Donald Trump has suggested large numbers of Palestinians should leave Gaza to “just clean out” the whole strip, after ordering the US military to restart shipments of 2,000lb bombs to Israel.

The US president said he wanted Gaza residents to move to neighbouring nations, and that they could be displaced “temporarily or could be long-term”, after a phone call with Jordan’s King Abdullah on Saturday.

“I’d rather get involved with some of the Arab nations and build housing at a different location where they can maybe live in peace for a change,” Trump told reporters on Air Force One. “You’re talking about probably a million and a half people, and we just clean out that whole thing and say: ‘You know, it’s over.’”

Gaza has 2.3 million residents. Trump said he asked King Abdullah if the country would take in more Palestinians. Jordan is already home to 2.4 million Palestinian refugees, from families expelled in 1948 after the creation of Israel.

“I said to him: I’d love you to take on more because I’m looking at the whole Gaza Strip right now and it’s a mess, it’s a real mess. I’d like him to take people,” Trump said, when asked about the call.

He also suggested Egypt as a destination for Gaza residents, and said he would raise the issue with President Abdel Fatah al-Sisi on Sunday.

Since the start of the war in 2023, Egypt has warned repeatedly against forced displacement of Palestinians from Gaza, and reinforced its border. Sisi has said any move to push people into Sinai would jeopardise relations with Israel, including the 1979 peace treaty between the two countries.

Mustafa Barghouti, a senior Palestinian politician, said he “completely rejected” Trump’s comments, the Palestinian news agency Ma’an reported. Barghouti warned against attempts at “ethnic cleansing” in Gaza, saying: “The Palestinian people are committed to remaining in their homeland.”

Inside Israel there have been calls since the start of the war for the permanent and forcible transfer of its residents. Trump’s comments were welcomed by far-right politicians who back Jewish settlements in Gaza.

The Israeli finance minister, Bezalel Smotrich, described relocation of Palestinians as a “great idea”, and said he would work with the prime minister and cabinet to create an “operational plan for implementation” as soon as possible.

Before Trump took office, an official from his transition team said the administration was discussing relocating 2 million Palestinians during reconstruction if a current tentative ceasefire holds, with Indonesia one possible destination. Jakarta said it was not aware of any such plan.

Trump has not laid out any vision for postwar governance in Gaza. While signing executive orders after his inauguration he discussed the territory as a real estate prospect, praising its seaside location and weather. “I looked at a picture of Gaza, it’s like a massive demolition site,” he said on Tuesday, adding: “It’s gotta be rebuilt in a different way.”

Qatari officials, who mediated the pause in fighting in Gaza, described “any plan that would end with relocation or reoccupation” as a red line.

Trump’s new administration has promised “unwavering support” for Israel, and key positions have been taken by hardline supporters of its expansion. Trump’s ambassador to the UN said in confirmation hearings that she considered Israel had a “biblical right” to the West Bank, which Israel occupied in 1967 but most of the world recognises as the heart of a future Palestinian state.

On Saturday Trump said he had ordered the resumption of shipments of some of the largest bombs to Israel, a widely expected move. Biden had paused delivery of the 2,000lb bombs owing to concerns about civilian casualties in Gaza caused by the powerful weapons, which can rip through thick concrete and metal over a large area.

When asked why he released the powerful bombs, Trump responded: “Because they bought them.”

The Biden administration had sent thousands of 2,000lb bombs to Israel after the war began, before it halted the shipments last year.

Israeli forces opened fire on people trying to return to their homes under ceasefire agreements for Lebanon and Gaza, killing at least 15 people in Lebanon and one Palestinian.

Israeli authorities also ordered the UN agency for Palestinian refugees to vacate its hub offices in East Jerusalem by Thursday, before a total ban on operations in Israel that could jeopardise aid operations in Gaza at a critical time.

Two separate deals to halt fighting with Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza both included provisions for civilians displaced by fighting to start going back from Sunday. But Israel said it would not allow people to return to either area, accusing Hamas and the Lebanese army of violating key commitments under the two ceasefire deals.

In Gaza, a crowd of thousands gathered overnight near a main Israeli checkpoint, entrance to a broad military corridor that now cuts the strip in two. They were desperate to see if anything they owned had survived the fighting, or escape refugee camps and temporary shelters, even if only for tents pitched in the ruins of their former homes.

On Sunday morning they were still waiting, after Israel accused Hamas of violating the terms of the ceasefire deal by delaying the release of hostage Arbel Yehoud. She was expected to be freed on Saturday, when four soldiers were returned to Israel.

“The fate of more than a million people is linked to one person,” said Fadi al-Sinwar who had been displaced from northern Gaza earlier in the war and was waiting to go back. “See how valuable we are? We are worthless,” he told the Associated Press.

Hamas said it had provided proof Yehoud was alive and accused Israel of using her status as a “pretext” to break the terms of the deal.

In Lebanon, residents joined civilian convoys before heading to border villages, despite warnings by the Israeli military that doing so would “expose them to danger”.

Israeli forces opened fire on protesters trying to reach villages, killing at least 15 people, including a Lebanese soldier, and injuring more than 80, according to Lebanon’s ministry of health. Several people were also arrested by Israeli forces.

Benjamin Netanyahu said on Friday that the Lebanese state had not yet “fully enforced” a deal to secure the south, meant to ensure that Hezbollah withdrew beyond the Litani River. The Israeli prime minister said Israel’s military presence would be extended beyond the 60 days initially agreed as a result.

Videos showed tense face-offs between Israeli soldiers and tanks and Lebanese crowds waving banners and chanting slogans. One woman stood a few metres from Israeli troops, who fired warning shots at the ground in front of her as she shouted: “Go back to your country! Go back to your family!”

Others, including women and children, hoisted Hezbollah flags in front of Israeli tanks and carried pictures of Hassan Nasrallah, the former Hezbollah leader killed by Israel in September.

Joseph Aoun, the Lebanese president, said on Sunday that “Lebanon’s sovereignty and territorial integrity are non-negotiable” and that he was following up on the issue to ensure Lebanese citizens’ rights and dignity.

Lebanese soldiers accompanied civilian protesters in border villages, walking alongside them in an attempt to protect them from Israeli fire. In villages on the eastern portion of the border, Lebanese soldiers attempted to block residents from returning for their safety.

Sunday’s protests were the first time that many civilians entered their villages along the Lebanese-Israeli border since Israel announced its operation in south Lebanon in September.

Satellite analysis showed that many villages along the border had been flattened by Israeli detonations. Israel said the attacks were to destroy Hezbollah infrastructure. Critics accused Israel of trying to create a buffer zone to protect its north, by making adjoining parts of Lebanon uninhabitable.

Returning residents said they were shocked at the level of destruction that greeted them when they checked on their homes. Rita Darwish, a resident of the western border village of Dheira, found her house in ruins on Sunday. The village was among the dozens that were subject to a series of controlled demolitions by Israeli forces.

“I didn’t see one building still standing. I almost wish I didn’t come back to see the village. There is no end to the sadness and pain,” Darwish said. She shared a video of her home, which had collapsed entirely, and her belongings, which were scattered among the rubble.

Residents of Dheira also returned to find the corpse of Ghadieh Sweid, an elderly woman who refused to leave the village despite Israel’s incursion in late September. Her body was found lying in her home. It is not known when she died.

Despite a ceasefire agreement, Israel has carried out more than 350 airstrikes across Lebanon, which it said was aimed at stopping Hezbollah activity. The Hezbollah MP Ali Fayyad said this week that if Israel did not withdraw by 26 January, that “it will mean the collapse of the ceasefire deal”.

Israel’s attempts to shut down Unrwa are likely to add to strains on the ceasefire deal, which includes a provision to increase aid into Gaza.

The agency is the largest provider of aid in the enclave, with a broad network of thousands of employees that cannot be easily replaced. Aid groups have said their work in Gaza will be far more challenging without it.

Unrwa also provide schooling, healthcare and even rubbish collection to Palestinian refugee camps across the West Bank and much of East Jerusalem, with few clear plans about how these vital services might be replaced if abruptly shuttered.

The ban on Unrwa, passed by Israel’s parliament, is due to come into force at the end of the month, the day after the agency had been ordered to vacate its offices in occupied East Jerusalem. Unrwa said it would not leave.

Unrwa said in a statement: “United Nations premises are inviolable and enjoy privileges and immunities under the United Nations charter,” adding that as a member state Israel was bound by these obligations.

“Claims from the Israeli authorities that Unrwa has no right to occupy the premises are without foundation. They promote anti-Unrwa rhetoric, placing the agency’s facilities and personnel at risk.”

There have been repeated attacks on the UN agency, particularly centred on their premises in East Jerusalem. Last May there was an arson attack on the premises, by a crowd that Unrwa said included armed men chanting ‘burn down the United Nations’.

The new graves in the main cemetery in Khan Younis, in the south of Gaza, have been hastily laid in close rows, often just as mounds of sand. For most, jagged chunks of concrete or breeze blocks, or plastic boards, serve as headstones.

When there are funerals, which is often, the graveyard is full of activity. Otherwise, mourners grieve in silence and the only sounds are the laughing play of the displaced children living in tents nearby and the occasional chirping of birds.

On Thursday, Hisham Lafi, 62, had come to visit the graves of his two sons, who were 28 and 22 when they were killed early in the conflict when they went together to collect food from an NGO.

“My sons told me that I should rest and that one of them would go and collect [the aid package] instead. They argued about who would go and eventually decided to go together,” Lafi said. “They left at 11.30am, and by 1.30 in the afternoon, I was worried. I rang their phones, but no one answered. Finally, someone answered my eldest son Mohammed’s phone. I asked: ‘Where are you? Come back so we can have lunch.’ A voice said: ‘This isn’t Mohammed. Mohammed has been martyred, and his body is now at Nasser hospital.’

“I ran to the hospital. At first, I thought only Mohammed had been killed. But when I arrived, I found one of his friends. His voice trembled as he said: ‘May God give you patience.’ I asked about my other son, and he said again: ‘May God give you patience.’

“I understood then that I had lost both of them. I couldn’t bring myself to see them in their burial shrouds. I couldn’t bear the thought of replacing the last memory of them joking and laughing with the image of them in shrouds. I knew I wouldn’t be able to sleep again.”

Lafi did not celebrate the ceasefire between Israel and Hamas in Gaza which came into force last Sunday. The Israeli offensive in the territory, triggered by the surprise Hamas attack into Israel in October 2023 which killed about 1,200, mostly civilians, has killed more than 47,900, also mostly civilians.

”Mohammed was an engineer,” said Lafi. “He was planning to get married after the war. Haitham was studying IT programming. He used to say that as soon as the war ended, he would leave Gaza, but he left for paradise instead. Praise be to God.”

The ceasefire in Gaza, however fragile, means people are now able to move around the devastated territory for the first time for many months. For some, the first priority was to visit the Khan Younis cemetery.

Kholoud Maher Zayed, 37, said she had come to the cemetery to put a sign on the grave of her 19-year-old son, Alaa, buried in great haste in August. He was killed helping his father dismantle the family’s tent during a forced evacuation from another part of Khan Younis.

“Everything was different after his loss. He was the light that illuminated my darkness. He took lots of responsibility and was a great support, especially because my husband is disabled,” Zayed said. “When the ceasefire was announced, I wished he was here to rejoice with everyone else, and for me to see him in their midst, cheering and singing and shouting, but this was not God’s will.”

Not far from the graveyard, Palestinians on bicycles, in cars or on foot crowded pitted, rubbish-strewn streets. Many were heading south to parts of southern and central Gaza that the ceasefire has made accessible for the first time for months. Witnesses described “a certain vibrancy in the air, a mix of cautious hope and newfound relief”. Some access to the north was due to be restored on Saturday.

Ahmed Hosni Nabhan, 37, had come to visit the grave of his father, a 61-year-old former bulldozer driver who died in December 2023 when a civil defence team and journalists were hit by a missile near Khan Younis.

“On the morning we lost my father, we all woke up early and all gathered around him before he went out to work. He looked at us as if it was his last look,” Nabhan said. “He had breakfast with us and told us not to wait for him for lunch and then he went out, he didn’t tell us his mission or where he was headed. His death was like a thunderbolt on me.

“I came today to tell my father some sad news: that we also lost my brother who disappeared in December. Three days ago, we heard that he had been killed.”

Nabhan was uncertain whether to transport his father’s remains to the family’s home in the ruined town of Beit Lahiya in northern Gaza.

“We would like to move him and put him in the garden of our house,” he said. “If we had to leave him here then the distance would be very far for us to come and visit him and he will surely feel lonely then.”

Donald Trump has said he believes the US will take control of Greenland, after details emerged of a “horrendous” call in which he made economic threats to Denmark, which has said the territory is not for sale.

Speaking onboard Air Force One on Saturday, Trump said: “I think we’re going to have it,” and claimed that the Arctic island’s 57,000 residents “want to be with us”.

“I do believe Greenland, we’ll get because it really has to do with freedom of the world,” he said. “It has nothing to do with the United States, other than we’re the one that can provide the freedom.”

Since his re-election, Trump has reiterated his interest in acquiring the Arctic island, which is controlled by Denmark but has a large degree of autonomy.

His latest comments follow a “horrendous” phone call with the Danish prime minister, Mette Frederiksen, during which Trump was said to be aggressive and confrontational in his attempt to take over the island. Five current and former senior European officials told the Financial Times that the call had gone very badly. “It was horrendous,” said one of the sources. “It was a cold shower,” another told the paper. “Before, it was hard to take seriously, but I do think it is serious and potentially very dangerous.”

Trump was reported to have threatened Denmark, a Nato ally, with targeted tariffs, essentially taxes on Danish exports to the US.

The Danish prime minister’s office said it did “not recognise the interpretation of the conversation given by anonymous sources”.

Greenland’s prime minister, Múte Egede, who wants independence from Denmark, has said the territory is not for sale but is open for closer ties with the US in areas such as mining.

Writing on X on Saturday, the chair of the Danish parliament’s defence committee, Conservative MP Rasmus Jarlov, said Denmark would never hand over 57,000 of its citizens to become Americans against their will. “We understand that the US is a powerful country. We are not. It is up to the US how far they will go. But come what may. We are still going to say no.”

Strategically located between the US and Europe, Greenland is a potential geopolitical battleground, as the climate crisis worsens.

The rapid melting of the island’s huge ice sheets and glaciers has raised interest in oil drilling (although Greenland in 2021 stopped granting exploration licences) and mining for essential minerals including copper, lithium, cobalt and nickel.

Melting Arctic ice is also opening up new shipping routes, making alternatives to the Suez canal, while the Panama canal is seeing less traffic as a result of severe drought.

Since the cold war, Greenland is also home to a US military base and its ballistic missile early warning system.

Speaking to the Sunday Times, a former senior Danish official and expert on Greenland said that in 1917, the US president Woodrow Wilson gave Copenhagen assurances that the territory “will for ever be Danish”.

Tom Høyem, Denmark’s representative to Greenland between 1982 and 1987, also said that if Denmark were to sell Greenland, it would have to give the UK first refusal under the 1917 agreement.

The British government at that time demanded it should have the first right to buy Greenland, because of the island’s proximity to Canada, then a British dominion.

Earlier this month, Trump refused to rule out using economic or military coercion to take Greenland and the Panama Canal, which he also wants under US control.

Onboard Air Force One, Trump also reiterated his view that Canada should become a US state. “I view it as, honestly, a country that should be a state,” he told reporters. “Then, they’ll get much better treatment, much better care and much lower taxes and they’ll be much more secure.”

From a modern control room high above the canal expansion – overlooking the Cocolí locks, then lakes, rainforest canopy and, eventually, the Atlantic ocean – it barely registers that the era of gunboat diplomacy is returning to the Panama canal.

But four days into Donald Trump’s second administration, here we are. Trump has declared that he is “taking back” the Panama canal, sending TV crews from Washington to Beijing scrambling here to cover a crisis that has led to frenzied diplomatic efforts and elicited fears of a repeat of the 1989 US military invasion.

Never mind that there are no signs of the Chinese influence Trump claims dominates this waterway, and the canal’s administrators deny his accusations that they overcharge US ships. Panama may have the truth on its side – the question is whether that counts for much these days.

“What I say is: come and see it,” said Ilya Espino de Marotta, the Panama canal’s deputy administrator, when asked in the control tower about Trump’s remarks. “It’s pretty obvious when you come to the canal. We’re a very transparent entity.”

US secretary of state Marco Rubio may do just that this week as he descends on Latin America for his first tour abroad. According to Espino de Marotta, he is already discussing a meeting with the canal’s leadership. “I understand he’s going to meet with the administrator of the canal, so hopefully this would be a good place to meet,” she told the Observer, adding that she couldn’t speak for Rubio’s official agenda. On visiting the canal, she said: “I hope they are.”

Rubio’s potential visit to the canal zone – which would come as part of a week-long swing through Central America that will also include Guatemala, El Salvador, Costa Rica and the Dominican Republic – has not been previously reported. The Observer has approached the state department for comment.

“The canal is run by Panamanians 100%. We are an autonomous entity,” added Espino de Marotta, who began working for the canal in the shipyard in 1985, when it was still under US control, and rose to lead its ambitious expansion. “There is no Chinese management of the canal.”

Speaking with current and former officials in Panama, as well as analysts, activists and rights watchdogs, it’s clear this country of just 4.5 million people at the southernmost tip of Central America is holding its breath as it tries to figure out what Trump wants and how far he is willing to go to get it.

He has said he will not rule out military force to take the canal – or annexing Greenland. The Financial Times on Friday reported that he held a “fiery” phone call with the Danish prime minister over US claims on Greenland that, according to five European sources, went “very badly”. Denmark is now in “crisis mode”.

In Panama, a country with a dollarised economy and a recent familiarity with American imperialism, the muggy air is thick with risk management. Few expect a military campaign, but economic coercion is a real threat for this country.

Yet the claims that the canal is mismanaged have touched a nerve. Just days after Trump first issued his threats over the canal, three former leaders of the country convened with President José Raúl Mulino in a rare show of support in Panama’s fractured politics.

“I know you know that some people don’t care about facts, but they’re there,” Martín Torrijos, the president of Panama from 2004-09 and the initiator of the expansion project, said in an interview with the Observer from his offices overlooking Panama Bay.

In 1977, his father, the strongman Gen Omar Torrijos, signed the two treaties with Jimmy Carter that would eventually cede control of the canal to Panama by 1999. Last month, Torrijos attended Carter’s funeral, where he said that old US opponents of the handover told him it had been the right decision all along.

(At the time, it was extremely divisive. Ronald Reagan’s take was: “We built it, we paid for it, it’s ours.” Within a decade, the US would invade the country to overthrow the dictator Manuel Noriega.)

But the days when the US could overthrow a Panamanian government had passed, said Torrijos, and a military intervention against the canal, much less the country, was not realistic. “The times where the US had a military presence in Panama – that finished on 31 December at 12 noon, 1999,” said Torrijos, who was sitting in front of a portrait of his father painted by a Cuban artist. “They are not coming back.”

The last place Panama wanted to be was in Trump’s inauguration speech, which turned his earlier threats to take back the canal into a pledge for his second term in office.

“I don’t believe that Panama has a strategy,” said Danilo Toro, a political analyst, saying that President Mulino should have done “everything possible to avoid being in that speech. It’s gonna be harder for Panama to deal with that now. If it doesn’t do something soon, it will get worse.”

But in the post-truth era of world politics, Panama’s protests may only go so far before it needs to cut a deal.And for that, Panama may need currency. Earlier last week, the comptroller began to audit the two ports at either end of the canal. Both are owned by a Hong Kong-based company that Rubio had claimed China could use to “turn the canal into a choke point in a moment of conflict, and that is a direct threat to the national interest and security of the United States”.

Sceptics have argued that the audit could be a cover to take those ports away from their current owners. But current officials say the financial reviews were long-planned and were not politicised, a portrayal that watchdog groups carefully agreed with, saying a recent renewal of the government port had raised suspicions and appeared disadvantageous.

Other ports would be audited, the comptroller said, and whole industries such as the electric utilities were also undergoing checks.

“This is not a witch hunt,” Anel Flores, the comptroller general of the Republic of Panama, who took office this month, said in an interview. “We want to find out what the real numbers are and if we’re getting really what we deserve.”

The audit could take 45 days, he estimated, refusing to speculate on its results. But he did confirm that the audit could produce grounds that could lead Panama to strip the concession from the China-headquartered companies.

That would be a bombshell, said Lina Vega Abad, head of the local chapter of Transparency International, and the government would need “very strong proof … because [the Chinese] are going to fight back”. It could also send a “dangerous message” for other investors, she said.

Still it could be one way to appease the US. “That might be the only strategy for the new government with Trump,” said Toro.

Trump was not necessarily unpopular in Panama City before he began making threats to renew a dormant conflict. There are superfans like Mayer Mizrachi, the elected mayor, who jets around town in a Cybertruck. His social media is littered with homages to Trump, Elon Musk and podcast host Joe Rogan, among others.

After Trump threatened to seize the canal, Mizrachi posted on X, saying that the country wanted dialogue but warning that it would “never be the 51st state”.

Still, Mizrachi tries to take a positive tack and says he is “concerned but not scared”. “I’m a very big fan of American democracy, capitalism, free speech, innovation, the pursuit of greatness,” he said.

“I was excited when Trump won. I made it quite open, you know – I posted a picture and everything. And I think that’s my interpretation: finally, we have a president in the US who is interested in Panama. And I think that’s great.”

Across town in a small cafe, Paula Rodriguez recalls the night of the US invasion – 20 December 1989. It was the night her father died.

Lt Octavio Rodriguez was on duty when US Navy Seals stormed an aerodrome. According to some reports, they were targeting Noriega’s Learjet. Responding to the attack, Rodriguez and his troops ambushed the Seals.

Four US soldiers were killed, and Rodriguez was fatally wounded, one of hundreds of Panamanians killed that evening. Rodriguez was three years old at the time. But nearly every Panamanian in their 40s or older will have vivid memories of the night US troops landed in the city.

Toro, the political analyst, recalled seeing men shoot each other as he walked across the city to a friend’s in order to secure baby formula for his three-month-old child.

Rodriguez organises a music event each year that she has called Never Forget. “Panamanian people – we rise, you know, we defend and we unite, after all, to defend our country and our people. Because it’s not about the canal, it’s about our integrity,” Rodriguez said.

“If you can see in the social media, people are angry, angry, and writing: ‘No way – this is not gonna happen again’.”

Donald Trump has said he has a “very good relationship” with Keir Starmer and is considering making the UK the first country he visits during his second term as president.

Speaking to reporters onboard Air Force One, Trump said he and Starmer “get along well” despite their divergent political views and that they were due to have a call this weekend.

“He’s liberal, which is a bit different from me, but I think he’s a very good person and I think he’s done a very good job thus far,” Trump told the BBC.

“He’s represented his country in terms of philosophy … I may not agree with his philosophy, but I have a very good relationship with him.”

The US president was asked about his relationship with the British prime minister after responding to a question about the location of his first international visit, which he said “could be Saudi Arabia, it could be UK. Traditionally, it could be UK.”

He said the last time he travelled to Saudi Arabia, it was because the kingdom had agreed to buy billions of dollars’ worth of US merchandise. “If that offer were right, I’d do that again,” he said.

Trump and his wife, Melania, made a state visit to the UK in 2019 and were hosted by the late queen. Ministers are open to extending another invitation, which would make Trump the first elected politician in modern history to be hosted for two state visits.

David Lammy, the foreign secretary, suggested earlier this month that Starmer would visit Washington within weeks for talks with Trump.

The pair spoke by phone after Trump’s re-election in November. Downing Street said at the time that they agreed the relationship between the UK and US was “incredibly strong” and would “continue to thrive”.

Several diplomatic challenges for the US-UK relationship are looming, however, including Trump’s pledges to introduce trade tariffs and slash support for Ukraine.

It is also unclear whether Trump will approve the UK’s proposed deal to cede sovereignty over the Chagos Islands, where there is a joint US-UK military base, to Mauritius. Efforts to finalise the deal before Trump’s inauguration were halted to give the incoming president time to examine it.

Meanwhile, questions have been raised over whether Trump will accept the nomination of Peter Mandelson, the Labour peer and architect of New Labour, as the British ambassador to Washington.

There have also been concerns within government about the attacks on Starmer by the tech billionaire Elon Musk on his social media platform, X. Musk, who has called for the prime minister to be ousted, is a key ally and donor to Trump who has been chosen to run the newly formed US Department of Government Efficiency.

Morgan McSweeney, Starmer’s chief of staff, and Jonathan Powell, his national security adviser, travelled to the US in December for talks with Trump’s White House team.

Trump’s comments came as a major poll suggested that voters favoured the UK moving closer to Europe on trade, rather than Washington. Starmer has argued that the UK does not have to choose between the US and Europe and that it is in the national interest to work with both.

In a speech last month, the prime minister said the UK would “never turn away” from its relationship with the US, despite the difficulties the new administration could pose, as it had been the “cornerstone” of security and prosperity for over a century.

The head of a prominent US Jewish civil rights body said Elon Musk’s repeated fascist-style salute during Donald Trump’s inauguration could act as a spur for violent extremists.

“The salute itself should be enough to warrant condemnation and attention,” said Amy Spitalnick, adding that so should “the ways extremists see an action like this and take it as license for their own violent extremism”.

Spitalnick is chief executive of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, a progressive non-profit founded in the 1940s and headquartered in New York City. On Monday, she watched with the rest of the world as Musk, the world’s richest person and a key Trump ally, spoke in Washington at the new president’s inaugural rally – and gave two fascist-style salutes.

Musk and his followers have sought to brush off the affair, but to Spitalnick, “there was nothing ambiguous” about the salutes, no matter how many attempts are made to describe them as “Roman” or anything else.

“There’s a long history here,” she said. “The fact that Nazi salutes are now a regular part of our political discourse is how I got involved with all of this. Before JCPA, I led the non-profit [Integrity First for America] that brought a lawsuit over [the far-right march in 2017 in] Charlottesville and against [the activist] Richard Spencer and a variety of other defendants who are clear neo-Nazi extremists.

“You know: ‘Gave the Roman salute’ is just the euphemistic way of saying ‘Nazi salute’.”

To Spitalnick, “most people today don’t have a full understanding of what the term ‘fascist’ even means, and so naming it for what it is – the Nazi salute – feels important right now.”

It’s also important, she says, not to dismiss the fallout as just another online spat, an attempt to distract opponents with outrageous behavior. Not only has Musk expressed support for Alternative für Deutschland, a German far-right party widely accused of Nazi-esque views, but he chose to throw out his right arm on day one of an administration that has thrown out executive orders advancing draconian policies on immigration, equality and more.

Musk’s salute found a warm welcome on far-right sites – much as when in November 2023 he endorsed a post on his own platform, X, that said Jewish people promote “hatred against whites” and support immigration by “hordes of minorities”. After condemnation from advertisers and the Biden White House, Musk apologized: saying it “might be literally the worst and dumbest post I’ve ever done”, he visited Auschwitz, the Nazi death camp in Poland, in a show of contrition.

To Spitalnick, that apology rang hollow: “There was some engagement with Prime Minister [Benjamin] Netanyahu [of Israel] and others that was used as attempted cover for not just his own embrace of antisemitism and extremism but the ways in which he’s let it run rampant on X, and given the ways in which it’s normalized, not just on social media but in our politics more broadly, we can’t excuse that. We can’t give it cover in any way.”

This time, Musk has not apologized. On Thursday, he continued a run of joking posts about his behavior at Trump’s parade with a series of Nazi-themed puns, including: “Some people will Goebbels anything down!”

Nor have all pressure groups condemned Musk’s salutes. The Anti-Defamation League, which fights antisemitism and which Musk previously threatened to sue, said merely that he “made an awkward gesture in a moment of enthusiasm, not a Nazi salute”.

The JCPA “fundamentally disagrees”, Spitalnick said, “and we work closely with the ADL on a variety of fronts. They do critical work. And in this case, to me, there was no question what the intent, and even more importantly the impact, of this action was.

“It was at a presidential event, and [Musk] is someone who has a presidential appointment, an office in the executive building. He is not a random third party. He is a senior member of the Trump administration who gave a Nazi salute from the presidential podium. And there’s no world in which that doesn’t lead to more hate and extremism that will make Jews and so many other communities less safe.”

Musk is working for a president who reportedly praised and admired Hitler; whose own vice-president once called him “America’s Hitler”; and whose opponent in last year’s election, Kamala Harris, called “a fascist” and an admirer of dictators.

Spitalnick acknowledges that after an election featuring a flood of such invective, which Trump won regardless, the public may decide Musk’s apparent fondness for fascist-style salutes is not worthy of serious attention.

But she has fought the far right before – and won. The Charlottesville lawsuit was brought by nine plaintiffs who alleged physical harm and emotional distress arising from the Unite the Right rally, a pro-Trump protest in Virginia in August 2017. In November 2021, a jury awarded the plaintiffs $24m, later substantially reduced.

In the second Trump administration, Spitalnick says, the courts will again provide an arena for progressives to fight back.

She “worked in the New York attorney general’s office during the first Trump administration, and over and over again, our office and a number of other state AGs won cases against his administration, not just on constitutional grounds and administrative procedural grounds but on a variety of other grounds. The law is the law, and we have to fight like hell to protect the law and protect our justice system and our broader democratic norms.”

Amid outcry over Musk’s salutes, Spitalnick says, those who oppose the billionaire and his boss should remember “that when people feel like it’s just been a barrage of bad over the last few days, the response is just beginning”.

Elon Musk made a surprise appearance during Germany’s Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) election campaign event in Halle in eastern Germany on Saturday, speaking publicly in support of the far-right party for the second time in as many weeks.

Addressing a hall of 4,500 people alongside the party’s co-leader, Alice Weidel, Musk spoke live via video link about preserving German culture and protecting the German people.

“It’s good to be proud of German culture, German values, and not to lose that in some sort of multiculturalism that dilutes everything,” Musk said.

Last week, the US billionaire caused uproar after he made a gesture that drew online comparisons to a Nazi salute during President Donald Trump’s inauguration festivities.

On Saturday, he said “children should not be guilty of the sins of their parents, let alone their great grandparents”, apparently referring to Germany’s Nazi past.

“There is too much focus on past guilt, and we need to move beyond that,” he said.

Musk, who spoke of suppression of speech under Germany’s government, has previously attacked German chancellor Olaf Scholz on X.

For his part, Scholz on Tuesday said he does not support freedom of speech when it is used for extreme-right views.

Musk spoke in favour of voting for the far-right party. “I’m very excited for the AfD, I think you’re really the best hope for Germany’s fight for a great future for Germany,” he told onlookers.

Weidel thanked him, said the Republicans were making America great again, and called on her supporters to make Germany great again.

Earlier this month, Musk hosted Weidel in an interview on X, stirring concern about election meddling.

Despite winter weather, anti-far-right campaigners were out in force on Saturday, with about 100,000 gathering around Berlin’s Brandenburg gate and up to 20,000 in Cologne, including people of all ages carrying colourful umbrellas.

As he worked hard to maintain the momentum he had built in his third grand slam final, there was just one fleeting moment where Jannik Sinner was seriously under pressure. Down 5-6, 30-30 on his serve in the second set, as Alexander Zverev tried desperately to steal the set, the German pounced on a forehand and flitted forward to the net. Sinner responded to the danger by producing one of the most brilliant points of the tournament, chasing down every last shot before slipping a pinpoint backhand winner past his flailing opponent at the net.

It was another demonstration of supreme mental fortitude from an incredible tennis player who continues to establish himself as a potential all-time great. After wresting control of the match again, Sinner closed out a ruthless, efficient performance with a 6-3, 7-6 (4), 6-3 victory over Zverev, the second seed, to win his second Australian Open title.

A year after making his breakthrough at this tournament, recovering from two sets down to defeat Daniil Medvedev in last year’s final, Sinner continues to mark himself in the history books at a remarkable pace. By defending his first ever grand slam title, Sinner is the first ever Italian player to win three grand slam titles. He has now won his first three grand slam finals, only the eighth man in history to do so.

While Sinner remains ruthlessly efficient in championship matches, Zverev’s dreams of winning a grand slam title have been crushed once more. He is now the sixth man in history to lose his first three grand slam finals.

As Sinner comes to terms with another incredible success, there is a chance that he may not even be allowed to enter the tournament grounds at the next grand slam tournament, the French Open. On the eve of the Australian Open, the Court of Arbitration for Sport announced that the hearing for Sinner’s ongoing anti-doping case will take place on 16-17 April, a month before the French Open. Sinner was initially cleared of deliberate wrongdoing and he received no suspension before the World Anti-doping Agency opted to appeal the ban to CAS.

The early stages of the battle followed a predictable pattern as the pair engaged in ample long, bruising physical rallies but Sinner was the player willing to dictate them. The set was decided by one break, with Zverev feeling the pressure and playing tentative, indecisive tennis in a long, tense service game at 3-4. Sinner eventually punished Zverev, breaking serve on his fourth break point before rolling through the set.

As he trailed by two break points at 1-1 in set two, Zverev was already fighting to hold on as he trailed by two break points. To his credit, Zverev saved both break points and enjoyed his best stretch of tennis throughout the second set, imposing pressure on Sinner’s serve at both 5-4, 0-30 and 6-5, 30-30. Both times, Sinner demonstrated his mental fortitude by landing first serves and finding a way through to a tiebreak.

With both players level midway through the subsequent tiebreak, luck was not on Zverev’s side. At 4-4 in the tiebreak, a forehand Sinner clipped the net and dribbled over the net to offer the Italian a mini-break. With two service points separating him from a two-set lead, Sinner did not hesitate. He followed up an unreturned first serve with a searing forehand winner to snatch the set before rolling to another imperious victory.

South Korea’s prosecutors indicted the impeached president, Yoon Suk Yeol, on Sunday on charges of leading an insurrection with his short-lived imposition of martial law on 3 December, the main opposition party said.

The charges are unprecedented for a South Korean president, and if convicted, Yoon could face years in prison for his shock martial law decree, which sought to ban political and parliamentary activity and control the media.

His move set off a wave of political upheaval in Asia’s fourth-largest economy, a top US ally, with the prime minister also impeached and suspended from power and a number of top military officials indicted for their roles in the alleged insurrection.

The prosecutors’ office did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The indictment was also reported by South Korean media.

Anti-corruption investigators last week recommended charging the jailed Yoon, who was impeached by parliament and suspended from his duties on 14 December.

A former top prosecutor himself, Yoon has been in solitary confinement since 15 January, when he become the first sitting South Korean president to be arrested, after days of defiant, armed standoff between his security detail and arresting officials.

Over the weekend a court twice refused prosecutors’ request to extend his detention while they conducted further investigations, but with the charges they had again requested that he be kept in custody, media reports said.

Yoon’s lawyers had urged the prosecutors to release him immediately from what they called illegal custody.

Insurrection is one of the few criminal charges from which a South Korean president does not have immunity. It is punishable by life imprisonment or death, although South Korea has not executed anyone in decades.

“The prosecution has decided to indict Yoon Suk Yeol, who is facing charges of being a ringleader of insurrection,” the Democratic party spokesperson, Han Min-soo, told a press conference. “The punishment of the ringleader of insurrection now begins finally.”

Yoon and his lawyers argued at a constitutional court hearing last week in his impeachment trial that he had never intended to fully impose martial law, and meant the measures only as a warning to break political deadlock.

In parallel with his criminal process, the top court will determine whether to remove Yoon from office or reinstate his presidential powers, with 180 days to decide.

South Korea’s opposition-led parliament impeached Yoon on 14 December, making him the second conservative president to be impeached in the country.

Yoon rescinded his martial law after about six hours after lawmakers – confronting soldiers in parliament – voted down the decree. Soldiers equipped with rifles, body armour and night-vision equipment were seen entering the parliament building through smashed windows during the dramatic confrontation.

If Yoon were removed from office, a presidential election would be held within 60 days.

South Korea’s prosecutors indicted the impeached president, Yoon Suk Yeol, on Sunday on charges of leading an insurrection with his short-lived imposition of martial law on 3 December, the main opposition party said.

The charges are unprecedented for a South Korean president, and if convicted, Yoon could face years in prison for his shock martial law decree, which sought to ban political and parliamentary activity and control the media.

His move set off a wave of political upheaval in Asia’s fourth-largest economy, a top US ally, with the prime minister also impeached and suspended from power and a number of top military officials indicted for their roles in the alleged insurrection.

The prosecutors’ office did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The indictment was also reported by South Korean media.

Anti-corruption investigators last week recommended charging the jailed Yoon, who was impeached by parliament and suspended from his duties on 14 December.

A former top prosecutor himself, Yoon has been in solitary confinement since 15 January, when he become the first sitting South Korean president to be arrested, after days of defiant, armed standoff between his security detail and arresting officials.

Over the weekend a court twice refused prosecutors’ request to extend his detention while they conducted further investigations, but with the charges they had again requested that he be kept in custody, media reports said.

Yoon’s lawyers had urged the prosecutors to release him immediately from what they called illegal custody.

Insurrection is one of the few criminal charges from which a South Korean president does not have immunity. It is punishable by life imprisonment or death, although South Korea has not executed anyone in decades.

“The prosecution has decided to indict Yoon Suk Yeol, who is facing charges of being a ringleader of insurrection,” the Democratic party spokesperson, Han Min-soo, told a press conference. “The punishment of the ringleader of insurrection now begins finally.”

Yoon and his lawyers argued at a constitutional court hearing last week in his impeachment trial that he had never intended to fully impose martial law, and meant the measures only as a warning to break political deadlock.

In parallel with his criminal process, the top court will determine whether to remove Yoon from office or reinstate his presidential powers, with 180 days to decide.

South Korea’s opposition-led parliament impeached Yoon on 14 December, making him the second conservative president to be impeached in the country.

Yoon rescinded his martial law after about six hours after lawmakers – confronting soldiers in parliament – voted down the decree. Soldiers equipped with rifles, body armour and night-vision equipment were seen entering the parliament building through smashed windows during the dramatic confrontation.

If Yoon were removed from office, a presidential election would be held within 60 days.

About 70 people have been killed in an attack on the only functional hospital in the besieged city of El Fasher in Sudan, the head of the World Health Organization has said, the latest in a series of attacks as the African nation’s civil war has escalated in recent days.

The attack on the Saudi Teaching Maternal hospital was blamed by local officials on the rebel Rapid Support Forces, a group that has recently faced apparent battlefield losses to the Sudanese military and allied forces under the command of army chief Gen Abdel-Fattah Burhan.

Saudi Arabia’s foreign ministry denounced the attack as “a violation of international law”.

International mediation attempts and pressure tactics, including a US assessment that the RSF and its proxies are committing genocide, and sanctions targeting Burhan, have not halted the fighting.

“The appalling attack on Saudi hospital in El Fasher, Sudan, led to 19 injuries and 70 deaths among patients and companions,” the WHO director general, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, wrote on X on Sunday. “At the time of the attack, the hospital was packed with patients receiving care.”

Another health facility in Al Malha also was attacked on Saturday, he added. “We continue to call for a cessation of all attacks on health care in Sudan, and to allow full access for the swift restoration of the facilities that have been damaged,” he wrote. “Above all, Sudan’s people need peace. The best medicine is peace.”

Tedros did not say who had launched the attack, though local officials had blamed the RSF for the assault. Clementine Nkweta-Salami, a UN official who coordinates humanitarian efforts in Sudan, warned on Thursday that the RSF had given “a 48-hour ultimatum to forces allied to the Sudanese Armed Forces to vacate the city and indicated a forthcoming offensive”.

“Since May 2024, El Fasher has been under RSF siege,” she said. “Civilians in El Fasher have already endured months of suffering, violence and gross human rights abuses under the prolonged siege. Their lives now hang in the balance due to an increasingly precarious situation.”

The RSF did not immediately acknowledge the attack in El Fasher, which is more than 800km (500 miles) south-west of Khartoum. The city is now estimated to be home to more than 1 million people, many of whom have been displaced by the war.

The RSF siege had killed 782 civilians and wounded more than 1,140 others, the UN said in December, warning the true figures were likely to be higher.

The Saudi hospital, just north of El Fasher’s airport, is near the frontlines of the war and has been repeatedly hit by shelling. Its doctors continue carrying out surgeries, sometimes by the light of mobile phones while the hospital is hit.

However, the RSF appeared in recent days to have lost control of the Khartoum refinery, the biggest in Sudan and crucial to its economy and that of South Sudan. Burhan’s forces also say they broke a RSF siege of the Signal Corps headquarters in northern Khartoum. The rebels claimed they were “tightening the noose” around that base.

Sudan has been unstable since a popular uprising forced the removal of longtime dictator Omar al-Bashir in 2019. A short-lived transition to democracy was derailed when Burhan and Gen Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo of the RSF joined forces to lead a military coup in October 2021.

Bashir faces charges at the international criminal court over carrying out a genocidal campaign in the early 2000s in the western Darfur region with the Janjaweed, the precursor to the RSF. Rights groups and the UN say the RSF and allied Arab militias are again attacking ethnic African groups in this war.

The RSF and Sudan’s military began fighting each other in April 2023. Their conflict has killed more than 28,000 people, forced millions to flee their homes and left some families eating grass in a desperate attempt to survive as famine sweeps parts of the country.

Other estimates suggest a far higher death toll in the civil war.

Belarusians began voting on Sunday, with president Alexander Lukashenko expected to cruise to victory unchallenged for a seventh term, prolonging his three-decade authoritarian rule.

Lukashenko – a 70-year-old former collective farm boss – has been in power in reclusive, Moscow-allied Belarus since 1994.

Polls opened at 08:00 am (0500 GMT) in Minsk’s first presidential vote since Lukashenko suppressed mass protests against his rule in 2020. He has since allowed Moscow to use Belarusian territory to invade Ukraine in 2022.

The opposition and the West said Lukashenko rigged the last vote and the authorities cracked down on demonstrations, with more than a thousand people still jailed.

All of Lukashenko’s political opponents are either in prison – some held incommunicado – or in exile along with tens of thousands of Belarusians who have fled since 2020.

“All our opponents and enemies should understand: do not hope, we will never repeat what we had in 2020,” Lukashenko told a stadium in Minsk during a carefully choreographed ceremony Friday.

Most people in Belarus have only distant memories of life in the landlocked country before Lukashenko, who was 39 when he won the first national election in Belarus since it gained independence from the Soviet Union.

Criticism of the strongman is banned in Belarus. Most people AFP spoke to in Minsk and other towns voiced support for him, but were still fearful of giving their surnames.

The other candidates running against Lukashenko have been picked to give the election an air of democracy and few know who they are.

“I will vote for Lukashenko because things have improved since he became president (in 1994),” said 42-year-old farmer Alexei in the tiny village of Gubichi in south-eastern Belarus.

He earns about 300 euros a month selling milk.

But, like many in Belarus, he is worried about the war in neighbouring Ukraine.

In 2022, Russian troops entered Ukraine from several directions, including from Belarus. The following year, Russia sent tactical nuclear weapons to the country, which borders Nato countries.

Alexei said he wished “for there not to be a war”.

The government’s narrative has been to say that Lukashenko guaranteed peace and order in Belarus, accusing 2020 street protest leaders of sowing chaos.

The United Nations estimates that 300,000 Belarusians have left the country since 2020 – mostly to Poland and Lithuania – out of a population of nine million.

They will not be able to cast ballots, with Belarus having scrapped voting abroad.

Exiled opposition leader Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya denounced the vote as a “farce” in a January interview with AFP.

Her husband, Sergei Tikhanovsky, has been held incommunicado for almost a year.

She urged dissidents to prepare for an opportunity to change their country but conceded “it was not the moment”.

While Lukashenko once carefully balanced his relations between the European Union and Moscow, since 2020 he has become politically and economically reliant on Russia.

Kaja Kallas, the EU’s top diplomat, called the election a “sham” in a posting on X Saturday and said “Lukashenko doesn’t have any legitimacy”.

Known as “Europe’s last dictator” – a nickname he embraces – Lukashenko’s Belarus has retained much of the Soviet Union’s traditions and infrastructure.

The country’s economy is largely state-planned and Lukashenko scrapped Belarus’s white-red-white flag in the 1990s – which has since become the symbol of the opposition.

The CIA now believes the virus responsible for the coronavirus pandemic most likely originated from a laboratory, according to an assessment released on Saturday that points the finger at China even while acknowledging that the spy agency has “low confidence” in its own conclusion.

The finding is not the result of any new intelligence, and the report was completed at the behest of the Biden administration and former CIA director William Burns. It was declassified and released on Saturday on the orders of president Donald Trump’s pick to lead the agency, John Ratcliffe, who was sworn in as director on Thursday.

The nuanced finding suggests the agency believes the totality of evidence makes a lab origin more likely than a natural origin. But the agency’s assessment assigns a low degree of confidence to this conclusion, suggesting the evidence is deficient, inconclusive or contradictory.

Earlier reports on the origins of Covid-19 have split over whether the coronavirus emerged from a Chinese lab, potentially by mistake, or whether it arose naturally. The new assessment is not likely to settle the debate. In fact, intelligence officials say it may never be resolved, due to a lack of cooperation from Chinese authorities.

The CIA “continues to assess that both research-related and natural origin scenarios of the Covid-19 pandemic remain plausible,” the agency wrote in a statement about its new assessment.

Instead of new evidence, the conclusion was based on fresh analyses of intelligence about the spread of the virus, its scientific properties and the work and conditions of China’s virology labs.

Lawmakers have put pressure on America’s spy agencies for more information about the origins of the virus, which led to lockdowns, economic upheaval and millions of deaths. It’s a question with significant domestic and geopolitical implications as the world continues to grapple with the pandemic’s legacy.

Republican senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas, chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said on Saturday that he was “pleased the CIA concluded in the final days of the Biden administration that the lab-leak theory is the most plausible explanation” and he commended Ratcliffe for declassifying the assessment.

“Now, the most important thing is to make China pay for unleashing a plague on the world,” Cotton said in a statement.

China’s embassy in Washington did not immediately return messages seeking comment. Chinese authorities have in the past dismissed speculation about Covid’s origins as unhelpful and motivated by politics.

While the origin of the virus remains unknown, scientists think the most likely hypothesis is that it circulated in bats, like many coronaviruses, before infecting another species, probably racoon dogs, civet cats or bamboo rats. In turn, the infection spread to humans handling or butchering those animals at a market in Wuhan, where the first human cases appeared in late November 2019.

Some official investigations, however, have raised the question of whether the virus escaped from a lab in Wuhan. Two years ago a report by the Energy Department concluded a lab leak was the most likely origin, though that report also expressed low confidence in the finding.

The same year then-FBI director Christopher Wray said his agency believed the virus “most likely” spread after escaping from a lab.

Ratcliffe, who served as director of national intelligence during Trump’s first term, has said he favours the lab leak scenario, too.

“The lab leak is the only theory supported by science, intelligence, and common sense,” Ratcliffe said in 2023.

The CIA said it will continue to evaluate any new information that could change its assessment.

At least one more person who was convicted in connection with the 2021 US Capitol attack carried out by Donald Trump supporters has rejected a pardon from the president, saying he believed his actions “weren’t pardonable”.

In an interview published Friday by New Hampshire Public Radio (NHPR), US navy veteran Jason Riddle said: “It’s almost like [Trump] was trying to say it didn’t happen. And it happened. I did those things, and they weren’t pardonable.

“I don’t want the pardon. And I … reject the pardon.”

Riddle entered the US Senate parliamentarian’s office, drank a bottle of wine, stole a book and inflicted damage at the Capitol when Trump supporters attacked the building on 6 January 2021 in a desperate attempt to the then president in office after he lost the presidency to Joe Biden weeks earlier, according to court documents. He received a 90-day prison sentence and was fined $750 in April 2022 for pleading guilty to committing misdemeanors in an attack that was linked to several deaths, including officer suicides.

After Trump won back the White House by defeating Kamala Harris in November, he gave blanket pardons or commutations to 1,500 people charged or convicted in the attack on Congress carried out in his name.

But at minimum a couple of Capitol attackers had turned down Trump’s clemency, which was one of his most prominent campaign promises as he ran against Harris.

Beside Riddle, 71-year-old Pamela Hemphill told the Guardian on Thursday that she was taking responsibility for the hand she had in what was an attempt to prevent the certification of Biden’s victory over Trump in the 2020 presidential election.

Hemphill, who received a 60-day misdemeanor prison sentence and three years of probation after pleading guilty in 2022 to illicitly demonstrating, picketing or parading at the Capitol, said accepting Trump’s pardon would contribute to “propaganda that [the attack] was a peaceful protest”.

Riddle, for his part, told NHPR that he believed rejecting Trump’s pardon would boost his employment prospects moving forward.

“I’m thinking down the road [if] an employer looks in my background, they see misdemeanors … with a presidential pardon – I think that tends to draw more attention,” Riddle said.

Referring to the president’s “Make America great again slogan”, Riddle added: “And I’m sure that’s fine in the Maga world with whoever supports Trump, but I don’t want to spend the rest of my life wondering if [those at] the job I’m applying to … like Trump.”

There is not a consensus among legal experts over whether people like Riddle and Hemphill can legally reject Trump’s pardon. Hemphill told the Idaho Statesman that she plans to file a letter formally rejecting the pardon. And the outlet cited an 1833 US supreme court ruling later upheld in 1915 that a recipient can turn down a presidential pardon.

In contrast, a formal federal prosecutor recently wrote that commutations and pardons do not depend on defendants’ consent. And the New York Times quoted University of St Thomas law school professor Mark Osler as saying: “It would be a novel act to file a court case to reject a pardon of a misdemeanor, in part because of the low stakes.”

Riddle served in the US navy from 2006 to 2010, and he has also worked as a corrections officer, restaurant server and mail carrier. Describing himself as a recovering alcoholic, Riddle told NHPR he was not in recovery at the time he partook in the Capitol attack.

Riddle stopped supporting the president after he got out of prison and saw Trump ask his supporters to protest as the then ex-president braced to be charged with falsifying business records in a case that involved hush-money payments to adult film actor Stormy Daniels.

“I remember thinking, ‘What are you doing, Trump?’” Riddle said to NHPR. “Remember what happened at the [Capitol] riot? Someone might get hurt. Why would you ask people to protest?”

New York state prosecutors ultimately convicted Trump of 34 felonies in the case, though his winning a second presidency prevented him from receiving a substantial sentence.

Riddle’s rejection of Trump’s pardon came months after he ran as a Republican for one of New Hampshire’s two US House seats. He failed to advance out of the election’s primary in September.

At first glance, it is a striking portrait by Edvard Munch, painted in 1892, a year before the Norwegian master was to create his most famous masterpiece, The Scream.

But peer closely at the man’s sleeve along the bottom edge and two embracing, ethereal figures in a mysterious moonlit landscape are revealed.

The intriguing painting within a painting by one of the most significant artists of the 20th century, a pioneer of expressionism, is to be seen for the first time in Britain after its rediscovery. It will be unveiled at the National Portrait Gallery (NPG) in March as part of a large exhibition, Edvard Munch Portraits.

The sitter for the painting was Munch’s friend Thor Lütken, a lawyer who gave him professional help and spent summer months with him on the Oslo fjord.

One of Lütken’s daughters also appears in Munch’s painting The Girls on the Bridge (1901).

The portrait of Lütken, an oil on canvas, was listed as “location unknown” in the definitive catalogue of Munch’s paintings.

It had in fact been with the lawyer’s descendants, who had moved to Spain, loaning it to the National Museum of Arts of Catalonia in Barcelona before selling it in 2022, so that several members of the family could benefit from it.

It was sold by a Barcelona art dealer, Artur Ramon, who said that Munch was believed to have painted it for his friend in lieu of payment for his legal services.

Lütken was among several friends whom Munch described as his “lifeguards” or “guardians” and who helped the artist in difficult times.

Munch would no doubt have been astonished to learn that one of his versions of The Scream sold for a record $119.9m in 2012.

Ramon described the hidden landscape in the Lütken portrait as “a mystery left by Munch only for the sharpened minds”, adding: “What did Lütken, the lawyer, think of this? The answer is a secret between portrayer and sitter.”

The exhibition’s curator, Alison Smith, said the symbolism of the hidden landscape was open to interpretation: “The figures reprise the lovers in Munch’s Kiss by the Window and those in the distance of Melancholy, while also anticipating Death and Life of 1894 …

“Painted in shades of inky blue reminiscent of his other symbolist works, the scene alludes to death as well as romance, evoking feelings on the outer edges of consciousness.

“The portrait was intended as a gift to the sitter, which helps explain the encoded message and why Munch felt free to experiment with the subject.”

She added: “You’ll sometimes walk past a painting and just think that’s just a portrait. But this one lures you in. It’s got an intriguing mystery.”

Sue Prideaux, a Munch biographer, said: “It’s a top-quality portrait from Munch’s most important period – the same year as Vampire and Madonna and just a year before The Scream. The ghostly landscape with the figure in white bears echoes of many paintings, particularly Mermaid and Young Girl on a Jetty. We’ll be trying to unravel the mysteries of this painting for years to come.”

The NPG’s Munch exhibition will be the first in the UK to focus exclusively on his portraits. Most of the artworks will not be known to a British audience.

Early family portraits include a poignant one of Munch’s sister Laura on a family holiday, just a year before she was hospitalised with schizophrenia – one of many tragic incidents in his life that inspired his work.

Smith said the exhibition would show a different side to the painter: “Contrary to the typical portrayal of Munch as an artist isolated from the mainstream, he will be presented as a social being.”

She added that the “lifeguards” were so important to him that he refused to be parted from their portraits, “which acted as substitutes for the men when they were not around”.