For the crowds of militants and civilians gathered in a central Gaza square to witness the handover of four Israeli soldiers held hostage for 15 months, the atmosphere was one of triumph and jubilation.

Hundreds of people gathered on the piles of rubble in Palestine Square, Gaza City, among flags of Palestinian militant groups, to watch a painstaking hostage handover, while in Tel Aviv crowds of Israelis gathered in suspense.

The four Israeli soldiers – Karina Ariev, Daniella Gilboa, Naama Levy, and Liri Albag – briefly walked on to a podium in khaki military fatigues, smiling and holding hands, their long hair pulled into neat shiny ponytails. Two raised their hands to give a thumbs up towards the cheering crowds, before the group climbed into cars from the International Committee of the Red Cross to be driven out of Gaza.

In Tel Aviv, the families of Israelis who remain captive in Gaza flocked to a central square alongside their supporters to watch live footage of the handover, some weeping with joy and cheering. A few waved Israeli flags, while others held pictures of female Israeli soldiers and other captives expected to be released. Video released of the soldiers’ families watching the handover at a military base showed them shrieking with joy.

Lines of masked, uniformed fighters from Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad – groups that hold people taken hostage on 7 October 2023 – flanked the square in central Gaza City, with Palestinian flags strung overhead. A woman threw confetti over the crowds of militants in celebration.

In a show of their capabilities after months of war, columns of militants stood among the crowds with shiny white cars decked in flags and ringed the square in their dozens, putting automatic weapons on the car rooftops.

The four Israeli soldiers were handed to the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) and flown by helicopter to a hospital in Israel for initial checks. They are expected to be taken to a second facility to meet their families for the first time in 15 months.

The group were among an all-female surveillance unit within the IDF, taken captive at the Nahal Oz base, close to the Gaza border that they had been watching for months before their capture.

Families of other female soldiers captured that day said their daughters had reported suspicious training activity as Hamas militants prepared for the 7 October attack on Israeli towns and kibbutzim, in which about 1,200 people were killed and 250 were taken hostage. Their reports were ignored, they said, until that morning 15 months ago when the militants overran their base and took five women from their unit into Gaza.

More than 47,000 Palestinians have been killed in the subsequent Israeli assault on the Gaza Strip, the longest war in Israel’s history.

Israeli sources estimate that between one-third and half of the remaining 90 captives are alive, amid calls from the families of those held for the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, and his government to stick to the ceasefire agreement and ensure the release of all the remaining captives.

That agreement appeared briefly in doubt on Friday night after Hamas said it would release the four female IDF soldiers, rather than the remaining female civilians. Israeli media reported that security officials from the Israeli government initially ruled this to be a breach of the ceasefire agreement, but that they would proceed with the exchange.

Israeli officials had requested the release of the German-Israeli citizen Arbel Yehoud, aged 28 at the time of her capture, who is one of the last female civilians held in Gaza. Yehoud is reportedly held by the Palestinian Islamic Jihad rather than Hamas, complicating her potential handover and release. Al Jazeera reported that Palestinian sources said Yehoud was alive.

Netanyahu’s office said in a statement that Israel would not allow Palestinians to return to the northern Gaza Strip until Yehoud was released. Two-hundred Palestinians held in two Israeli prisons are expected to be released later on Saturday as part of the agreement, it said.

Israeli forces were due to withdraw from a military checkpoint that has separated Gaza City from the remainder of the territory for months, allowing Palestinians to return to northern Gaza for the first time in more than a year.

“In accordance with the agreement, Israel will not allow the passage of Gazans to the north of the Gaza Strip, until the release of civilian Arbel Yehoud, who was supposed to be released today,” Netanyahu’s office said.

The family of Shiri Bibas, 33 – who may be the other remaining female civilian hostage in Gaza – said they were dismayed that her name was not on the list of captives to be released.

“Once again, we found no rest last night,” they said. “Yesterday … when the list of those set for release was published, our world collapsed. Even though we were prepared for this possibility, we had hoped to see Shiri and the children on the list that was supposed to be for civilian women.”

Bibas was taken hostage on 7 October 2023 alongside her husband, Yarden, and her two children, five-year-old Ariel and two-year-old Kfir, who are the youngest hostages held in Gaza.

R Adm Daniel Hagari, a spokesperson for the IDF, said: “Hamas failed to meet its obligations to first release Israeli female civilians as part of the agreement.” He added that there was “extreme concern” for the welfare of Bibas and her family.

Tens of thousands of people will risk death or injury this weekend from shells and bombs buried in rubble when they try to reach their ruined homes in areas of Gaza that have been inaccessible throughout much of the 15-month war, explosive disposal experts and aid officials have warned.

To comply with the ceasefire deal that came into effect last Sunday, Israel must allow movement from southern Gaza to the north – where destruction has been most intensive – through a major checkpoint on the Israeli-held Netzarim corridor.

Speaking from Deir al-Balah in central Gaza, Amjad Shawa, the director of the Palestinian NGOs Network in Gaza, said: “There is likely to be massive movement over the next few days and people are also going to be trying to find their loved ones or whoever under the rubble. There are 50m tonnes of debris that contains unknown dangerous items. Unexploded ordnance is a really big issue. We are trying to coordinate efforts to raise awareness. We are telling children especially tell authorities if they find anything and stay away from it.”

Experts have described as “unprecedented” the challenges of clearing unexploded bombs and other munitions from Gaza, where more than two-thirds of buildings have been destroyed or damaged by one of the most intensive bombardments in modern times.

About 2 million Palestinians have been displaced during the war and are living in makeshift shelters and tented camps far from their former homes.

Many are from the north and will send family members to look for belongings, recover the remains of dead relatives from under the rubble or simply to find out what is left.

Suheila al-Harthani, 65, said her son would try to return to their home in northern Gaza from the tented camp near Khan Younis where they have been living for months.

“I am afraid that our house will be destroyed … I haven’t lost anyone from my family, but I am terrified of losing someone or having them injured because of these explosives. I fear that one of these remnants will explode, and I could lose my life, or a hand, or a leg,’ she said.

Experts say there are other dangers in the rubble that now covers much of Gaza, including toxic industrial chemicals, decomposing human remains and asbestos. The extensive tunnel complex built by Hamas under the territory means that even the few remaining undamaged buildings are threatened with collapse.

“Anyone who goes near the debris is at risk … As soon as they can people will move back into all those [devastated areas] – that’s when we will see a spike of injuries and deaths,” said Gary Toombs of Humanity and Inclusion UK, an NGO working in Gaza that has sent out 8m text messages warning of the dangers of unexploded weapons.

“It is a pretty horrible picture. People will be looking for anything they can use to survive. They will prioritise their basic needs over safety,” he added.

The 15-month Israeli military offensive killed more than 47,000 Palestinians, mostly civilians. It followed a surprise Hamas attack into Israel on 7 October 2023 in which 1,200 people, also mostly civilian, were killed and 250 others taken hostage.

Greg Crowther, the director of programmes at the Mines Advisory Group, an NGO, described the challenges facing specialists in clearing explosives as “unique”.

“That level of destructing of a populated urban environment, with that level of bombing over a period of time, repeated bombing with a range of munition, overlaid with ground fighting, that is pretty unusual. I don’t think there is anything comparable in terms of duration and intensity and in that [kind of] location. It does make it pretty … unprecedented,” he said.

Hamas said people would be allowed to return on foot along Gaza’s congested coastal road, meaning a walk of several miles to the official northern area from where they could try to get rides in vehicles, which would be searched at checkpoints. People returning must not carry arms, Hamas said.

In Jabaliya, the biggest of the Gaza Strip’s eight refugee camps and the focus of Israel’s military efforts in the past three months, many people have returned to live inside their wrecked homes, setting small fires to try to warm their children.

Mohammed Badr, a father of 10, said: “They are talking about a truce, a ceasefire, and the delivery of aid. It has been three days since we came back, and we cannot find water to drink. We cannot find covers to keep our children warm. We depend on bonfires all night. We wish to have some firewood for the bonfire, we use plastic, which causes diseases.”

His wife, Umm Nidal, said she could not believe the total destruction.

“There is nothing left, you cannot walk in the streets. Houses collapsed on top of each other. You get lost, you don’t know if this is your home or not,” she said. “The smell of dead bodies [is] in the streets.”

Experts say unexploded ordnance will pose a serious obstacle to any reconstruction in Gaza, as well as a lethal hazard, potentially further slowing efforts that may already take decades. Six months ago, the UN said a fleet of more than 100 lorries would take 15 years to clear Gaza of rubble, in an operation costing between $500m (£400m) and $600m.

“It’s going to be the most complicated clearance task I’ve seen in 30 years of explosive ordnance disposal experience,” Toombs said.

Large numbers of troops from Rwanda have been pouring across the border into the Democratic Republic of the Congo to help rebels seize the regional capital of Goma before an emergency UN meeting about the crisis takes place on Monday, intelligence officials have warned.

Rwanda Defence Force (RDF) soldiers are believed to have secretly crossed into the eastern DRC over the past few days to assist a lightning offensive by the M23 militia.

Officials speaking to the Observer on condition of anonymity added that the RDF had cranked up the pressure on the embattled Congolese city by amassing vast numbers of troops on the Rwandan side of the border, a few hundred metres from central Goma. Most of the RDF’s most senior commanders are also said to have been deployed in the Rwandan city of Gisenyi, less than a mile across the border from Goma.

“The Rwandan army is lined up at the border, ready to invade,” said a source who has in-depth knowledge of the RDF and is privy to real-time intelligence.

Fierce skirmishes between M23 advance units and the Congolese army were reported on the outskirts of Goma throughout Saturday. Three South African peacekeepers were among those killed attempting to defend the city.

The frontline appears to be moving ever close to Goma’s outskirts, with one source saying the fighting was as close as Nzulo, almost within the city limits, having bypassed the vast refugee camps that hold more than a million people displaced by the fighting.

A major offensive by the Rwandan-backed M23 was, however, foiled overnight, Congolese army sources said.

“Goma’s defences are just about holding out, but they [Rwanda] want to take Goma before the UNSC [UN security council],” said a senior intelligence source, requesting anonymity.

The UN security council, whose responsibility is securing international peace and security, is scheduled to hold an emergency meeting on Monday to discuss the unfolding crisis.

When the M23 captured Goma in 2012, its forces rapidly withdrew when Rwanda came under intense international pressure to stop backing the militia. This time, intelligence sources believe, Rwanda wants to take control of the city before the west can summon an effective response.

Such a move will rely on M23 units imminently breaching Goma’s embattled defences, routing the Congolese army and assuming ownership of the sprawling city of more than a million people on the northern shore of Lake Kivu.

Before the recent influx of Rwandan troops into the DRC, UN experts estimated up to 4,000 RDF personnel were already operating inside the Congo.

Sources also warn that Rwanda will not stop at Goma and is also hoping to seize the city of Bukavu, which lies close to the border at the southern tip of Lake Kivu.

The M23 insurgency in the DRC’s mineral-rich east has intensified this year with rebels rapidly seizing control of more territory. Last week they took control of Minova, a key town along one of Goma’s main supply routes. Two days later, they captured Sake, a town 12 miles from Goma and previously the army’s main defensive position against the M23. The developments threaten the supply of food and basic supplies into Goma.

Speaking on Saturday to the Observer, Clémentine de Montjoye of Human Rights Watch said: “The situation in Goma is extremely dire – today we are hearing reports of ongoing fighting on the two axes north and west of the city, as well as water and power shortages in the city.

“Given the huge number of civilians currently seeking shelter in Goma, it is vital that pressure be mounted on all parties to protect civilians and civilian infrastructure such as hospitals, and allow access to vital humanitarian aid.”

Many analysts are critical of the west’s response to the unfolding crisis, particularly its failure to rein in Rwanda’s president and the head of the RDF, Paul Kagame. In particular, the UK, US and France – three of the five permanent members of the UN security council – are accused by critics of being too close to Kagame.

In a statement on Saturday, the EU said: “Rwanda must cease its support for the M23 and withdraw.”

The Rwandan government – which says it does not back the M23 – had not responded by the time of publication.

Donald Trump fired 17 independent watchdogs at multiple US government agencies on Friday, a person with knowledge of the matter said, eliminating a critical oversight component and clearing the way for the president to replace them with loyalists.

The inspectors general at agencies including the departments of state, defense and transportation were notified by emails from the White House personnel director that they had been terminated immediately, the source said on condition of anonymity.

The dismissals appeared to violate federal law, which requires the president to give both houses of Congress reasons for the dismissals 30 days in advance.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

An inspector general is an independent position that conducts audits and investigations into allegations of waste, fraud and abuse of power.

Agencies are pressing ahead with orders from Trump, who began his second presidency on Monday, to reshape the federal bureaucracy by scrapping diversity programs, rescinding job offers, and sidelining more than 150 national security and foreign policy officials.

Friday’s dismissals spared the justice department inspector general, Michael Horowitz, according to the New York Times. The Washington Post, which was first to report the dismissals, said most were appointees from Trump’s first White House term from 2017 to 2021.

US senator Elizabeth Warren, a Massachusetts Democrat, called Trump’s action a “purge of independent watchdogs in the middle of the night”.

“President Trump is dismantling checks on his power and paving the way for widespread corruption,” she wrote on X.

Former Trump lawyer Sidney Powell, an ally of the president, defended the decision on X, saying: “Existing IGs are virtually worthless.”

“They may bring a few minor things to light but accomplish next to nothing,” she wrote. “The whole system needs to be revamped! They are toothless and protect the institution instead of the citizens.”

Many politically appointed leaders of agencies and departments come and go with each administration, but an inspector general can serve under multiple presidents.

During his first term, Trump fired five inspectors general in less than two months in 2020. This included at the state department, whose inspector general had played a role in the president’s impeachment proceedings.

Last year, Trump’s predecessor Joe Biden fired the inspector general of the US railroad retirement board after an investigation found the official had created a hostile work environment. In 2022, Congress strengthened protections for inspectors general, making it harder to replace them with handpicked officials and requiring additional explanations from a president for their removal.

Pete Hegseth, the former Fox News personality and rightwing commentator who has said women should not serve in combat roles, recommended the military purge generals and faced allegations of sexual assault and alcoholism, has been confirmed as secretary of defense in the Senate by a tie-breaking vote from Vice-president JD Vance.

Almost the entire Republican conference supported Hegseth’s nomination while every Senate Democrat voted against his confirmation, resulting in a 50-50 vote. Three Republican senators – Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska – opposed Hegseth’s nomination. Collins and Murkowski had earlier cited concerns about his personal history and inexperience as disqualifying.

Hegseth was among the most heavily scrutinized nominees for Donald Trump’s cabinet, owing to allegations of sexual assault and workplace misconduct that have surfaced in the last two months.

Shortly after Trump announced Hegseth as his defense secretary pick, extremism experts raised alarms about Hegseth’s apparent affinity for far-right symbols – noting that his tattoo sleeve featured at least two images associated with far-right and neo-Nazi groups. Hegseth himself has complained publicly that the US Army declined his service during Joe Biden’s 2021 inauguration after a fellow servicemember flagged him as a potential insider threat.

In Hegseth’s hyperpartisan 2020 book, American Crusade, he writes that he believes the US is on course for factional violence and claims the country faces an existential threat from the left. “You must be thinking, ‘Pete, you laid this out in pretty simple terms. Us versus them. America versus the left. Good versus evil. You’re overplaying your hand. It’s not that bad,’” writes Hegseth. “Read on, and think again.”

Before the confirmation hearings, Hegseth declined to meet with Democratic members of the Senate armed services committee, spurring concerns about his willingness to run the agency in a nonpartisan manner.

During Hegseth’s 14 January confirmation hearing, the New Hampshire senator Jeanne Shaheen, said that since she joined the committee in 2011, every other nominee has met with her and her Democratic colleagues before their hearing and questioned Hegseth’s unwillingness to do the same.

After a report in the New Yorker uncovered reports of day drinking and Hegseth’s alleged belligerent, drunken behavior at the workplace, some Republican senators seemed skeptical about the former Fox News host’s viability as a nominee.

Hegseth refused to answer questions about his conduct during the hearing, repeatedly answering questions from the Arizona Democratic senator Mark Kelly about accusations of sexual misconduct and public, belligerent drunkenness with a two-word answer: “anonymous smears”.

“All anonymous, all false, all refuted by my colleagues who I’ve worked with for 10 years,” said Hegseth when Kelly pressed him to answer questions about his alleged alcoholism.

When the Democratic senator Elissa Slotkin asked whether he would refuse unconstitutional orders, and whether he would decline to deploy the military against US civilians, Hegseth evaded a direct answer, saying “I reject the premise” of the questions.

When questioned about his past support for three military officials accused of war crimes, Hegseth acknowledged that the Geneva convention was the “law of the land”, but complained of “burdensome rules of engagement” imposed by human rights law.

Hegseth also insisted that he would bring a “warrior culture” to the defense department and stressed his commitment to unravelling diversity, equity and inclusion policies in the military.

Trump’s allies unified behind Hegseth and pushed for his confirmation, and the little resistance within the Republican party to his nomination disappeared.

Even the Iowa senator Joni Ernst – a combat veteran and sexual assault survivor who initially cast doubt on Hegseth’s nomination – announced she would support him following his confirmation hearing, saying in a statement that she would “work with Pete to create the most lethal fighting force and hold him to his commitments of auditing the Pentagon, ensuring opportunity for women in combat while maintaining high standards, and selecting a senior official to address and prevent sexual assault in the ranks”.

The villa where Rudolf Höss and his family lived stood immediately next to the Auschwitz concentration camp. The garden wall of the villa was the wall of the camp.

At Christmas time, they put up a tree in the living room and festooned it with ornaments and candles. In the garden, there was a pond, a sandpit, a slide, several picnic benches and a greenhouse with exotic plants. At night, Höss tucked his sons and daughters into bed and said: “Schlaf schön meine Kinder” – sleep well my children.

All of this took place just a few yards from the horrors of the Holocaust. The camp where more than one million people, most of them Jewish, were murdered during the second world war.

It was Commandant Rudolf Höss who set up the Auschwitz camp in 1940 following the orders of Heinrich Himmler, and it was Höss who two years later established the machinery of industrial murder – the transports, the selections, the gas chambers, the crematoriums – that resulted in the largest mass killing in a single location in history.

The villa will be made open to the public for the first time on Monday, to mark the 80th anniversary of the liberation of the camp.

The commandant lived at the villa with his wife Hedwig and their five children for four years. The boys, Klaus and Hans Jürgen, shared a bedroom on the second floor. Next to them were the two eldest daughters, Heidetraud and Brigitte. While the baby Annegret slept in a small basket in the parent’s bedroom on the same floor.

From the villa’s second-floor window, they could see the old crematorium where Höss experimented with Zyklon B gas. Prisoners from the camp worked in the house and the garden. Hedwig would later tell her husband that the villa was like “paradise”.

This is the same villa that was featured in the Oscar-winning film, The Zone of Interest, which captured the banality of the Nazi family who lived next to the death camp.

Not long before she died, I interviewed the commandant’s daughter Brigitte, who told me she enjoyed living at the villa. “We had fun together,” she said. She played with her turtles Jumbo and Dilla in the garden. Her father took them for boat rides on the Sola River behind the villa. He played them records on the gramophone. He asked them about their day.

“There was a difference between home and … ,” Brigitte told me, unable to speak the name of the camp or the atrocities that took place there. “But we didn’t know it then at all. Later, we found out what was going on.”

In March 1946, Höss was arrested by British forces (including my great-uncle Hanns, a German Jew, who didn’t talk about it till shortly before his death). The British handed the commandant over to the Americans who had him appear as a witness at the Nuremberg Trials. Höss’s testimony was the first to provide a detailed account of the mechanics of the Holocaust and changed the course of the trial.

The commandant was then taken to Poland where he was himself put on trial, found guilty and in April 1947 hanged on the gallows in Auschwitz, just a few yards away from the villa where he once lived.

After the war, a Polish family bought the villa at 88 Legionow Street. In the decades since, they turned away visitors who knocked on the door. The house remained a curiosity, visible to those who came to the camp (last year, 1.83 million people visited Auschwitz-Birkenau), a symbol of darkness hidden behind a tall concrete wall.

In 2024, the American non-profit Counter Extremism Project persuaded the Polish family to sell the property. The organisation is led by Mark Wallace, the 57-year-old former ambassador to the UN under President George W Bush. The Counter Extremism Project’s mission is to “combat the growing threat posed by extremist ideologies”.

With the support of the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum, the Polish foreign ministry and Unesco, they are opening what they are calling the Auschwitz Research Centre on Hate, Extremism and Radicalisation (Archer) at House 88.

Wallace has been working on the project for years. “It hasn’t been easy,” he says, “it’s been a bit of a saga.” But, he continues, it has been worth it. “The place is remarkable. When you are in the house, in those quiet moments, you can really feel it. Your skin crawls.”

Not everyone is convinced by the plan to open the villa to the public. One of those is the historian Simon Schama. “This is an absolutely appalling idea,” he wrote on social media, after I posted a story about the villa’s opening. “It will be all about the movie and the perpetrator leading a ‘normal’ life and do nothing to teach anyone about the ordeal of the Jewish victims. Just a perpetrator attraction. Repellent.”

Wallace is adamant that their project will do the exact opposite: it will honour the survivors of Auschwitz by fighting extremism today. He mentions the rising tide of radical politics around the world and then explains: “Hatred lurks in the ordinary house next door.”

“Our plan is to convert the ordinary house of the greatest mass murderer into the extraordinary symbol of the fight against anti­semitism and extremism.”

He then points out that when Höss was living at the house the windows were glazed to prevent anyone looking in. “The house,” he says, “will now be open to the public.”

Britain needs to learn from Donald Trump’s “boosterism” and be more positive about its strengths, the UK chancellor has said.

Rachel Reeves said the UK should be “shouting from the rooftops”, after travelling to Davos to seek more investment in Britain at the World Economic Forum’s annual meeting and visiting China in an effort to rebuild trading and financial links.

The Labour government’s plan for the economy has got off to a rocky start, with the prospect of official figures next month showing little to no growth in the first six months. The chancellor is due to give a speech on Wednesday that will highlight four areas for growth: planning, deregulation, energy and trade.

Reeves has faced pressure over Britain’s public finances in recent weeks. Potential tariffs from the Trump administration are also looming.

Asked about Trump’s “boosterism” and whether the UK could learn from him, Reeves said: “Yes, I think we do need more positivity.”

“I’ve challenged businesses as well and said no one else is going to speak up for Britain apart from us. It hasn’t been a very British thing to say,” she told the Times.

“We are absolutely fantastic as a country; we’ve got four of the best universities in the world. We’ve got some of the most amazing entrepreneurs with fantastic ideas. In all the sectors that are growing globally – AI, tech, clean energy – Britain has got unbelievable strengths in those sectors.

“We shouldn’t apologise for it and we shouldn’t be all polite about it. We should be shouting from the rooftops.”

Reeves was not alone in saying British politicians could learn from Trump.

Simon Case, who stepped down as cabinet secretary on health grounds at the end of last year, praised the US president’s “impressive political theatre” in signing a series of executive orders that range from trade to immigration and civil rights since returning to office on Monday.

“It is harder to imagine a British prime minister filling a stadium with adoring fans to witness the signature of memos instructing Whitehall to do this or that,” he wrote in the Daily Telegraph.

“Nevertheless, the extreme transparency of Trump’s approach might be something that more politicians in the UK are willing to try in future, given the declining public interest in and trust in politics.”

In the first hours of his presidency, Trump pardoned hundreds of people for their roles in the January 6 riots at the US Capitol, withdrew the US from the Paris climate accords and the World Health Organization, declared a national emergency at the US-Mexico border, and sought to end automatic citizenship for anyone born in the US.

He also signed an order to pause a ban on TikTok for 75 days to give its China-based parent company more time to find an approved buyer.

Britain needs to learn from Donald Trump’s “boosterism” and be more positive about its strengths, the UK chancellor has said.

Rachel Reeves said the UK should be “shouting from the rooftops”, after travelling to Davos to seek more investment in Britain at the World Economic Forum’s annual meeting and visiting China in an effort to rebuild trading and financial links.

The Labour government’s plan for the economy has got off to a rocky start, with the prospect of official figures next month showing little to no growth in the first six months. The chancellor is due to give a speech on Wednesday that will highlight four areas for growth: planning, deregulation, energy and trade.

Reeves has faced pressure over Britain’s public finances in recent weeks. Potential tariffs from the Trump administration are also looming.

Asked about Trump’s “boosterism” and whether the UK could learn from him, Reeves said: “Yes, I think we do need more positivity.”

“I’ve challenged businesses as well and said no one else is going to speak up for Britain apart from us. It hasn’t been a very British thing to say,” she told the Times.

“We are absolutely fantastic as a country; we’ve got four of the best universities in the world. We’ve got some of the most amazing entrepreneurs with fantastic ideas. In all the sectors that are growing globally – AI, tech, clean energy – Britain has got unbelievable strengths in those sectors.

“We shouldn’t apologise for it and we shouldn’t be all polite about it. We should be shouting from the rooftops.”

Reeves was not alone in saying British politicians could learn from Trump.

Simon Case, who stepped down as cabinet secretary on health grounds at the end of last year, praised the US president’s “impressive political theatre” in signing a series of executive orders that range from trade to immigration and civil rights since returning to office on Monday.

“It is harder to imagine a British prime minister filling a stadium with adoring fans to witness the signature of memos instructing Whitehall to do this or that,” he wrote in the Daily Telegraph.

“Nevertheless, the extreme transparency of Trump’s approach might be something that more politicians in the UK are willing to try in future, given the declining public interest in and trust in politics.”

In the first hours of his presidency, Trump pardoned hundreds of people for their roles in the January 6 riots at the US Capitol, withdrew the US from the Paris climate accords and the World Health Organization, declared a national emergency at the US-Mexico border, and sought to end automatic citizenship for anyone born in the US.

He also signed an order to pause a ban on TikTok for 75 days to give its China-based parent company more time to find an approved buyer.

After years of struggling with the suffocating expectations of her youth and wondering whether her biggest opportunities had passed her by, Madison Keys stood at the baseline inside a deafening Rod Laver Arena one game away from her ultimate goal. In the later stages of a phenomenal final between two of the most devastating ball-strikers in the game, all she could do was continue to attack.

While Keys might have succumbed to the pressure in previous years, this time the significance of the occasion inspired her most fearless, uncompromising shotmaking as she closed out a sublime performance with a 6-3, 2-6, 7-5 win over Aryna Sabalenka, the world No 1, to clinch her first grand slam title.

Now 29 years old, Keys is the oldest first-time women’s Australian Open champion in the Open era. She achieved it in her 46th grand slam appearance, the second-highest count for a first-time champion. Two days after closing out another classic thriller against Iga Swiatek, the world No 2, Keys is the first to defeat the top two at a grand slam since Svetlana Kuznetsova won the 2009 French Open.

“I’m really proud of myself,” said Keys. “I didn’t always believe I could get back to this point. But to be able to do it and win, it means the world to me.”

This victory was 16 years in the making. Once considered a child prodigy, Keys became one of the youngest to win a WTA match at 14. From her early teens, she was constantly told she could win grand slam titles. At times, the pressure to live up to her talent was overwhelming. In order to move forward, she first had to take a step back and come to terms with the reality that winning a grand slam title may not happen.

“I finally got to the point where I was OK if it didn’t happen,” she said. “I didn’t need it to feel I had a good career or that I deserved to be talked about as a great player. Finally letting go of that internal talk gave me the ability to go out and play some really good tennis to win a grand slam.”

Keys has also finally found redemption for her first grand slam final, at the 2017 US Open, when she failed to handle the pressure of the occasion and was crushed 6-3, 6-0 by her friend Sloane Stephens.

“It was never if, just when,” wrote Stephens on X on Saturday. “You deserve this and beyond.”

She closed it all out with an incredible performance. Determined to play on her own terms, Keys continued to attack and trust her ball‑striking ability. While Sabalenka is used to dictating the rallies, the easy, destructive power Keys generates off her groundstrokes is second to none. In the decisive moments, Sabalenka was completely overpowered.

“If she can play consistently like that there’s not much you can do,” said Sabalenka. “I know how to play against her, but I couldn’t really do my stuff.

“She just played incredible. It seemed like she was overhitting everything. The depths of the balls were crazy. I was trying my best. Obviously didn’t work well.”

The opening stages of Sabalenka’s third Australian Open final underlined how tough these occasions can be. She was clearly nervous as she double-faulted twice in her opening service game, which she lost. While Sabalenka struggled, Keys burst into the encounter with confidence and belief, serving brilliantly and pounding forehands as she eased through the opening set.

With her title hanging in the balance, Sabalenka improved her serving and began to put pressure on Keys’s second serve as fought back in the second set.

In re-establishing herself as the No 1 over the past year, Sabalenka has fought her way through so many significant three-set matches. Once again, she rose to the occasion and produced some quality shotmaking throughout the set, but Keys refused to go away.

After finding important first serves to survive her difficult early service games, Keys grew in confidence throughout the set, winners flying off her racket behind dominant serving and relentless aggression.

“I almost felt like I was trying to beat her to it,” said Keys. “If I wasn’t going to go for it, I knew she was going to. It pushed me to thread the needle a little bit more.

“I kept telling myself: ‘Be brave, go for it, lay it all out on the line.’ At that point, no matter what happens, if I do that, then I can be proud of myself.”

By the middle of the third set, they had brought the best out of each other as they combined for an incredible stretch of fearless, first-strike tennis. But Keys kept on holding serve and remained marginally ahead throughout the set.

After a supreme hold for 6-5, recovering from 15-30 with an array of winners, Keys tackled the most important return game of her life without hesitation, swinging for the fences until a grand slam trophy was finally hers.

Vladimir Putin has said he is ready to discuss the war in Ukraine with Donald Trump and suggested it would be a good idea for them to meet.

In his first comments since Trump issued threats to inflict economic damage on Russia if it failed to end the war in Ukraine, Putin struck a favourable tone towards the US president.

Putin told a Russian state TV journalist: “We believe the current president’s statements about his readiness to work together. We are always open to this and ready for negotiations.

“It would be better for us to meet, based on the realities of today, to talk calmly.”

Putin went on to describe his relationship with Trump as “businesslike, pragmatic and trustworthy”.

He added that negotiating with Ukraine was complicated by the fact that its president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, had signed a decree preventing him from conducting talks with Putin.

In what seems to be an effort to court Trump’s favour, Putin echoed the US president’s claim that he would have prevented the war starting in Ukraine in 2022, and parroted Trump’s debunked assertion that the 2020 US elections were “stolen” from him.

In the days since his inauguration, Trump has repeatedly called for a swift resolution to the war in Ukraine, now nearing its third year, and has expressed his readiness to meet Putin “immediately”.

In his nightly video address late on Friday, Zelenskyy said that Putin was seeking to “manipulate” Trump.

“He is trying to manipulate the US president’s desire to achieve peace. I am confident that no Russian manipulations will succeed any longer,” he said.

Trump’s attempts to persuade Putin to negotiate have been reinforced by threats to escalate pressure on Russia’s already strained economy, including introducing sanctions and tariffs, if Moscow fails to “make a deal” to end the war.

Speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos on Thursday evening, Trump called on Opec to push down global oil prices as a way to hit a vital stream of revenue for the Kremlin.

“Right now the price is high enough that that war will continue,” he said.

Oil and gas revenues have been Russia’s most important source of cash, accounting for a third to a half of federal budget proceeds over the past decade.

On Friday, Putin downplayed Trump’s economic threats, saying “excessively” low oil prices were bad for both the US and Russia.

In response to Trump’s initial approach, Moscow officials are choosing their words carefully while maintaining a firm position on their demands to end the war.

“We don’t see anything new here,” Peskov said on Thursday when asked about Trump’s economic ultimatums.

Still, Trump’s threats seem to have stirred frustration among Moscow’s elite, with some politicians and nationalists reacting negatively, sentiments amplified on state TV.

A source in the Russian foreign policy establishment said: “Putin does not like public threats. He wants to be spoken to as an equal. It is clear that any deal will take some time.”

Some observers believe Putin may view Trump’s economic warning with scepticism.

Throughout the war, Putin has expressed confidence that Russia’s economy has withstood western sanctions better than anticipated by most economists, both inside and outside Russia.

Still, cracks in the economy are beginning to show as Russia struggles with runaway inflation while pouring billions into defence.

Despite this, many in the elite believe Russia’s ability to withstand at least another year of conflict means Putin is unlikely to let the economy influence his decisions.

Alexandra Prokopenko, a former Russian Central Bank official and Russian economy expert, wrote in a piece for Foreign Affairs that “simmering economic problems are unlikely to overpower the forces keeping Putin determined to continue the war in Ukraine”.

Russia has made gradual but steady advances in eastern Ukraine despite record casualties. Kyiv is facing a personnel crisis, prompting the Biden administration to urge Ukraine to lower its mobilisation age from 25 to 18.

Putin last outlined his position for peace talks during his annual end-of-year conference, demanding that the west lift all sanctions and Ukraine withdraw from the regions of Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia.

He also insisted that Ukraine abandon its Nato aspirations, become a permanently neutral state, and drastically reduce its military forces – moves that would in effect strip Ukraine of its sovereignty.

It remains unclear how flexible Putin is on these demands.

One source briefed on top-level Kremlin discussions about possible negotiation tactics suggested Moscow was curious about potential overtures from the US, but might have little interest in signing a deal. The source suggested Moscow could keep the talks going to prolong the fighting while shifting its terms for peace.

Several hardline figures close to Putin have recently said Ukraine’s capitulation is the only acceptable outcome.

On Friday, the businessperson Konstantin Malofeev, one of Russia’s most prominent conservative voices, reiterated Putin’s maximalist demands for peace. “We must achieve victory, which will eliminate the Ukrainian state as such. We are, of course, ready to stop military action, but only on terms that ensure our security for many years to come,” he wrote on his Telegram channel.

While Trump has not given a detailed blueprint for ending the war, his running mate, JD Vance, has suggested Trump could push a “heavily fortified” demilitarised zone at the countries’ borders, freezing the war along the current frontlines.

Trump’s return to the White House has reignited discussions about the possibility of western peacekeeping forces being stationed in Ukraine to help maintain a ceasefire.

But the Russian foreign ministry has called the idea “unacceptable”, while also dismissing calls to freeze the war along the frontlines.

Still, the situation remains in flux, and this week Trump made statements that appeared aimed at soothing Moscow.

In an interview with Fox News on Thursday, he described President Zelenskyy as “no angel” and suggested the Ukrainian leader shared some of the blame for the war’s outbreak. “He shouldn’t have allowed this war to happen.”

Sir Paul McCartney has warned artificial intelligence could “rip off” artists if a proposed overhaul of copyright law goes ahead.

The proposals could remove the incentive for writers and artists and result in a “loss of creativity”, he told the BBC.

The use of copyrighted material to help train AI models is the subject of a newly launched government consultation.

McCartney, one of the two surviving members of the Beatles, said: “You get young guys, girls, coming up, and they write a beautiful song, and they don’t own it, and they don’t have anything to do with it. And anyone who wants can just rip it off.”

“The truth is, the money’s going somewhere … Somebody’s getting paid, so why shouldn’t it be the guy who sat down and wrote Yesterday?”

A lack of clarity around whether it is right and fair that copyright material be used to train the models that are powering the latest wave of AI tools has led to debate around the world, with legal cases launched by companies and individuals in the creative industries over what they argue is unlicensed use of their material.

In contrast, some publishing organisations and media outlets have signed licensing deals with AI companies to allow them to use their material to train such models.

It is not the first time McCartney has raised fears about the threat AI could pose to the arts. In December, he warned AI could “just take over” and joined the actors Julianne Moore, Stephen Fry and Hugh Bonneville in signing a petition, which states the “unlicensed use of creative works for training generative AI is a major, unjust threat to the livelihoods of the people behind those works, and must not be permitted”.

The novelist Kate Mosse has backed a parallel campaign for amendments to the data bill that would allow the enforcement of the UK’s existing copyright law, meaning creators could negotiate for fair payment when licensing their material.

The government said it would use the consultation, which runs until 25 February, to explore key points of the debate, including how to improve trust between the creative and AI sectors, and how creators can license and be remunerated for the use of their material.

McCartney appealed to the government to rethink the plans. “We’re the people, you’re the government. You’re supposed to protect us. That’s your job,” he said.

“So you know, if you’re putting through a bill, make sure you protect the creative thinkers, the creative artists, or you’re not going to have them.”

In November 2023, McCartney and Sir Ringo Starr created the song Now And Then using AI technology to separate John Lennon’s vocals from a home demo recorded in 1977.

The culture secretary, Lisa Nandy, said last year: “This government firmly believes that our musicians, writers, artists and other creatives should have the ability to know and control how their content is used by AI firms and be able to seek licensing deals and fair payment.

“Achieving this, and ensuring legal certainty, will help our creative and AI sectors grow and innovate together in partnership.”

Diamonds are woven through the tapestry of human history. The ancient Greeks were enthralled by their remarkable hardness. The Koh-i-Noor alone has been at the centre of invasions, murder, superstition and larceny. Millions of marriages have been launched using diamonds as the symbol of their everlasting lustre.

So the idea that diamonds might somehow lose their value seems unnatural. And yet prices are falling fast and show no signs of stopping. Natural diamonds cost 26% less in shops than two years ago, a drop during a time of high inflation that would be extraordinary were it not dwarfed by the poor fortune of their identical twins, lab-grown diamonds, which are now 74% cheaper than in 2020.

It may not be long until Paul Simon’s girl with diamonds on the soles of her shoes is simply looking for practical footwear.

“It’s a bad time to buy a diamond,” said a jeweller this weekend in Hatton Garden, the centre of the London diamond trade. “They’ll probably be cheaper in a few weeks.”

De Beers, the biggest name in diamonds, reported last month that it began 2024 with a huge $2bn stockpile of diamonds and had not managed to shift it by the year’s end. The company has cut production in its mines by 20%, and its owner, Anglo American, has put it up for sale.

There are several reasons behind the dramatic falls, according to Edahn Golan, managing partner of Tenoris, which tracks diamond retail prices. “After Covid, there was a burst in demand for diamonds,” he said – part of the “revenge spending” that led to the post-pandemic boom in luxuries and rescheduled weddings. After that huge demand was satisfied, there was a decline. But the question is: why is it continuing?

Lower demand in China, the gloom hanging over the global economy and fewer marriages are big factors, but the biggest change is the emergence of lab-grown diamonds, created in plasma reactors. They used to take weeks to make but can now be grown in a few hours, compared with billions of years for natural stones.

Their provenance is also much easier to trace than mined diamonds, which means lab-grown are seen as more ethical by millennial customers. Synthetic diamonds now account for 45% of the bridal jewellery market – a big blow for the likes of De Beers.

Tenoris tracks diamond prices in more than 2,000 shops across the US. The average price of a one carat natural diamond peaked at $6,819 in May 2022 (£5,422.67 at the time) and by last December had fallen to $4,997 (£3,923.83), a 26.7% fall.

The equivalent lab-grown diamond price is down from $3,410 (£2,599.38) in January 2020 to just $892 (£700.43) in December, a 73.8% fall.

In practical terms, this mostly affects someone looking for a statement sparkler, who can now afford to go bigger than ever before. “They are much bigger stones,” said Robert Willis, a director at E Katz & Co, the oldest jeweller in Hatton Garden. “About two or three times bigger,” he says, making a hole with his fingers about the size of a 10p piece. “In lab-grown, three carats is normal, even four or five.”

Customers are still spending big, Willis said, budgeting between £5,000 to £8,000 for a ring, nearly double what they spent 10 years ago, and many continue to choose natural diamonds.

Geoffrey Farrow at Raphael, a jeweller on the other side of the street, can only just bring himself to sell lab-grown diamonds. “They are synthetic,” he said. “Lab-grown sounds exotic, but it’s created – they make it by the buckets. There’s no history to it. The price is going to go down further and further.

“It makes the stone that much cheaper, and people have the illusion that being big is something special. It’s not. It’s quality that you want.”

De Beers is pushing this message, with a marketing campaign promoting natural diamonds, and Golan believes that red carpet bling at the Oscars may see more natural diamond jewellery than lab-grown.

“At the Emmys, unlike in the past year or so, there were a lot less celebrities with lab-grown on them – if it’s from a lab-grown company they will say, because they’re trying to promote the product,” he said.

The diamond trade has overcome other shocks in the past. “From medieval times, diamonds all came from India – a few from Borneo but mainly India,” said Jack Ogden, a historian of jewellery. “Then they discovered a source in Brazil.”

The discovery was announced in the London press in 1725, and within eight years, the price of rough diamonds had fallen by two-thirds.

“Diamondeers in Lisbon were unable to sell their stock because the fear was that diamonds were as common as pebbles,” Ogden said. “But a famous London jeweller called David Jeffries said that, by 1750, they were back to normal.” A similar shock came with the discovery of diamonds in South Africa in 1867.

“That very luckily coincided with the rise of a whole new wealthy class in North America – the railroad people – and they became the big diamond buyers.”

Modern firms pulled off a similar trick by selling diamonds to China, Ogden said. “In the Far East, diamonds were never a traditional thing, and now you don’t get married in Shanghai unless you have a diamond engagement ring. It’s very clever marketing.”

It’s a trick that may have run its course. The last remaining global market would be Africa, where ­diamonds have “too bad a reputation”, Ogden said. “I’m not sure they’ll be convinced that buying diamonds is good.”

“It’s a very artificial market,” Ogden said. “They’re very valuable because people want to pay money for them. People want to pay money for them because they’re very valuable.” This self-sustaining loop, he added, may not always continue to sustain itself.