followers, has previously posted pro-Donald Trump content, such as the US leader fighting Darth Vader and sexualised imagery of former Vice-President Kamala Harris.

Some Chinese social media users, on the other hand, allege that the organisation Ms Jiang’s father works for is backed by prominent American companies and foundations.

The BBC has not independently verified these allegations.

“This is why she could get a scholarship to go to the UK for high school, and later also to Harvard,” wrote a user on China’s X-like platform, Weibo.

Others called for her to stay on in the US, with comments that reeked with sarcasm. “Such talent should be left to the United States,” one wrote. “I hope she will continue to glow abroad and stay away from us!” read another.

But Ms Jiang’s vision of a “shared humanity” also struck a chord.

“That she is able to stand on an international stage and speak the heart of Chinese students has moved me to tears,” wrote a user on Red Note, another Chinese social media platform.

Another user defended Jiang by hitting back at those who criticised her: “You may not have changed them, but they’ve heard you… As more and more people speak out like you, you will eventually move and change others.”

There are around 6,800 international students at Harvard, who make up more than 27% of its enrolments in the past academic year.

About a third of these foreign students are from China, and more than 700 are Indian.

The UK government has threatened to sue former Chelsea Football Club owner Roman Abramovich to make sure the money from the club’s sale goes to Ukraine.

The £2.5bn in proceeds have been frozen in a UK bank account since the sale, with Mr Abramovich sanctioned after Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.

The UK government wants the money to be for Ukrainian humanitarian aid, but Mr Abramovich has said he wants it to go to “all victims of the war in Ukraine”.

In a joint statement, Chancellor Rachel Reeves and Foreign Secretary David Lammy said: “While the door for negotiations will remain open, we are fully prepared to pursue this through the courts if required.”

They said they wanted “to ensure people suffering in Ukraine can benefit from these proceeds as soon as possible”.

They added: “The government is determined to see the proceeds from the sale of Chelsea Football Club reach humanitarian causes in Ukraine, following Russia’s illegal full-scale invasion.

“We are deeply frustrated that it has not been possible to reach agreement on this with Mr Abramovich so far”.

The delay in releasing the funds centres on a disagreement between the UK government and his lawyers.

Mr Abramovich – a Russian billionaire who made his fortune in oil and gas – was granted a special licence to sell Chelsea following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, providing he could prove he would not benefit from the sale.

He is alleged to have strong ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin, something he has denied.

He cannot access the £2.5bn sale proceeds under UK sanctions but the money still legally belongs to him.

When he announced his decision to sell the club, he said proceeds from the sale would be donated via a foundation “for the benefit of all victims of the war in Ukraine”, which would include those in Russia.

The UK government has pushed back and argued that the funds should only be spent on humanitarian efforts inside Ukraine.

A House of Lords committee said last year said it was “incomprehensible” that Mr Abramovich’s promise to use the funds to support Ukraine remained unfulfilled, and that the assets remained frozen.

“This impasse reflects badly on both Mr Abramovich and the government, which ought to have pushed for a more binding commitment,” the report said.

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

MI5 is facing fresh scrutiny in the case of a violent neo-Nazi agent after a High Court judge said he had “no confidence” in the Security Service’s account of how a senior officer gave false evidence.

Ahead of a court hearing on Tuesday, the BBC can reveal Mr Justice Chamberlain ordered MI5 to hand over secret documents about the case.

He also said there was a further issue about the “correctness” of new evidence provided by a very senior MI5 officer.

Tuesday’s hearing comes four months after the BBC revealed MI5 had lied to three courts about a misogynistic agent known as X. The agent used his MI5 role to coerce and terrorise his girlfriend, attacking her with a machete.

The most senior judge in England and Wales, Lady Chief Justice Baroness Sue Carr, and the President of the King’s Bench Division Dame Victoria Sharp, will now join Mr Justice Chamberlain to consider what, if any, action should be taken about MI5’s false evidence.

There are a range of potential options, from accepting the conclusions of MI5’s investigations to initiating contempt of court proceedings against MI5 itself or individual officers – or both.

Usually, contempt of court proceedings are referred to the Attorney General, currently Lord Hermer, but in this case, he is technically representing MI5.

Details about MI5’s internal investigation into how it came to give the false evidence, which were included in the secret documents given to the court, may also be made public on Tuesday.

MI5 gave the evidence in 2022 after then-Attorney General Suella Braverman sought an injunction to stop a BBC investigation about X. She won him legal anonymity but failed to prevent the story being published.

During that case, a senior spy known only as Witness A said MI5 had stuck to its policy to “neither confirm nor deny” (NCND) that X was an MI5 agent during conversations with me in 2020, when I was investigating X’s conduct.

But, in February this year, the BBC was able to reveal Witness A’s evidence was false.

In fact, MI5 had disclosed X’s status in phone calls to me, which I had made notes of and recorded, as the Security Service tried to persuade me to drop my investigation.

MI5’s false claim was repeated in two other courts considering a legal claim against the Security Service by X’s former girlfriend, known publicly as “Beth”.

During hearings in recent weeks, Mr Justice Chamberlain raised the new concerns regarding MI5’s account of how it came to give the false evidence.

These concerns centred on accounts of the two investigations launched after the BBC exposed MI5’s false claims in February this year – an internal one, and an external review by the government’s former chief lawyer Sir Jonathan Jones KC, commissioned by Home Secretary Yvette Cooper.

In April, the court and the BBC were provided with a witness statement by the very senior MI5 officer – known as Witness B – purporting to summarise the investigations. They were also given an open, non-secret version of Sir Jonathan’s external review.

Although the court can receive sensitive information – and had security-cleared barristers, known as special advocates, acting on behalf of the BBC – it was not given a secret, closed version of the external review, nor a copy of the internal investigation report and its underlying documents.

After a request by the special advocates, Mr Justice Chamberlain made clear he wanted disclosure of the closed version of the external review. During a later hearing he ordered that MI5 also hand over the internal investigation report described by Witness B, as well as policy documents and interview notes with MI5 officers.

He also raised concerns about whether the open, non-secret documents originally provided to the court and the BBC were an accurate reflection of the closed versions.

He said Witness B had claimed the original open version of the report was a “fair and accurate” reflection of the closed version. But, having read the closed report, Mr Justice Chamberlain gave his provisional view that:

• It contained “potentially significant material” not in the open version of the report
• This material “raises real questions about whether Witness B could properly rely on the open version as a fair and accurate report of the closed report”
• Because of “the piecemeal way this has come to light”, he had “no confidence that the court has been given the full picture of how Witness A came to give false evidence”
• New material raised “a separate issue about the correctness of Witness B’s recent evidence in these proceedings”

The court will also hear on Tuesday whether MI5 will be able to continue to apply its policy of NCND in relation to the agent status of X within the legal case itself, despite publicly accepting it had departed from the policy in phone calls to me.

The NCND policy has allowed MI5 to withhold material from the BBC as well as the separate case brought by X’s former girlfriend Beth.

She had complained about MI5 to a specialist court, the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT), and then sought a judicial review in a third court of an IPT ruling that allowed MI5 to apply NCND.

It meant that material confirming X’s agent status has been confined to secret hearings, where she was represented by the tribunal’s own barristers and her lawyers were excluded.

Mongolian prime minister Luvsannamsrain Oyun-Erdene has resigned after losing a confidence vote in parliament.

The vote followed days of mass protests over corruption allegations – fuelled by social media posts about his son’s lavish birthday party and engagement.

Oyun-Erdene, who took office in 2021, will remain as caretaker PM until a successor is appointed within 30 days.

“It was an honour to serve my country and people in times of difficulties, including pandemics, wars, and tariffs,” he said after the vote.

He had to stand down as he fell short of a majority, or 64 of the 126-seat parliament. Some 82 lawmakers took part in the secret ballot, 44 of whom voted for Oyun-Erdene, while 38 voted against him.

Hundreds of protesters, many of them young people, had been taking to the streets for two weeks before the vote, demanding Oyun-Erdene’s resignation.

In particular, they pointed to his family’s – especially his son’s – apparent lavish lifestyle, questioning the source of their wealth.

Mongolians have circulated on social media an extravagant wedding proposal by Oyun-Erdene’s son, as well as expensive fashion items.

Oyun-Erdene has rejected allegations of corruption, accusing critics of launching a smear campaign against him.

According to Transparency International, a watchdog, Mongolia has seen worsening corruption since Oyun-Erdene came into power. Last year, it was ranked 114th out of 180 countries in terms of government transparency.

A former communist state sanwiched between Russia and China, Mongolia has been transitioning to democracy since the fall of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s.

Corruption is a persistent problem. Last year, US prosecutors sought to forfeit former Mongolian PM Sukhbaatar Batbold’s two New York apartments that he allegedly bought using stolen mining funds.

Batbold, who served from 2012 to 2015, denied wrongdoing.

In recent years, Mongolia has sought to build closer ties with the West, counting the United States and European countries as part of its “third neighbour” foreign policy.

It was an attack of astonishing ingenuity – unprecedented, broad, and 18 months in the making.

On 1 June more than 100 Ukrainian drones struck air bases deep inside Russia, targeting nuclear-capable long-range bombers.

The scale of the operation dubbed “Spider Web” became clear almost as soon as it began, with explosions reported across several time zones all over Russia – as far north as Murmansk above the Arctic Circle, and as far east as the Amur region, over 8,000km from Ukraine.

The Russian Defence Ministry confirmed the attacks had occurred in five regions of Russia – Murmansk, Irkutsk, Ivanovo, Ryazan and Amur – but stated planes had been damaged only in Murmansk and Irkutsk, while in other locations the attacks had been repelled.

In photos released shortly after the attack, Vasyl Maliuk, the head of the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU), can be seen looking at a satellite map of airfields in which the bases in the locations listed by Russia are clearly identifiable.

Maliuk said the drones were smuggled into Russia inside wooden cabins mounted on the back of lorries and concealed below remotely operated detachable roofs.

The lorries were then apparently driven to locations near airbases by drivers who were seemingly unaware of their cargo; then, the drones were launched and set upon their targets.

Videos circulating online show drones emerging from the roof of one of the vehicles involved. One lorry driver interviewed by Russian state outlet Ria Novosti said he and other drivers tried to knock down drones flying out of a lorry with rocks.

“They were in the back of the truck and we threw stones to keep them from flying up, to keep them pinned down,” he said.

According to unverified reports by Russian Telegram channel Baza – which is known for its links to the security services – the drivers of the lorries from which the drones took off all told similar stories of being booked by businessmen to deliver wooden cabins in various locations around Russia.

Some of them said they then received further instructions over the phone on where to park the lorries; when they did so, they were stunned to see drones fly out of them.

In a triumphant post shared on social media on Sunday night, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky – who directly supervised the operation – said 117 drones had been used in the daring attack that took “one year, six months and nine days” to prepare.

He also said one of the targeted locations was right next to one of the offices of the FSB Russian security services.

Russia has said it has detained people in connection with the attack, although Zelensky stated the people who had helped facilitate the operation “were withdrawn from Russian territory… they are now safe”.

In a now-deleted Telegram post, local authorities from the city of Ust-Kut in the Irkutsk region said they were looking for a Ukrainian-born 37-year-old in connection with the drone attack on the Belaya military airfield.

Images shared by the SBU show dozens of small black drones neatly stashed in wooden cabins inside a warehouse, which Russian military bloggers pinpointed to a location in Chelyabinsk.

Dr Steve Wright, a UK-based drone expert, told the BBC the drones used to hit Russian aircraft were simple quadcopters carrying relatively heavy payloads.

He added that what made this attack “quite extraordinary” was the ability to smuggle them into Russia and then launch and command them remotely – which he concluded had been achieved through a link relayed through a satellite or the internet. Zelensky said each of the 117 drones launched had its own pilot.

Dr Wright also suggested it was likely the drones were able to fly in using GPS but may have also overcome localised Russian jamming measures by manually piloting drones remotely.

Kyiv has not shared details on the origin of the drones, but since the start of the war Ukraine has become extremely efficient at manufacturing them – and it is possible the ones used in this operation were produced at home.

“Russia has had very tangible losses, and justifiably so,” said Zelensky in his nightly video address.

According to Ukraine, 41 strategic bombers were hit and “at least” 13 destroyed. Moscow has not confirmed any losses of aircraft beyond saying some planes had been damaged.

Videos verified by the BBC show damaged aircraft at the Olenegorsk air base in Murmansk and the Belaya air base in Irkutsk.

The strategic missile-carrying bombers targeted in the attack are thought to be – among others – the Tu-95, Tu-22 and Tu-160. Repairing them will be difficult and, because none are still in production, replacing them is impossible.

Radar satellite imagery shared by Capella Space reveals at least four badly damaged or destroyed Russian long-range bombers at Belaya airbase. This matches Ukrainian drone footage also showing an attack on a Tu-95 bomber.

“According to the laws and customs of war, we have worked out absolutely legitimate targets – military airfields and aircraft that bomb our peaceful cities,” said SBU head Vasyl Malyuk.

Tu-95 bombers are said to have launched a large-scale Kh-101 missile attack on Ukraine as recently as last week. Each bomber can carry eight guided cruise missiles and each missile itself carries a 400kg (882lb) warhead.

A-50 military spy planes were also reportedly targeted. They are valuable aircraft that boost Russia’s ability to both intercept Ukrainian missiles and to launch its own strikes.

It is not known how many A-50s Russia has – but in February 2024 military intelligence chief Kyrylo Budanov put that number at eight, so any loss or damage could be a serious blow to Moscow.

In a post on social media, the SBU said operation Spider Web cost Russia $7bn (£5.2bn).

Russian state media stayed studiously quiet on the attacks, with primetime Sunday TV shows merely quoting statements by regional authorities. By Monday morning, the story had disappeared from the bulletins.

On the internet and beyond Ukrainians celebrated, with one lauding the operation as “titanic”.

“Of course, not everything can be revealed at this moment,” Zelensky wrote on Telegram, “but these are Ukrainian actions that will undoubtedly be in history books.”

From allegations of infidelity to swinging scandals, The Secret Lives of Mormon Wives offers a look into a version of Mormon life far removed from traditional public perception.

Set in suburban Utah, the TV series follows a group of Mormon women – most of whom rose to fame on TikTok and became MomTok influencers – as they manage scandals, confront marital breakdowns and clash over everything from business ventures to party invitations.

But beneath the sensational plotlines is a more complex story about the evolving dynamics within a tight-knit community.

The group of Mormon mothers have been making content online for the past five years but say the concept of reality TV still feels very new to them.

“I’ve heard that eventually people learn how to play the reality TV game but that’s not us yet, we’re still trying to figure it out,” Jessi Ngatikaura tells the BBC. “So you’re getting to see the real us.”

What started off as a hobby has now become a job and the women speak openly on the show about the amount of money they make from reality TV and brand deals.

“It is totally our job now but we chose this and we could all walk away any time if we didn’t want to be part of it,” Jessi says.

Whitney Leavitt explains that “naturally dynamics will change when there’s more money and family involved and definitely some people get competitive” but reassures me the group are still friends off camera.

Across the two seasons of the show, Jessi and Whitney have had challenging storylines play out – Whitney is presented as the villain in season one and at the end of season two it is alleged Jessi has had an affair.

The pair speak candidly about the impact having your life watched and commented on by millions of people worldwide has had on them.

“It’s been hard coming to terms with the fact we have no control over the narrative and you don’t ever really get over it,” Whitney explains. “But you have to accept that and let it go.”

As the show follows the lives of nine friends, it’s easy to see how some of them may create more drama for themselves in order to guarantee some screen time but Jessi insists that’s not the case and no one “plays up but naturally emotions are heightened”.

“We’re actually recording four or five days a week so we don’t know what will make the final edit.”

Jessi says her explosive Halloween party was not manufactured by producers and there is just “naturally so much drama that we don’t need to create more just for the show”.

Given the intensity of drama and filming demands, the presence of strong aftercare is essential and both women praise the production for its duty of care standards.

“There are always therapists on hand and at first I was like why are Taylor and Jen having therapy all the time and now I’m having five or six hours of it a week,” Jessi confesses. “I’ve found it’s useful even if you’re not going through a hard time.”

Whitney also accessed some aftercare in season one after being presented as the villain of the show.

“It totally sucked being the villain and I was angry, had a lot of resentment and was really sad. There were so many overwhelming emotions for me but I was proud that instead of running away I stayed and had those hard conversations I didn’t want to have,” Whitney says.

Whitney was one of the members of the MomTok group that Taylor Frankie Paul publicly revealed was involved in “soft swinging”, something she denies and caused a rift to form in their friendship.

The open discussions around sex, marital affairs and alcohol on the show has caused some backlash from the Mormon church.

“When the first trailer came out there was some backlash from the church because they were scared but actually we’re showing you how we live the Mormon life and we all live it differently,” Whitney says.

Jessi adds the docudrama shows how “we are all normal and everyday girls, not people wearing bonnets and churning butter like you might think”.

The women say that not only has the church come to accept the show, they are also helping young women think about their faith differently.

“We’ve definitely influenced people to question their faith, dive deeper into it or be more honest about it and I’ve had messages from some people saying that they’re joining the church because of me,” Jessi says.

While their religion plays an important part of their life, they’re keen to tell me that they are not the face of Mormonism.

“There are Mormons who still get upset about it but we’re just showing our version of it and I think that’s empowering as hopefully people can relate to our stories and struggles.”

Disney says it is laying off several hundred more people around the world, with workers in its film, television and finance departments impacted.

The entertainment giant has been under pressure as viewers move away from cable TV subscriptions in favour of streaming platforms.

“As our industry transforms at a rapid pace, we continue to evaluate ways to efficiently manage our businesses while fuelling the state-of-the-art creativity and innovation that consumers value and expect from Disney,” a spokesperson told the BBC.

The latest job cuts follow major layoffs announced in 2023, when around 7,000 workers were let go as part of a drive by chief executive Bob Iger to save $5.5bn (£4.1bn).

The cuts will impact multiple teams including marketing departments for its film and television units.

Workers in Disney’s casting and development and corporate finance departments will also be affected.

“We have been surgical in our approach to minimise the number of impacted employees,” said a spokesperson. The company also said that no teams will be closed down entirely.

The California-based firm employs 233,000 workers, with just over 60,000 of those based outside the US.

Disney owns a host of companies across the entertainment industry including Marvel, Hulu and ESPN.

The firm reported stronger than expected earnings in May, with overall revenue of $23.6bn for the first three months of the year. That was a 7% increase from the same period in 2024.

It said the growth was fuelled by new subscribers to its Disney+ streaming service.

The company has released a number of new films this year including Captain America: Brave New World and Snow White.

The live action remake of the iconic Snow White animated film did not perform as well as expected at cinemas, after facing a number of negative reviews.

But Disney’s latest release, Lilo & Stitch, broke box office records in the US for the Memorial Day holiday weekend.

The animated film has seen global ticket sales of more than $610m since its release in May, according to industry data firm Box Office Mojo.

The UN secretary-general has called for an independent investigation into the killing of Palestinians near an aid distribution centre in Gaza on Sunday, amid disputed reports that Israeli forces had opened fire on people waiting to collect aid.

Witnesses reported being shot at while waiting for food from the centre in Rafah run by the US and Israel-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF).

The Red Cross said its hospital received 179 casualties, 21 of whom were dead. The Hamas-run Civil Defence agency put the death toll at 31.

On Sunday, the Israeli military denied its troops fired at civilians near or within the site and said reports to this effect were false.

The GHF said the reports were “outright fabrications” and that it was yet to see evidence of an attack at or near its facility.

Israel does not allow international news organisations, including the BBC, into Gaza, making verifying what is happening in the territory difficult.

UN Secretary-General António Guterres said in a statement on Monday: “I am appalled by the reports of Palestinians killed and injured while seeking aid in Gaza yesterday.

“I call for an immediate and independent investigation into these events and for perpetrators to be held accountable.”

Israel’s foreign ministry responded by branding his comments a “disgrace” in a post on X, and criticised him for not mentioning Hamas.

Later on Monday, UN human rights chief Volker Türk told the BBC the way humanitarian aid is now being delivered is “unacceptable” and “dehumanising”.

“I think what it shows is utter disregard for civilians. Can you imagine people that have been absolutely desperate for food, for medicine, for almost three months and then they have to run for it or try to get it in the most desperate circumstances?” he told the BBC World Service’s Newshour programme.

“It does show a huge dehumanisation of the people who are desperately in need.”

The Civil Defence agency said 31 people were killed and 176 wounded “after Israeli gunfire targeted thousands of civilians near the American aid centre in Rafah” early on Sunday morning.

According to the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), the Red Cross Field Hospital in Rafah received a “mass casualty influx” of 179 cases, including women and children, at that time.

The majority suffered gunshot or shrapnel wounds, and 21 were declared dead upon arrival, it said, adding “all patients said they had been trying to reach an aid distribution site”.

Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) said its teams at Nasser hospital in Khan Younis also treated people with serious injuries, some of whom were in a critical condition.

It added the patients “reported being shot at from all sides by Israeli drones, helicopters, boats, tanks and soldiers”, and that one staff member’s brother was “killed while attempting to collect aid from the distribution centre”.

Mohammed Ghareeb, a local journalist in Rafah, told the BBC that a crowd of Palestinians had gathered near al-Alam roundabout, close to the GHF aid centre, at around 04:30 local time (02:30 BST) when Israeli tanks approached and opened fire.

“The dead and wounded lay on the ground for a long time,” he said.

“Rescue crews could not access the area, which is under Israeli control. This forced residents to use donkey carts to transport victims to the field hospital.”

One video posted online on Sunday morning appeared to show Palestinians taking cover in an open area of sandy terrain while what sounds like automatic gunfire rings out. However, the BBC was unable to verify the location because there are not enough features visible.

The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) put out a statement on Sunday afternoon that said an initial inquiry indicated its troops “did not fire at civilians while they were near or within the humanitarian aid distribution site and that reports to this effect are false”.

Spokesman Brig Gen Effie Defrin accused Hamas of “spreading rumours” and “trying bluntly and violently to stop the people of Gaza from reaching those distribution centres”.

The IDF also released drone video it said showed armed men firing at civilians on their way to collect aid, although the BBC was unable to verify where or when it was filmed.

Later on Sunday, an Israeli military official briefed reporters that soldiers had acted to “prevent a number of suspects from approaching the forces” approximately 1km from the GHF site, before it opened.

“Warning shots were fired,” the official said, before insisting there was “no connection between the incident in question and the false allegations against the IDF”.

The GHF said in a statement on Monday that the reports were “the most egregious in terms of outright fabrications and misinformation fed to the international media community.

“There were no injuries, fatalities or incidents during our operations yesterday. Period. We have yet to see any evidence that there was an attack at or near our facility.”

The US ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee, accused major news outlets of “reckless and irresponsible reporting” on the matter.

“Drone video and first-hand accounts clearly showed that there were no injuries, no fatalities, no shooting, no chaos,” he said on Monday.

“The only source for these misleading, exaggerated, and utterly fabricated stories came from Hamas sources, which are designed to fan the flames of antisemitic hate that is arguably contributing to violence against Jews in the United States,” he added.

Meanwhile on Monday, health officials and local media reported that another three Palestinians were killed by Israeli fire near the same GHF centre in Rafah’s Tal al-Sultan area.

A Red Cross spokesman told the Associated Press that its field hospital in Rafah received 50 wounded people, mostly with gunshot and shrapnel wounds, including two declared dead on arrival, while Nasser hospital in nearby Khan Younis said it received a third body.

The Israeli military said in a statement that “warning shots were fired toward several suspects who advanced toward” troops approximately 1km from the site.

The military added it was “aware of reports regarding casualties, and the details of the incident are being thoroughly looked into”.

Also on Monday, the Civil Defence reported that 14 people, including six children and three women, were killed in an Israeli strike on a house in the northern town of Jabalia. More than 20 others were believed to be missing under the rubble of the destroyed building, it said.

There was no immediate comment from the IDF, but it said in a statement that its aircraft had struck dozens of targets across Gaza over the past day, including “military structures belonging to terror organisations”, underground tunnels, and weapons stores.

Israel imposed a total blockade on Gaza on 2 March and resumed its military offensive two weeks later, collapsing a two-month ceasefire with Hamas. It said the steps were meant to put pressure on the armed group to release the 58 hostages still held in Gaza, at least 20 of whom are believed to be alive.

On 19 May, the Israeli military launched an expanded offensive that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said would see troops “take control of all areas” of Gaza. The following day, he said Israel would also temporarily ease the blockade and allow a “basic” amount of food into Gaza.

Israel launched a military campaign in Gaza in response to Hamas’ cross-border attack on 7 October 2023, in which about 1,200 people were killed and 251 others were taken hostage.

At least 54,470 people have been killed in Gaza since then, including 4,201 since Israel resumed its offensive, according to the territory’s Hamas-run health ministry.

Microsoft founder Bill Gates says that most of his fortune will be spent on improving health and education services in Africa over the next 20 years.

The 69-year-old said that “by unleashing human potential through health and education, every country in Africa should be on a path to prosperity”.

Speaking in Ethiopia’s capital Addis Ababa, he also urged Africa’s young innovators to think about how to build Artificial Intelligence (AI) to improve healthcare on the continent.

Gates announced last month that he would give away 99% of his vast fortune – which he expects to reach $200bn (£150bn) – by 2045, by when his foundation planned to end its operations.

“I recently made a commitment that my wealth will be given away over the next 20 years. The majority of that funding will be spent on helping you address challenges here in Africa,” he said in an address at the African Union (AU) headquarters.

Mozambique’s former First Lady Graça Machel welcomed his announcement, saying it came in a “moment of crisis”.

“We are counting on Mr Gates’ steadfast commitment to continue walking this path of transformation alongside us,” she said.

The US government has cut aid to Africa, including programmes to treat patients with HIV/Aids, as part of US President Donald Trump’s “America First” policy, raising concerns about the future of healthcare on the continent.

Gates said his foundation, which has a long history of operating in Africa, would focus on improving primary healthcare.

“What we’ve learned is that helping the mother be healthy and have great nutrition before she gets pregnant, while she is pregnant, delivers the strongest results,” he said.

“Ensuring the child receives good nutrition in their first four years as well makes all the difference.”

In a message to young innovators, the tech billionaire noted that mobile phones had revolutionised banking in Africa, and argued that AI should now be used for the continent’s benefit.

“Africa largely skipped traditional banking and now you have a chance, as you build your next generation healthcare systems, to think about how AI is built into that,” he said.

Gates pointed to Rwanda as an example, saying it was already improving services using AI-enabled ultrasound to identify high-risk pregnancies.

The Gates Foundation said it had three priorities: ending preventable deaths of mothers and babies, ensuring the next generation grows up without having to suffer from deadly infectious diseases, and lifting millions of people out of poverty.

“At the end of 20 years, the foundation will sunset its operations,” it said in a statement.

Last month, Gates said he would accelerate his giving via his foundation.

“People will say a lot of things about me when I die, but I am determined that ‘he died rich’ will not be one of them,” he wrote in a blog post.

Giving away 99% of his fortune could still leave the fifth-richest person in the world a billionaire, according to Bloomberg.

Along with Paul Allen, Gates founded Microsoft in 1975, and the company soon became a dominant force in software and other tech industries.

Gates has gradually stepped back from the company in recent decades, resigning as its chief executive in 2000 and as chairman in 2014.

He said he had been inspired to give away money by investor Warren Buffett and other philanthropists.

However, critics of his foundation say Gates uses its charitable status to avoid tax and that it has undue influence over the global health system.

• Bill Gates: We’ve given away $100bn, but my children won’t be poor when I’m gone
• Bill Gates would rather pay for vaccines than travel to Mars
• Bitcoin not for me, says ex-Microsoft chief

Portugese and German police have launched a new search in Portugal this week as part of ongoing investigations into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.

The search will cover the municipality of Lagos, which sits next to Praia da Luz, the town in the Algarve where she went missing nearly two decades ago.

Madeleine was three years old when she vanished from an apartment complex on 3 May 2007 while on holiday with her family.

Her disappearance sparked a Europe-wide police investigation, and has become one of the highest-profile unsolved missing person cases in the world.

Portugese police confirmed on Monday that they were carrying out the search between 2-6 June on warrants issued by German prosecutors.

German investigators have taken the lead in the case since identifying 48-year-old Christian Brückner – who is currently in prison in Germany for a separate crime – as their prime suspect in 2020.

German authorities suspect him of murder but have not found enough evidence to bring charges. Brückner has repeatedly denied any involvement.

He is currently serving a sentence in Germany for raping a 72-year-old American tourist in Portugal in 2005.

German authorities told the BBC on Monday that “criminal proceedings are currently underway in Portugal”, and that this was being done with the support of Portugese police.

Portuguese authorities have also named Brückner as a formal suspect, or “arguido”. They said they would hand over any evidence seized in the latest search to German authorities.

Meanwhile, the Met Police said: “We are aware of the searches being carried by the BKA (German federal police) in Portugal as part of their investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.”

The search will be the first to take place in two years. The previous search in 2023 focused on a remote dam, a 40-minute-drive from where Madeleine was last seen.

Brückner, who spent time in the area between 2000 and 2017, was found to have photographs and videos of himself near the reservoir.

Portuguese media reported on Monday that the new search would focus on the area between the Ocean Club holiday resort where the McCann family were staying and the house where Brückner used to live.

The night Madeleine disappeared, her parents had been at dinner with friends at a restaurant a short walk away while Madeleine and her younger twin siblings were asleep in the ground-floor apartment.

Her parents checked in on the children throughout the evening until her mother, Kate, discovered Madeleine was missing at around 22:00.

German authorities continue to treat Brückner as their main suspect. However, prosecutors in Germany said earlier this year that there was “no prospect” of a charge against him relating to Madeleine’s disappearance.

A German documentary in 2022 found evidence that Brückner occasionally worked at the Ocean Club as a handyman, while German prosecutors have also linked his mobile phone data and a car sale to their case against him.

Madeleine’s parents last month marked the 18th year anniversary of her disappearance, saying their “determination to leave no stone unturned is unwavering”.

The Metropolitan Police continues its investigation into Madeleine’s disappearance, known as Operation Grange, which has been going since 2011.

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

The UK government has threatened to sue former Chelsea Football Club owner Roman Abramovich to make sure the money from the club’s sale goes to Ukraine.

The £2.5bn in proceeds have been frozen in a UK bank account since the sale, with Mr Abramovich sanctioned after Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.

The UK government wants the money to be for Ukrainian humanitarian aid, but Mr Abramovich has said he wants it to go to “all victims of the war in Ukraine”.

In a joint statement, Chancellor Rachel Reeves and Foreign Secretary David Lammy said: “While the door for negotiations will remain open, we are fully prepared to pursue this through the courts if required.”

They said they wanted “to ensure people suffering in Ukraine can benefit from these proceeds as soon as possible”.

They added: “The government is determined to see the proceeds from the sale of Chelsea Football Club reach humanitarian causes in Ukraine, following Russia’s illegal full-scale invasion.

“We are deeply frustrated that it has not been possible to reach agreement on this with Mr Abramovich so far”.

The delay in releasing the funds centres on a disagreement between the UK government and his lawyers.

Mr Abramovich – a Russian billionaire who made his fortune in oil and gas – was granted a special licence to sell Chelsea following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, providing he could prove he would not benefit from the sale.

He is alleged to have strong ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin, something he has denied.

He cannot access the £2.5bn sale proceeds under UK sanctions but the money still legally belongs to him.

When he announced his decision to sell the club, he said proceeds from the sale would be donated via a foundation “for the benefit of all victims of the war in Ukraine”, which would include those in Russia.

The UK government has pushed back and argued that the funds should only be spent on humanitarian efforts inside Ukraine.

A House of Lords committee said last year said it was “incomprehensible” that Mr Abramovich’s promise to use the funds to support Ukraine remained unfulfilled, and that the assets remained frozen.

“This impasse reflects badly on both Mr Abramovich and the government, which ought to have pushed for a more binding commitment,” the report said.

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