US President Donald Trump has issued an executive order hitting India with an additional 25% tariff over its purchases of Russian oil.

That will raise the total tariff on Indian imports to the United States to 50% – among the highest rates imposed by the US.

The new rate will come into effect in 21 days, so on 27 August, according to the executive order.

A response from India’s foreign ministry on Wednesday said Delhi had already made clear its stance on imports from Russia, and reiterated that the tariff is “unfair, unjustified and unreasonable”.

“It is therefore extremely unfortunate that the US should choose to impose additional tariffs on India for actions that several other countries are also taking in their own national interest,” the brief statement read.

“India will take all actions necessary to protect its national interests,” it added.

The US president had earlier warned he would raise levies, saying India doesn’t “care how many people in Ukraine are being killed by the Russian War Machine”.

On Wednesday, the White House said in a statement that the “Russian Federation’s actions in Ukraine pose an ongoing threat to US national security and foreign policy, necessitating stronger measures to address the national emergency”.

It said India’s imports of Russian oil undermine US efforts to counter Russia’s activities in Ukraine.

It added that the US will determine which other countries import oil from Russia, and will “recommend further actions to the President as needed”.

Oil and gas are Russia’s biggest exports, and Moscow’s biggest customers include China, India and Turkey.

Speaking later at an event in the White House, Trump took a question from the BBC on the subject and said the tariff on India was just the start – “You’re going to see a lot more, so much secondary sanctions,” he said.

• Trump-Modi ties hit rock bottom with new tariffs
• How secondary tariffs on Russia could hit world economy

The threatened tariff hike follows meetings on Wednesday by Trump’s top envoy Steve Witkoff in Moscow, aimed at securing peace between Russia and Ukraine.

The additional tariff would mean a steep 50% duty on key Indian exports like textiles, gems and jewellery, auto parts, and seafood, hitting major job-creating sectors.

Electronics, including iPhones, and pharma remain exempt for now.

Delhi has previously called Trump’s threat to raise tariffs over its purchase of oil from Russia “unjustified and unreasonable”.

In an earlier statement, a spokesperson for India’s foreign ministry said the US had encouraged India to import Russian gas at the start of the conflict, “for strengthening global energy markets stability”.

He said India “began importing from Russia because traditional supplies were diverted to Europe after the outbreak of the conflict”.

The latest threatened tariff demonstrates Trump’s willingness to impose sanctions related to the war in Ukraine even against nations that the US considers to be important allies or trading partners.

This could be a warning that other countries could feel a real bite if Trump ramps up those kind of sanctions once Friday’s deadline passes, when the US president has threatened new sanctions on Russia and to place 100% tariffs on countries that purchase its oil.

This would not be the first time the Trump administration has imposed secondary tariffs, which are also in place to punish buyers of Venezuelan oil.

India has previously criticised the US – its largest trading partner – for introducing the levies, when the US itself is still doing trade with Russia.

Last year, the US traded goods worth an estimated $3.5bn (£2.6bn) with Russia, despite tough sanctions and tariffs.

Trump and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi have in the past referred to each other as friends and, during Trump’s first term, attended political rallies in each others’ countries.

But that has not stopped Trump from hitting India with the levies, suggesting diverging interests between New Delhi and Washington.

The Federation of India Exports Organisations has called the decision to impose additional tariffs “extremely shocking”, adding that it will hit 55% of India’s exports to America.

The tariffs are expected to make Indian goods far costlier in the US, and could cut US-bound exports by 40–50%, according to the Global Trade Research Initiative (GTRI), a Delhi-based think tank.

“India should remain calm, avoid retaliation for at least six months, and recognise that meaningful trade negotiations with the US cannot proceed under threats or mistrust,” former Indian trade official and head of GTRI, Ajay Srivastava, said.

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi was one of the first world leaders to visit Washington weeks after US President Donald Trump started his second term.

He called Modi his “great friend” as the two countries set an ambitious target of doubling their trade to $500bn by 2030.

But less than six months later, the relationship appears to have hit rock bottom.

Trump has now imposed a total of 50% tariffs on goods imported from India, and his earlier threat of levying an extra 10% for the country’s membership in the Brics grouping, which includes China, Russia and South Africa as founding members, still stands.

He initially imposed a 25% tariff, but announced an additional 25% on Wednesday as a penalty for Delhi’s purchase of Russian oil – a move the Indian government called “unfair, unjustified and unreasonable”.

And just last week, Trump called India’s economy “dead”.

This is a stunning reversal in a relationship that has gone from strength to strength over the past two decades, thanks to efforts by successive governments in both countries, bipartisan support and convergence on global issues.

In the past few weeks, there were positive signals from Washington and Delhi about an imminent trade deal. Now that looks increasingly difficult, if not impossible.

So what went wrong?

A series of missteps, grandstanding, geopolitics and domestic political pressure seem to have broken down the negotiations.

Delhi has been restrained in its response so far to Trump’s tirades, hoping that diplomacy might eventually help secure a trade deal. But in Trump’s White House, there are no guarantees.

Trump has commented on many issues that Delhi considers red lines. The biggest among them is Trump repeatedly putting India and its rival Pakistan on an equal footing.

The US president hosted Pakistani army chief Asim Munir at the White House just weeks after a bitter conflict between the two South Asian rivals.

He then signed a trade deal with Pakistan, offering the country a preferential tariff rate of 19%, along with a deal to explore the country’s oil reserves. He went as far as saying that some day, Pakistan might sell oil to India.

Another constant irritant for Delhi is Trump’s repeated assertion that the US brokered a ceasefire between India and Pakistan.

India sees its dispute with Pakistan over Kashmir as its internal affair and has always rejected third-party mediation on the issue. Most world leaders have been sensitive to Delhi’s position, including Trump in his first stint as president.

But that’s no longer the case. The US president has doubled down on his claim even after Modi told India’s parliament that “no country had mediated in the ceasefire”.

Modi didn’t name Trump or the US but domestic political pressure is mounting on him not to “bow down” to the White House.

“The fact that this is happening against the backdrop of heavy and high-level US engagement with Islamabad immediately after an India-Pakistan conflict is even more galling for Delhi and the wider Indian public. This all sharpens concerns harboured by some in India that the US can’t truly be trusted as a partner,” says Washington-based South Asia analyst Michael Kugelman.

He adds that some of the anger in Delhi might “be Cold War-era baggage coming to the fore”, but “this time around it’s intensified by real-time developments as well”.

Modi’s government thrives on nationalist issues, so its supporters would likely expect a firm response to the US.

It’s a Catch-22 situation – Delhi still wants to clinch a deal but also doesn’t want to come across as buckling under Trump’s pressure.

And it appears that Delhi is gradually releasing the restraint. In its response to Washington’s anger over India’s purchase of Russian oil, Delhi vowed to take “all necessary measures” to safeguard its “national interests and economic security”.

But the question is why Trump, who loved India’s hospitality and called it a great country earlier, has gone on a tirade against a trusted ally.

Some analysts see his insults as a pressure tactic to secure a deal that he thinks works for the US.

“Trump is a real estate magnate and a tough negotiator. His style may not be diplomatic, but he seeks the outcomes diplomats would. So, I think what he’s doing is part of a negotiating strategy,” says Jitendra Nath Misra, a former Indian ambassador and now a professor at OP Jindal Global University.

A source in the Indian government said that Delhi gave many concessions to Washington, including no tariffs on industrial goods, and a phased reduction of tariffs on cars and alcohol. It also signed a deal to let Elon Musk’s Starlink start operations in India.

But Washington wanted access to India’s agriculture and dairy sectors to reduce the $45bn trade deficit it runs with Delhi.

But these sectors are a red line for Modi or, for that matter, any Indian prime minister. Agriculture and related sectors account for more than 45% of employment in India and successive governments have fiercely protected farmers.

Mr Kugelman believes giving in to Washington’s demands isn’t an option for India.

“India first needs to assuage public anger and make clear it won’t give in to the pressure. This is critical for domestic political reasons,” he says.

He also believes that Trump’s insistence that India stop importing oil from Moscow has more to do with his growing frustration over Russian President Vladimir Putin.

“We’re seeing Trump continuing to ratchet up his pressure tactics, trying to cut Russia off from its most important oil buyers by penalising them for doing business with Moscow,” he says.

But Delhi can’t afford to stop importing oil from Russia overnight.

India is already the world’s third biggest consumer of crude and may surpass China in the top position by 2030 as its energy demand is likely to increase with a fast-growing middle class, according to International Energy Agency (IEA).

Russia now accounts for more than 30% of India’s total oil imports, a significant jump from less than 1% in 2021-22.

Many in the West see this as India indirectly funding Moscow’s war but Delhi denies this, arguing that buying Russian oil at a discount ensures energy security for millions of its citizens.

India also sees Russia as its “all-weather” ally. Moscow has traditionally come to Delhi’s rescue during past crises and still enjoys support among the wider Indian public.

Moscow is also Delhi’s biggest arms supplier, though its share in India’s defence import portfolio dropped to 36% between 2020-25 from 55% between 2016 and 2020, according to Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.

This was largely due to Delhi boosting domestic manufacturing and buying more from the US, France and Israel.

But Russia’s role in India’s defence strategy can’t be overstated. This is something the West understood and didn’t challenge – until Trump decided to break from established norms.

So far, India was able to successfully walk the diplomatic tightrope with the West overlooking its strong ties to Russia.

The US has long viewed India as a bulwark against China’s dominance in the Indo-Pacific region, which ensured bipartisan support for Delhi in Washington.

And Moscow (though sometimes reluctantly) didn’t react harshly to its ally forging close ties with Washington and other western countries.

But now Trump has challenged this position. How Delhi reacts will decide the future of the India-US relationship.

India has been measured in its response so far but is not holding back completely. In its statement, it said that the US had encouraged it to keep buying oil from Russia for global energy market stability.

It also said that targeting it was unjustified as the EU continues to buy energy, fertiliser, mining and chemical products from Russia.

While things seem bad, some analysts say that all is not lost. India and the US have close links in many sectors, which can’t be uprooted overnight.

The two countries cooperate closely in the space technology, IT, education and defence sectors.

Many large domestic IT firms have invested heavily in the US, and most big Silicon Valley firms have operations in India.

“I think the fundamentals of the relationship are not weak. It’s a paradox that the day Trump announced 25% tariffs and unspecified penalties, India and the US collaborated in a strategic area when an Indian rocket sent a jointly-developed satellite into space,” says Mr Misra.

It will be interesting to see how India reacts to Trump’s sharp rhetoric.

“Trump is unapologetically transactional and commercial in his approach to foreign policy. He has no compunction about deploying these potentially alienating harsh tactics against a close US partner like India,” says Mr Kugelman.

But he adds that there’s a lot of trust baked into the partnership, given the work that has gone into it over the past two decades.

“So what’s lost can potentially be regained. But because of the extent of the current malaise, it could take a long time.”

mRNA vaccines were heralded as a medical marvel that saved lives during the Covid pandemic, but now the US is pulling back from researching them.

US Health Secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr has cancelled 22 projects – worth $500m (£376m) in funding – for tackling infections such as Covid and flu.

So does Kennedy – probably the country’s most famous vaccine sceptic – have a point, or is he making a monumental miscalculation?

Prof Adam Finn, vaccine researcher at the University of Bristol, says “it’s a bit of both” but ditching mRNA technology is “stupid” and potentially a “catastrophic error”.

Let’s unpick why.

Kennedy says he has reviewed the science on mRNA vaccines, concluding that the “data show these vaccines fail to protect effectively against upper respiratory infections like COVID and flu”.

Instead, he says, he would shift funding to “safer, broader vaccine platforms that remain effective even as viruses mutate”.

So are mRNA vaccines safe? Are they effective? Would other vaccine technologies be better?

And another question is where should mRNA vaccines fit into the pantheon of other vaccine technologies – because there are many:

• Inactivated vaccines use the original virus or bacterium, kill it, and use that to train the immune system – such as the annual flu shot
• Attenuated vaccines do not kill the infectious agent, but make it weaker so it causes a mild infection – such as the MMR (measles, mumps and rubella) vaccine
• Conjugate vaccines use bits of protein or sugar from a bug, so it triggers an immune response without causing an infection – like for types of meningitis
• mRNA vaccines use a fragment of genetic code that temporarily instructs the body to make parts of a virus, and the immune system reacts to that

Each has advantages and disadvantages, but Prof Finn argues we “overhyped” mRNA vaccines during the pandemic to the exclusion of other approaches, and now there is a process of adjusting.

“But to swing the pendulum so far that mRNA is useless and has no value and should not be developed or understood better is equally stupid, it did do remarkable things,” he says.

• Full story: RFK Jr cancels $500m in funding for mRNA vaccines
• BBC Verify: Fact-checking RFK Jr’s views on health policy

The claim that mRNA vaccines do not protect against upper respiratory infections like Covid and flu “just isn’t true”, says Prof Andrew Pollard from the Oxford Vaccine Group, who is soon stepping down as the head of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI), which advises the UK government.

The vaccines were shown to provide protection – keeping people alive and out of hospital – in both clinical trials and then during intense monitoring of how the vaccines performed when they were rolled out around the world.

In the first year of vaccination during the Covid pandemic, it was estimated that the Pfizer/BioNTech mRNA vaccine alone saved nearly 6 million lives.

Against that there were a small number of cases of inflammation of heart tissue – called myocarditis – particularly in young men.

“Very rare side effects should be balanced against the huge benefit of the technology,” says Prof Pollard.

The pandemic was an era when the world was single-mindedly focused on Covid and the rollout of vaccines was monitored intensely. The consensus opinion remains they did overwhelmingly more good than harm.

But that does not mean they are a perfect technology.

The mRNA Covid vaccines train the immune system to target just one protein out of the whole virus. If that protein in the coronavirus changes or mutates then the body’s protection is lessened.

We have seen the consequences of that – immunity wanes and the vaccines need to be updated.

One theoretical argument is that a different vaccine approach – such as using the whole virus – would give better protection, as the immune system would have more to target.

However, Prof Pollard says the mRNA vaccines performed better than the inactivated ones when tackling Covid.

He says that is probably down to the way they are made – and the fact that the process of killing the virus also “changes the viral proteins so there is less stimulation of the immune system” in comparison with mRNA vaccines.

The need to update vaccines is not a failing of mRNA technology that can be easily solved by pivoting from one technology to another – instead, it is down to the fundamental nature of some viruses.

The same measles or HPV (human papilloma virus) vaccines have been effective for decades and show no sign of failing as the virus’s genetic codes are more stable in each case.

But some viruses live in a perpetual state of flux.

Flu, for example, is not one virus – but instead a constantly-shifting target. At any time, one strain will be in the ascendancy and be the most likely to cause trouble in winter.

In flu, the inactivated flu injection that is given to adults is updated every year – as is the live vaccine that is given to children as a nasal spray. A future mRNA form of flu vaccine would work the same way.

“The point about keeping up with variants is about all technologies, not just mRNA,” says Prof Pollard.

There is a legitimate scientific question about which vaccine technology is used for which disease.

What is causing concern among scientists is that pulling mRNA research means we will not have those vaccines at times when we need to do what no other technology can.

Prof Pollard says: “I don’t think there’s the evidence they are hugely better for protection, but where RNA tech is streets ahead of everything else is responding to outbreaks.”

The world is highly drilled at making new flu vaccines each year. But even then, there is a six-month process of deciding on the new flu strains to be targeted, growing the vaccine at scale in chicken eggs and then distributing it. Brand new vaccines take even longer.

But with mRNA, you can have the new vaccine in six to eight weeks, and then tens or hundreds of millions of doses a few months later.

Some of the projects that have had their funding pulled in the US were preparing for a bird flu pandemic. That virus, H5N1, has been devastating bird populations and jumping into a wide range of other animals including American cattle.

“That doesn’t make sense and if we do get a human pandemic of bird flu it could be seen as a catastrophic error,” says Prof Finn.

But the ramifications of the US turning away from mRNA research could be felt more widely.

What impact does this move have on confidence in the current vaccines, mRNA or otherwise? How does it affect the world when the US is one of the most influential countries in medical research? And will it have a knock-on impact on other types of mRNA technology, such as cancer vaccines – or using the approach to treat rare genetic diseases?

Prof Pollard poses another question after RFK Jr’s move: “Does it put us all at risk if a huge market is turning its back on RNA?

“It is one of the most important technologies we’ll see this century in infectious disease, biotherapeutic agents for rare disease and critically for cancer. It’s a message I’m troubled about.”

After nearly two years of war, Hamas’s military capability is severely weakened and its political leadership under intense pressure.

Yet, throughout the war Hamas has managed to continue to use a secret cash-based payment system to pay 30,000 civil servants’ salaries totalling $7m (£5.3m).

The BBC has spoken to three civil servants who have confirmed they have received nearly $300 each within the last week.

It’s believed they are among tens of thousands of employees who have continued to receive a maximum of just over 20% of their pre-war salary every 10 weeks.

Amid soaring inflation, the token salary – a fraction of the full amount – is causing rising resentment among the party faithful.

Severe food shortages – which aid agencies blame on Israeli restrictions – and rising cases of acute malnutrition continue in Gaza, where a kilogramme of flour in recent weeks has cost as much as $80 – an all-time high.

With no functioning banking system in Gaza, even receiving the salary is complex and at times, dangerous. Israel regularly identifies and targets Hamas salary distributors, seeking to disrupt the group’s ability to govern.

Employees, from police officers to tax officials, often receive an encrypted message on their own phones or their spouses’ instructing them to go to a specific location at a specific time to “meet a friend for tea”.

At the meeting point, the employee is approached by a man – or occasionally a woman – who discreetly hands over a sealed envelope containing the money before vanishing without further interaction.

An employee at the Hamas Ministry of Religious Affairs, who doesn’t want to give his name for safety reasons, described the dangers involved in collecting his wages.

“Every time I go to pick up my salary, I say goodbye to my wife and children. I know that I may not return,” he said. “On several occasions, Israeli strikes have hit the salary distribution points. I survived one that targeted a busy market in Gaza City.”

Alaa, whose name we have changed to protect his identity, is a schoolteacher employed by the Hamas-run government and the sole provider for a family of six.

“I received 1,000 shekels (about $300) in worn-out banknotes – no trader would accept them. Only 200 shekels were usable – the rest, I honestly don’t know what to do with,” he told the BBC.

“After two-and-a-half months of hunger, they pay us in tattered cash.

“I’m often forced to go to aid distribution points in the hope of getting some flour to feed my children. Sometimes I succeed in bringing home a little, but most of the time I fail.”

In March the Israeli military said they had killed the head of Hamas’s finances, Ismail Barhoum, in a strike on Nasser Hospital in Khan Younis. They accused him of channelling funds to Hamas’s military wing.

It remains unclear how Hamas has managed to continue funding salary payments given the destruction of much of its administrative and financial infrastructure.

One senior Hamas employee, who served in high positions and is familiar with Hamas’s financial operations, told the BBC that the group had stockpiled approximately $700m in cash and hundreds of millions of shekels in underground tunnels prior to the group’s deadly 7 October 2023 attack in southern Israel, which sparked the devastating Israeli military campaign.

These were allegedly overseen directly by Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar and his brother Mohammed – both of whom have since been killed by Israeli forces.

Hamas has historically relied on funding from heavy import duties and taxes imposed on Gaza’s population, as well as receiving millions of dollars of support from Qatar.

The Qassam Brigades, Hamas’s military wing which operates through a separate financial system, is financed mainly by Iran.

A senior official from the banned Egypt-based Muslim Brotherhood, one of the most influential Islamist organisations in the world, has said that around 10% of their budget was also directed to Hamas.

In order to generate revenue during the war, Hamas has also continued to levy taxes on traders and has sold large quantities of cigarettes at inflated prices up to 100 times their original cost. Before the war, a box of 20 cigarettes cost $5 – that has now risen to more than $170.

In addition to cash payments, Hamas has distributed food parcels to its members and their families via local emergency committees whose leadership is frequently rotated due to repeated Israeli strikes.

That has fuelled public anger, with many residents in Gaza accusing Hamas of distributing aid only to its supporters and excluding the wider population.

Israel has accused Hamas of stealing aid that has entered Gaza during the ceasefire earlier this year, something Hamas denies. However BBC sources in Gaza have said that significant quantities of aid were taken by Hamas during this time.

Nisreen Khaled, a widow left caring for three children after her husband died of cancer five years ago, told the BBC: “When the hunger worsened, my children were crying not only from pain but also from watching our Hamas-affiliated neighbours receive food parcels and sacks of flour.

“Are they not the reason for our suffering? Why didn’t they secure food, water, and medicine before launching their 7 October adventure?”

Twice a week, Ben Bradshaw drops his young son off at a Sydney childcare centre before heading off to work.

Like thousands of parents and carers across Australia, the 40-year-old had always been confident that the staff have his child’s best interests at heart.

But in recent months, that trust in the childcare system has been “eroded”, the father-of-two says, after several high-profile cases of alleged sexual and physical abuse at centres across Australia.

“It’s that old adage of cockroaches – if you see one in your house, there’s 10 that you don’t see. These are the ones that get caught. It’s more scary the ones that you can’t see,” he tells the BBC.

In the past few weeks, 2,000 children in Victoria have been urged to undergo infectious disease testing after a childcare worker was charged with the mass sexual abuse of babies; police have named a Sydney man who worked for 60 after-school-care providers and is accused of taking “explicit” images of children under his supervision; a Queensland woman has faced court over allegations she tortured a one-year-old boy; and another two workers in Sydney have been charged after a toddler was left covered in bruises.

It comes as the nation is still reeling from the crimes of childcare worker Ashley Paul Griffith – dubbed “one of Australia’s worst paedophiles” – who was late last year sentenced to life in prison for raping and sexually abusing almost 70 girls.

The series of allegations have sparked panic and fear among parents, child safety advocates have demanded action to fix what they call a dangerously incompetent system, and politicians have promised reform to keep Australia’s most vulnerable safe.

“Some childcare centres are still safe, but the current childcare system is definitely not working to protect children or prioritise their safety,” says Hetty Johnston, a leading child protection advocate.

“It fails at every step.”

In recent years, there has been a nationwide push to give more children access to early childhood education and care, which research indicates has many positive long-term impacts.

Millions of dollars have been poured into the sector from federal and state governments, including funding to guarantee three days of childcare for low and middle-income families.

Such measures have prompted rapid growth in the sector, with a rush of new centres opening which has deepened a shortage of qualified staff.

The growth has led to “significant vulnerabilities”, says Prof Leah Bromfield, director of the Australian Centre for Child Protection.

“Whenever you grow something really quickly, that comes with risks,” she says, listing off a lack of regulation and monitoring, limited training for managers, and the disparate and casual nature of the workforce.

“You put all that together and you’ve created a weak system from the perspective of a predatory perpetrator… a system where it’s easier to infiltrate.”

In the wake of the Melbourne child sexual abuse case where Joshua Dale Brown was charged with 70 counts of abuse against eight babies, the federal government gave itself greater powers to strip funding from providers that breach quality and safety standards.

Federal Education Minister Jason Clare said the measure was not designed to “shut down centres” but rather increase pressure for them to “raise standards”.

But Mr Bradshaw wants more. He says taking away funding from a centre “doesn’t stop the crime, it just punishes it”.

“You have to do things that are proactive in nature.”

The spate of alleged crimes have sparked a heated national conversation about how to better protect kids. Limiting the role of men in childcare is one of the most controversial suggestions.

There was a public call to ban men from certain tasks such as changing nappies and taking children to the toilet – though some warned this could place extra pressure on female staff.

“It’s not about banning male educators, but about providing families with agency and informed choice,” says Louise Edmonds, an advocate for child sex abuse survivors.

Brown’s case prompted G8 Education – who owned the centre where he worked – to introduce so-called “intimate care waivers”, giving parents and carers the opportunity to choose who carried out private and sensitive duties. It also pledged to install CCTV at all of its centres.

Ms Johnston – who founded child protection group Bravehearts – says these are natural responses, but cautioned that, though “men are definitely a higher risk”, women do abuse children too and offenders can do so in all kinds of settings.

“They are opportunistic… when others don’t pay attention, when they are distracted, complacent, disinterested or too trusting, they create ‘opportunities’ for offenders.”

Other practical measures centres could adopt to improve child safety include having two educators with direct line of sight of children at all times and getting rid of blind spots in centres – replacing solid doors with glass panes, eliminating windowless walls, and putting more mirrors up to create “incidental supervision”.

“It’s all about reducing opportunities for predators to isolate or conceal in nooks and crannies,” Ms Johnston says.

But massive system reform is also long overdue, experts say.

In 2017, more than 400 recommendations emerged from a years-long royal commission into child sex abuse in institutional settings – like churches, schools and childcare – but critics say progress has stalled on some of the most significant changes.

One of those outstanding recommendations, to be discussed by the country’s attorneys-general at a meeting this month, is to overhaul Australia’s checks on those who work with children.

Currently, each state and territory complete what is essentially a police check required for those who work alongside children, but they don’t share the information with each other. Advocates have called for a nationalised system, but some say the checks themselves don’t go far enough.

“It’s inconsistent, relies too heavily on prior convictions,” Ms Edmonds says.

For instance, many say, the system should capture red flags such as formal complaints, workplace warnings, police intelligence, and people identified as alleged abusers in confidential applications to the national redress scheme set up after the royal commission.

Casting a broader net is important, experts argue, as child abuse allegations can be difficult to stand up in court. Often the witnesses are young children, who are either non-verbal or have limited vocabulary, may struggle with memory, and often have a lack of situational understanding.

“Catching someone red-handed and being able to prove it beyond reasonable doubt is almost impossible,” Ms Johnston says.

That’s why Prof Bromfield is among those calling for a national registration scheme for the childcare sector – like those that exist for doctors or teachers. It would require workers to prove their qualifications, could provide a detailed work history, and would bind them all by a code of conduct.

Advocates argue the system could also capture many of the things the working- with-children checks currently do not.

“Often in child sexual abuse cases, when you look back, you see lots and lots of red flags,” Prof Bromfield says.

“There might be a pattern, but [at the moment] we just don’t see that because they are moving between states or between sectors or between providers.”

Mr Bradshaw says having access to more information about staff would help parents like him make informed decisions.

Childcare is a necessity for his family, he explains, as he works full-time and his wife, a high school teacher, works four days a week.

But often, there’s little detail about the childcare centre’s staff “beyond the pictures on the wall” of the teachers and educators, so parents often have to assess a provider “based on vibes”.

“It’s a bit of a blackbox and you’re bound because you need to have your kids in childcare so you can pay for living in a big city.”

That’s where greater education for parents is needed too, Prof Bromfield says, so they know what questions to ask and, in the worst-case scenarios, how to spot signs of grooming themselves.

Tips include enquiring about a provider’s child safety policies, asking about its staff turnover, and assessing the physical spaces for any visibility issues.

There also needs to be better, more regular training for managers in the sector on how to prevent and identify problematic behaviour or patterns, experts say.

For Prof Bromfield – who was part of the team which conducted the royal commission into child sex abuse – these are conversations she has been having for over a decade.

But she is hopeful the current crisis will shock Australia into taking greater action.

“Perhaps one of the things that will happen is there will be greater political will to prioritise safety for children,” Prof Bromfield says.

“The big lesson is that we can never rest on our laurels when it comes to children’s safety.

“Perpetrators just keep getting smarter, working around the systems we’ve got. We can’t forget the lessons of the past… and we can’t assume that this is a problem that’s gone away.”

Donald Trump has said there is a “good chance” he could meet the Russian and Ukrainian leaders, following what he described as “very good talks” between his envoy and Vladimir Putin earlier in the day.

Asked at the White House whether the two leaders had agreed to such a summit, the US president said there was a “very good prospect”, but did not give further details.

The Kremlin earlier issued a vague statement about the talks between Putin and Steve Witkoff, with a foreign policy aide saying the two sides had exchanged “signals” as part of “constructive” talks in Moscow.

The meeting came days before Trump’s deadline for Russia to agree to a ceasefire in Ukraine, or face new sanctions.

Trump’s comments in the Oval Office on Wednesday come after he posted on his Truth Social platform that he had briefed some of America’s European allies following the talks.

“Everyone agrees this War must come to a close, and we will work towards that in the days and weeks to come,” Trump said.

The White House also told the BBC that Russia had expressed a desire to meet the US president and that he was “open to meeting with both President Putin and President Zelensky”.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky meanwhile said he had spoken to Trump about Witkoff’s visit, with European leaders also on the call.

Zelensky has been warning that Russia would only make serious moves towards peace if it began to run out of money.

Trump has said Russia could face hefty sanctions or see secondary sanctions imposed against all those who trade with it if it doesn’t take steps to end the war.

Wednesday’s discussions between Putin and Witkoff appeared cordial despite Trump’s mounting irritation with the lack of progress in negotiations between Moscow and Kyiv.

Images shared by Russian outlets showed Putin and Witkoff – who have met several times previously – smiling and shaking hands in a gilded hall at the Kremlin.

Shortly after Witkoff’s departure from Moscow, the White House said Trump had signed an executive order imposing an additional 25% tariff on India for buying Russian oil. The tariff would come into force on 27 August.

The US president has accused India of not caring “how many people in Ukraine are being killed by the Russian war machine”.

Expectations are muted for a settlement by Friday, and Russia has continued its large-scale air attacks on Ukraine despite Trump’s threats of sanctions.

Before taking office in January, Trump said he would be able to end the war between Russia and Ukraine in a day. The conflict has raged on, and his rhetoric towards Moscow has since hardened.

“We thought we had [the war] settled numerous times, and then President Putin goes out and starts launching rockets into some city like Kyiv and kills a lot of people in a nursing home or whatever,” he said last month.

Three rounds of talks between Ukraine and Russia in Istanbul have failed to bring the war closer to an end, three-and-a-half years after Moscow launched its full-invasion.

Moscow’s military and political preconditions for peace remain unacceptable to Kyiv and to its Western partners. The Kremlin has also repeatedly turned down Kyiv’s requests for a meeting between Zelensky and Putin.

Meanwhile, the US administration approved $200m (£150m) of additional military sales to Ukraine on Tuesday following a phone call between Zelensky and Trump, in which the two leaders also discussed defence co-operation and drone production.

Ukraine has been using drones to hit Russia’s refineries and energy facilities, while Moscow has focused its air attacks on Ukraine’s cities.

The Kyiv City Military Administration said the toll of an attack on the city last week rose to 32 after a man died of his injuries. The strike was one of the deadliest on Kyiv since the start of the invasion.

Ukrainian authorities on Wednesday reported that a Russian attack on a holiday camp in the central region of Zaporizhzhia left two dead and 12 wounded.

“There’s no military sense in this attack. It’s just cruelty to scare people,” Zelensky said.

In the popular Japanese anime One Piece, black flags bearing a skull with a straw hat are carried by a rowdy crew of pirates who have made it their mission to challenge a draconian regime and fight for freedom.

But in July, these emblems started popping up across Indonesia – along doorways, on the backs of cars, and painted on walls.

For many, it was a response to Indonesian leader Prabowo Subianto’s call for Indonesians to fly their national red and white flag ahead of the country’s Independence Day on 17 August.

Instead, many chose to raise these pirate flags – known as a Jolly Roger – as a symbol of their discontent, with many criticising what they say is an increasingly centralised government led by Prabowo.

But the movement has not been well received by all. Earlier last week, the country’s Deputy House Speaker criticised the flag displays, calling it an “attempt to divide the nation”. Another lawmaker even suggested it could be treason.

One Piece, was first published in 1997 as a manga by Eiichiro Oda, is one of the most popular franchises in the world. The manga has sold more than 520 million copies while the TV series has run for more than 1,100 episodes.

The series has a large and dedicated fan base in Indonesia, where Japanese anime is well loved.

In the same way the pirates in the series, led by their leader Monkey D Luffy, raise the Jolly Rogers as a symbol of freedom against their government, some Indonesian residents say raising the flag is a “symbol that we love this country, but don’t completely agree with its policies”.

The anime reflects the injustice and inequality that Indonesians experience, said Ali Maulana, a resident of Jayapura city in the Papua province.

“Even though this country is officially independent, many of us have not truly experienced that freedom in our daily lives,” he told BBC Indonesian.

For him and many others, the decision to fly the flag was a response to a speech given by President Prabowo in late July.

“Raise the red and white flag wherever you are. Red represents the blood shed for our independence, white represents the purity of our souls,” Prabowo had said.

Dendi Christanto, who owns the Wik Wiki apparel store in Central Java, said he has received “thousands of orders” for the flags following the president’s speech.

“Since the end of July, I received hundreds of orders a day from all over Indonesia,” Dendi told news outlet Jakarta Post.

Some top officials however, have been less than impressed.

Deputy House Speaker Sufmi Dasco Ahmad, widely regarded as Prabowo’s right-hand man, described the movement as “a coordinated attempt to divide the nation”.

“We must collectively resist such actions,” he had said earlier last week.

Another lawmaker from the centre-right Golkar Party, Firman Soebagyo, suggested that displaying these flags could even amount to treason.

But on Tuesday, the country’s state secretary minister Prasetyo Hadi said the president himself had “no objection” to the flags as a form of “creative expression”.

“However, it should not be used to challenge or diminish the significance of the red and white flag. The two should not be placed side by side in a way that invites comparison or conflict,” his office said in a statement.

In Indonesia, there are no laws that restrict the display of fictional flags, but the law stipulates that if they are flown alongside the red-and-white national flags, the country’s flag must always be hoisted higher.

Police in the capital Jakarta have said they are “monitoring the use of non-national flags and symbols that don’t align with the spirit of nationalism, including pirate or fictional-themed flags”.

Indonesia’s hard-won democracy, the third largest in the world, has faced growing challenges in recent years.

Its popular former leader Joko Widodo rose to power as a promising democrat, but his one-of-us image lost some of its sheen towards the end of his second term, when he revived the death penalty for drug traffickers and appointed Prabowo, a controversial ex-general, as his defence minister.

Public frustration has intensified since Prabowo took over as president last October. In February, thousands took to the streets to protest budget cuts and legislative changes that would allow the military to take a bigger role in government.

“The red-and-white flags are too sacred for us to raise now,” said one user on Instagram, in a post that has been widely shared.

And while some lawmakers have criticised the display of the Jolly Rogers, others say they accept it as a form of public expression.

They are a way for people to “convey their expectations”, said Deputy Home Affairs Minister Bima Arya Sugiarto. “Such a form of expression is a natural phenomenon in a democracy.”

“This kind of symbolic action is better than street protests that could turn violent,” said Deddy Yevri Sitorus from the opposition Democratic Party of Struggle.

Because of One Piece’s popularity among Indonesians of all ages, the flags have offered a way to “raise awareness around political issues in a different and unique way”, said Dominique Nicky Fahrizal, a researcher at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

And for some Indonesians, the government’s mixed response to the Jolly Roger underscores the symbol’s power.

“By treating a cartoon flag as a threat to national security, they have inadvertently validated the entire premise of the protest,” Farhan Rizqullah wrote on the Medium publishing platform.

“They have shown that the dream of Monkey D Luffy, the simple, unwavering desire to be free, is the one thing they truly fear.”