Donald Trump has suggested he could target Russia financially as Ukraine’s president urged him to take strong steps if Moscow failed to support a 30-day ceasefire agreed at a meeting between Ukrainian and US delegations in Saudi Arabia.

The president’s threat came as the French defence minister, Sébastien Lecornu, told a press conference in Paris that a ceasefire announcement could come as soon as Thursday and that Europe would have to be prepared to help enforce it.

Washington, Kyiv and Europe are waiting for Moscow’s response to the ceasefire proposal, and US envoys are expected to hold talks with Vladimir Putin by the end of the week. The Kremlin has not publicly said whether or not it supports an immediate ceasefire.

If Putin refuses, “I understand that we could count on strong steps. I don’t know the details yet, but we are talking about sanctions and about strengthening Ukraine,” Volodymyr Zelenskyy said on Tuesday.

Trump said on Wednesday that he had received “positive messages” regarding the ceasefire, but “a positive message means nothing”. The White House later said that Trump’s Middle East envoy, Steve Witkoff, would be in Moscow later this week.

“It’s up to Russia now,” Trump said from the White House. “Our people are going to Russia right now as we speak. And hopefully we can get a ceasefire from Russia.”

Trump did not directly promise to target Russia with sanctions if Vladimir Putin does not sign the deal, but said he could “do things financially that would be very bad for Russia”.

He added, however: “I don’t want to do that, because I want to get peace.”

Asked whether he believed Putin would hold to a ceasefire, given he had broken them in the past, Trump said: “We haven’t spoken to him yet with substance, because we just found out. We’re going to know very soon. I’ve gotten some positive messages, but a positive message means nothing. This is a very serious situation. This is a situation that could lead to world war three.”

Defence ministers from Europe’s five leading military powers, the UK, Germany, Italy, Poland and France met in Paris on Wednesday to discuss the formation of a “reassurance force” that would guarantee peace in Ukraine if a settlement was agreed.

Lecornu said they were “hoping to see a ceasefire tomorrow” and that 15 countries were willing to contribute to a force of up to 30,000 personnel that would secure Ukraine’s airports, ports and infrastructure on a permanent basis.

However, the ministers emphasised they still wanted the US to provide a backstop guarantee to support peacekeepers, and hinted that the minerals deal due to be signed by the US and Ukraine would be insufficient.

John Healey, the UK defence secretary, stressed that the UK wanted “the US to play a part in the reassurance force”. When asked whether a minerals deal could amount to a security guarantee for Ukraine, he said it was “a step towards a process where we get a ceasefire”, implying it was not necessarily sufficient.

Late on Wednesday, Russian state television showed Putin making his first visit to the Kursk region, where Ukraine launched a surprise incursion last year.

Dressed in military camouflage, the Russian president expressed hope his army was on the brink of “fully liberating” the territory, and told senior commanders that Ukrainian soldiers captured in Kursk should be treated as terrorists.

“I am counting on the fact that all the combat tasks facing our units will be fulfilled, and the territory of the Kursk region will soon be completely liberated from the enemy,” he said. On Wednesday, Russian forces entered the central square of Sudzha, the largest Russian settlement controlled by Ukraine.

Minutes after footage of Putin’s remarks aired on Russian state TV, the commander-in-chief of Ukraine’s armed forces, Oleksandr Syrskyi, suggested his troops were pulling back to minimise losses.

Zelenskyy also appeared to hint at an organised withdrawal in his comments on Wednesday. “The military command is doing what it should do – saving the maximum number of lives of our soldiers,” he said.

Last month, in an interview with the Guardian, Zelenskyy said Ukraine hoped to swap the territory it held in Kursk region for areas of Ukraine occupied by Russia.

Earlier in the day, Zelenskyy described Tuesday’s marathon negotiations in Jeddah, between a US delegation led by the secretary of state, Marco Rubio, and a Ukrainian delegation consisting of his chief of staff, Andriy Yermak, and the country’s foreign and defence ministers, as “very positive”.

The talks were an attempt to repair relations after a disastrous White House meeting between Zelenskyy and Trump two weeks ago.

In Moscow, the Kremlin spokesperson, Dmitry Peskov, said Russia was awaiting detailed information from Washington about what was discussed in Jeddah and that Putin must first be briefed by the US before deciding whether the proposal would be acceptable to Russia.

He added that the Kremlin could organise a call between Putin and Trump at short notice if needed.

Rubio confirmed the US would have contact with Russia on Wednesday about the ceasefire agreement reached with Ukraine, though stopped short of spelling out what consequences Russia might face if it did not agree.

“We all eagerly await the Russian response and urge them strongly to consider ending all hostilities,” Rubio said during a stop in Ireland. “If they say no, then obviously we’ll have to examine everything and sort of figure out where we stand in the world and what their true intentions are.”

Zelenskyy said the Ukrainians had come to the table in Saudi Arabia with a suggestion for a 30-day ceasefire in the air and at sea, during which details of a more lasting settlement could be discussed. However, the Americans proposed a full ceasefire, which was agreed after calls made by the two delegations to their respective presidents.

He said that while monitoring sea and air ceasefires would be easy, he hoped Ukraine’s western partners would provide a plan for how to monitor a ceasefire along the frontline, “given who we are dealing with and given our experience of the past years”.

Some Russian officials indicated scepticism about the prospect of a ceasefire, saying Moscow was unwilling to stop the fighting as its forces this week made rapid gains in reclaiming territory in Kursk region.

Putin has repeatedly rejected the possibility of a temporary ceasefire, saying he was focused on addressing the “root causes” of the conflict. Earlier this year, he told Russia’s security council there “should not be a short truce, not some kind of respite for regrouping forces and rearmament with the aim of subsequently continuing the conflict, but a long-term peace”.

Instead, the Russian leader has set out a list of maximalist demands to end his invasion, including Ukraine forgoing Nato membership, undergoing partial demilitarisation and ceding full control of the four Ukrainian regions Putin claimed in 2022.

• Vladimir Putin has visited Kursk for the first time since Ukraine partly invaded the Russian region in a surprise August 2024 offensive. The Russian president expressed hope his army was on the brink of “fully liberating” Kursk after it claimed to have retaken 24 settlements in the past five days. “I am counting on the fact that all the combat tasks facing our units will be fulfilled, and the territory of the Kursk region will soon be completely liberated from the enemy,” he said on state television.

• Minutes after Putin’s remarks aired, Ukraine’s army commander-in-chief, Gen Oleksandr Syrski, suggested his troops were pulling back to minimise losses. “In the most difficult situation, my priority has been and remains saving the lives of Ukrainian soldiers. To this end, the units of the defence forces, if necessary, manoeuvre to more favourable positions,” Syrski posted online, in terms typically used to describe a withdrawal.

• Syrskyi said the Russian military was suffering huge personnel and equipment losses while trying to achieve “political gains” by attempting to oust Ukrainian troops. Sudzha is the largest settlement that Ukraine seized in Kursk, and the Ukraine-based Deep State open-source mapping project showed earlier on Wednesday that Kyiv was no longer in full control of it. “The enemy is using assault units of airborne troops and special operations forces to break through our defences, oust our troops out of the Kursk region and move fighting to the territory of Sumy and Kharkiv regions,” Syrskyi said.

• Volodymyr Zelensky said that Kyiv was doing “as much as possible” to protect its soldiers. “The Russians are clearly trying to put maximum pressure on our troops, and our military command is doing what it has to do,” the Ukrainian president told a press conference in Kyiv. “We are preserving the lives of our soldiers as much as possible.”

• Donald Trump suggested he could target Russia financially as Ukraine’s president urged him to take strong steps if Moscow failed to support a 30-day ceasefire agreed between Ukrainian and US delegations meeting in Saudi Arabia. Washington, Kyiv and Europe are waiting for Moscow’s response to the proposal, and US envoys are expected to hold talks with Putin by the end of the week. The Kremlin has not publicly said whether or not it supports an immediate ceasefire. If Putin refuses, Trump said he could “do things financially that would be very bad for Russia”.

• Zelenskyy said he expected strong measures from the Washington if Russia rejected the ceasefire proposal. “I understand that we can count on strong steps. I don’t know the details yet but we are talking about sanctions [against Russia] and strengthening Ukraine.”

• The US secretary of state, Marco Rubio, said Washington wanted Moscow’s agreement with no strings attached. “That’s what we want to know – if they’re prepared to do it unconditionally,” Rubio said on a plane heading to a G7 meeting in Canada. “If the response is yes, then we know we’ve made real progress, and there’s a real chance of peace. If their response is no, it would be highly unfortunate, and it’ll make their intentions clear.”

• The US threats came as the French defence minister, Sébastien Lecornu, told a press conference in Paris that a ceasefire announcement could come as soon as Thursday and that Europe would have to be prepared to help enforce it. Defence ministers from Europe’s five leading military powers – the UK, Germany, Italy, Poland and France – met in the French capital on Wednesday to discuss the formation of a “reassurance force” that would guarantee peace in Ukraine if a settlement was agreed. Lecornu said they were “hoping to see a ceasefire tomorrow” and that 15 countries were willing to contribute to a force of up to 30,000 personnel that would permanently secure Ukraine’s airports, ports and infrastructure.

Ukraine’s agreement to support a US proposal for a 30-day ceasefire in its war against Russia’s invasion has focused attention on what Moscow may or may not agree to, and what pressure can be brought to bear on Vladimir Putin by the Trump administration.

While the question has frequently been asked over the last few years as to what leverage Putin might have over Trump, the question here is what leverage Trump might have to persuade Putin.

On Wednesday the US secretary of state, Marco Rubio, said the US expected to have contact with Russia later in the day, suggesting Washington hoped for a “positive answer”.

For its part, Moscow has said it needs to be briefed by Washington before replying, with the Kremlin press secretary, Dmitry Peskov, cautioning media against “getting ahead” of themselves, while suggesting Putin and Trump could speak in person.

By Wednesday it was clear that despite Rubio’s optimism, Putin intended to secure maximum advantage from talks over a ceasefire, even a preliminary and brief one.

“It is difficult for Putin to agree to this in its current form,” a senior Kremlin source told Reuters, adding: “Putin has a strong position because Russia is advancing.

“So yes, we are in favour of a truce with both hands, but we need at least framework guarantees and at least from the United States,” the source said.

The reality is that despite Russia’s heavy combat losses, damage to its economy, and diplomatic isolation, it believes it is winning the war.

It sees a ceasefire as benefiting Ukraine, even as the Russian military continues to make glacial progress at a large cost, and believes that view should be reflected in negotiations.

With Rubio admitting that territorial concessions had already been raised in talks with the Ukrainian delegation in Jeddah earlier this week, what Trump has to offer Putin appears more in the way of carrots than sticks – some of which would be hard for Ukraine to accept.

Wider US sanctions and tariffs against Russia – which Trump said he was considering in recent days – to persuade Moscow to agree to the ceasefire and negotiations are unlikely to have much impact.

As Alexander Kolyandr of the Center for European Policy Analysis said: “Russian exports to the US dropped by more than 80% last year, compared to the prewar period, to about $3bn, the lowest since 1992. The only damaging banking sanctions the US can swiftly impose would be the end of an exception from the existing measures, which allows some Russian banks to receive payments for energy exports.”

The alternative is what Trump could give Putin.

The US administration’s dealings with Moscow have already broken one taboo from the Biden era – deflating the widespread US-European unanimity that Russia should be diplomatically isolated.

It is in the economic sphere, however, that Russia remains most vulnerable. While the cost of war and international sanctions have not collapsed the economy in the way some suggested it might, high interest rates and low growth are slowly crippling Russia.

As an incentive, the US could offer an end to its banking sanctions and its prohibition on access to western technology, bearing in mind many non-US sanctions are likely to remain in place from countries allied with Ukraine.

Beyond that, issues become more complicated. Putin’s long-term demands have not shifted: the demilitarisation of Ukraine, a commitment that Ukraine will not join Nato in the future, and his desire to hold on to annexed territory – not least the Crimean peninsula.

None of which are likely to fly with Ukraine’s European allies.

Trump’s one-sided pressure on Ukraine – including the recent meeting with the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, in the White House – may have persuaded Putin of the relative weakness of Trump’s leverage with Russia.

As John Lough, an associate fellow at Chatham House, wrote presciently last year, “Trump is likely to find that Putin believes he now has the upper hand in relations with the US because of his sense that the west has lost its dominance in global affairs.”

All of which leaves one meaningful lever: increasing US military support to Ukraine.

It will be lost on no one, however – particularly after the temporary suspension of such aid to Kyiv – that this is likely to be Trump’s least favoured approach.

As journalists filtered out of the presidential administration in central Kyiv on Wednesday afternoon after a 30-minute press conference with president Volodymyr Zelenskyy, the general consensus was that he had not said anything that would immediately make for a dramatic headline.

That, it seems, was the point. Eager to show the White House that Ukraine is onboard for negotiations and not an obstacle to Donald Trump’s desire to bring peace, Zelenskyy seems to be trying to erase the memories of the nightmare meeting in the White House two weeks ago.

Then, he rose to the bait of the US vice-president, JD Vance, and ended up in an argument with him and Trump. Now, the Ukrainian president is making a concerted effort to retain an air of diplomatic zen.

Instead of issuing demands, he spoke calmly about a “very positive meeting” between US and Ukrainian delegations in Saudi Arabia earlier this week, and said the details would come later. “We will talk about security guarantees in more detail if the 30 days ceasefire goes ahead,” he said.

For three years of war, Zelenskyy’s natural ability to communicate – through the media and his nightly videos – and his personal charm when in the room with other world leaders, has largely been an asset. In the White House, though, it became very clear that when dealing with Trump and his entourage, a change of strategy was required.

Over the past two weeks, Britain and France have been working with the Ukrainians on how to best calibrate messages for the volatile new US administration. Part of the advice has been that Zelenskyy should talk less – every provocative headline risks inflaming the thin-skinned Trump.

On Wednesday, his pauses for careful thought before answering questions were noticeable. Referring to the talks in Saudi Arabia, he said there were “a lot of details that we don’t want to talk about now”.

Asked by the Guardian what effect the pause in US intelligence sharing had had on Ukrainian military operations, and whether it had led to any specific incidents or losses for Kyiv, he said: “One day I’ll tell you, but I can’t answer that now”.

One US television correspondent tried to goad him, twice, into repeating an earlier claim that Trump was living in a Russian disinformation bubble. Zelenskyy smiled faintly, paused and gave a banal politician’s answer, that he always likes it when foreign partners visit Ukraine and can see the situation on the ground for themselves. He hopes that his American partners will visit more often.

It was easy to see a disguised barb directed at Vance, who tried to lecture Zelenskyy about Ukrainian battlefield realities and then said that he did not need to come on a “propaganda tour” to Ukraine because he had seen stories online. Back then, Zelenskyy responded with understandable irritation. This time, the criticism was oblique enough not to make a quotable soundbite.

The last thing Ukraine needs now is a slew of “Zelenskyy attacks Trump and Vance” headlines, which could prompt a new bout of mudslinging from the White House. Last month Trump called him a “moderately successful comedian” and a “dictator”, and claimed he had a 4% approval rating in Ukraine.

“One tweet can change everything, especially for the people who are fighting,” Zelenskyy said, by way of explanation for his somewhat evasive answers.

Trump’s unpredictability means there are no guarantees that Ukraine’s new approach will be enough to placate Trump and bring back meaningful US support for Kyiv. But there are signs that it is helping. Already, the US has reinstated intelligence sharing, and some of the rhetoric appears to be changing.

Lindsey Graham, a pro-Trump senator who has also been pro-Ukraine, laid into the Ukrainian president after the White House meeting. “I don’t know if we can ever do business with Zelenskyy again. I think most Americans saw a guy they would not want to go into business with,” he said then.

On Wednesday, he was singing a very different tune, promising to demand “bone-breaking sanctions and tariffs” on Russia before the end of the week to push Moscow towards a deal. “Zelenskyy has passed the test of wanting peace,” he wrote on X.

Donald Trump’s administration is to reconsider the official finding that greenhouse gases are harmful to public health, a move that threatens to rip apart the foundation of the US’s climate laws, amid a stunning barrage of actions to weaken or repeal a host of pollution limits upon power plants, cars and waterways.

Trump’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued an extraordinary cavalcade of pollution rule rollbacks on Wednesday, led by the announcement it would potentially scrap a landmark 2009 finding by the US government that planet-heating gases, such carbon dioxide, pose a threat to human health.

The so-called endangerment finding, which followed a supreme court ruling that the EPA could regulate greenhouse gases, provides the underpinning for all rules aimed at cutting the pollution that scientists have unequivocally found is worsening the climate crisis.

Despite the enormous and growing body of evidence of devastation caused by rising emissions, including trillions of dollars in economic costs, Trump has called the climate crisis a “hoax” and dismissed those concerned by its worsening impacts as “climate lunatics”.

Lee Zeldin, the EPA administrator, said the agency would reconsider the endangerment finding due to concerns that it had spawned “an agenda that throttles our industries, our mobility, and our consumer choice while benefiting adversaries overseas”.

Zeldin wrote that Wednesday was the “most consequential day of deregulation in American history” and that “we are driving a dagger through the heart of climate-change religion and ushering in America’s Golden Age”.

Zeldin boasted about the changes and said his agency’s mission is to “lower the cost of buying a car, heating a home and running a business”.

Environmentalists reacted with horror to the announcement and vowed to defend the overwhelming findings of science and the US’s ability to address the climate crisis through the courts, which regularly struck down Trump’s rollbacks in his first term. “The Trump administration’s ignorance is trumped only by its malice toward the planet,” said Jason Rylander, legal director at the Center for Biological Diversity’s Climate Law Institute.

“Come hell or high water, raging fires and deadly heatwaves, Trump and his cronies are bent on putting polluter profits ahead of people’s lives. This move won’t stand up in court. We’re going to fight it every step of the way.”

In all, the EPA issued 31 announcements within just a few hours that take aim at almost every major environmental rule designed to protect Americans’ clean air and water, as well as a livable climate.

The barrage included a move to overturn a Biden-era plan to slash pollution spewing from coal-fired power plants, which itself was a reduced version of an Obama administration initiative that was struck down by the supreme court.

The EPA will also revisit pollution standards for cars and trucks, which Zeldin said had imposed a “crushing regulatory regime” upon auto companies that are now shifting towards electric vehicles, considering weakening rules limiting sooty air pollution that’s linked to an array of health problems, potentially axing requirements that power plants not befoul waterways or dump their toxic waste and considering further narrowing how it implements the Clean Water Act in general.

The stunning broadside of actions against pollution rules could, if upheld by the courts, reshape Americans’ environment in ways not seen since major legislation was passed in the 1970s to end an era of smoggy skies and burning rivers that became the norm following American industrialization.

Pollutants from power plants, highways and industry cause a range of heart, lung and other health problems, with greenhouse gases among this pollution driving up the global temperature and fueling catastrophic heatwaves, floods, storms and other impacts.

“Zeldin’s EPA is dragging America back to the days before the Clean Air Act, when people were dying from pollution,” said Dominique Browning, director of the Moms Clean Air Force. “This is unacceptable. And shameful. We will oppose with all our hearts to protect our children from this cruel, monstrous action.”

The EPA’s moves come shortly after its decision to shutter all its offices that deal with addressing the disproportionate burden of pollution faced by poor people and minorities in the US, amid a mass firing of agency staff. Zeldin has also instructed that $20bn in grants to help address the climate crisis be halted, citing potential fraud. Democrats have questioned whether these moves are legal.

Former EPA staff have reacted with shock to the upending of the agency.

“Today marks the most disastrous day in EPA history,” said Gina McCarthy, who was EPA administrator under Obama. “Rolling these rules back is not just a disgrace, it’s a threat to all of us. The agency has fully abdicated its mission to protect Americans’ health and wellbeing.”

The Trump administration has promised additional environmental rollbacks in the coming weeks. The Energy Dominance Council that the president established last month is looking to eliminate a vast array of regulations in an effort to boost the fossil fuel industry, the interior secretary, Doug Burgum, told the oil and gas conference CeraWeek in Houston on Wednesday. “We will come up with the ways that we can cut red tape,” he said. “We can easily get rid of 20-30% of our regulations.”

Additional reporting by Dharna Noor

The United States has paused negotiations with Canada on a key water-sharing treaty as Donald Trump continues both his threats to annex his northern neighbour and to upend major agreements governing relations between the two counties.

British Columbia’s energy ministry said officials south of the border were “conducting a broad review” of the Columbia River Treaty, the 61-year-old pact that governs transnational flood control, power generation and water supply.

The sprawling Columbia River, which originates in south-eastern British Columbia and terminates in the Pacific Ocean on the Oregon-Washington border, is one of the largest watersheds on the continent. The immense volume of water that moves along its 1,200-mile (1,900km) route produces roughly 40% of US hydroelectric power and nearly half the hydropower in BC.

The treaty first came into effect in 1964, after devastating floods nearly two decades before that destroyed Oregon’s second-largest city and swaths of southern British Columbia.

Under the terms of the agreement, Canada must control the flow of the Columbia River through its network of dams to ensure US hydropower generators receive enough water and to prevent flooding. Those benefits are worth roughly $200m (C$288m) annually for the province.

For its part, the US must also give Canada half the additional potential hydroelectric power produced by dams, which it sells at market rate.

Under former president Joe Biden, the two countries reached an in-principle deal on a new version of the decades-old treaty in July, ahead of the September expiration deadline of the treaty.

Despite a concerted push on both sides to finalize a deal before Trump took office, however, the final details of the treaty remain unfinished, with only a three-year interim agreement in place.

In recent weeks, Trump has taken an increasingly combative stance towards Canada, calling its border “imaginary”, musing about inflicting “historic financial devastation” on a longtime ally and threatening to tear up the myriad treaties between the two countries.

Last year, then candidate Donald Trump referred to the “large faucet” in British Columbia that could be turned on to help a parched California – an idea widely interpreted to refer to the Columbia River.

Indigenous peoples were denied a seat at the table when the agreement was first made, despite the river passing through vast tracts of unceded territory. There were hopes that the multi-year renegotiation of the pact would finally see Indigenous rights recognized in Canada and work to restore critical habitats for endangered salmon.

While the future of the pact looks uncertain, either nation must give a 10-year notice before abandoning the deal.

On Tuesday, British Columbia’s energy minister, Adrian Dix, said his government would hold information sessions later this month to help residents understand the implications of the pause.

He pledged that “we’re going to fight … everywhere, including in these negotiations” amid hostility from the White House.

“The vicious, anti-Canadian attacks that have been made on us … They do cause concern.”

Donald Trump has previously called the climate crisis a “hoax” and dismissed those concerned by its worsening impacts as “climate lunatics”, but now the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has gone even further under his authority, issuing an extraordinary cavalcade of pollution rule rollbacks.

The agency has announced it would potentially scrap a landmark 2009 finding by the US government that planet-heating gases, such carbon dioxide, pose a threat to human health.

The so-called endangerment finding, which followed a supreme court ruling that the EPA could regulate greenhouse gases, provides the underpinning for all rules aimed at cutting the pollution that scientists have unequivocally found is worsening the climate crisis.

Canada announced retaliatory tariffs on nearly C$30bn worth of American imports after US tariffs on steel and aluminum imports went into effect on Wednesday.

The Canadian government said it will be following a “dollar-by-dollar” approach and institute 25% tariffs on American imports, including steel, computers and sports equipment.

Donald Trump first announced the tariff on all steel and aluminum imports in February and scheduled them to go into effect on Wednesday. The tariffs have started a chain reaction of retaliatory tariffs as countries around the world decide how to respond to Trump’s policy.

Canada’s announcement comes after the EU announced its own tariffs on American imports, including products such as motorcycles and whiskey, totaling $28bn.

Trump had doubled the steel and aluminum tariffs against Canada, in retaliation for Canada raising the prices on electricity exports to the US, to 50%. But the White House dropped the measure after Canada said it would hold off on its electricity tariff.

Meanwhile, the Mexican president, Claudia Sheinbaum, said the country would wait until 2 April to determine whether it would respond to the steel and aluminum tariffs.

Trump had initially announced 25% tariffs on all imports from Canada and Mexico, which were initially to take effect on 1 February, but paused the tariffs twice. The tariffs are now expected to go into effect on 2 April.

Canadian and EU leaders voiced regret over the impact the tariffs will have on domestic businesses, but argued countries need to respond appropriately to Trump’s actions

Mélanie Joly, the country’s minister of foreign affairs, said in a press conference on Wednesday that the country will “not back down and we will not give into this coercion”, denouncing the chaos Trump has ensued on the global economy.

“The only constant in this unjustified and unjustifiable trade war seems to be President Trump’s talks of annexing our country’s through economic coercion,” Joly told a press conference.

Ursula von der Leyen, president of the European Commission, said that the steel and aluminum tariffs were “unjustified trade restrictions”. “Tariffs are taxes. They are bad for business and worse for consumers. They are disrupting supply chains. They bring uncertainty for the economy,” she said.

Despite the criticism from global leaders, Trump defended the tariffs after meeting with the Business Roundtable, a group of key US business leaders on Tuesday. “Markets are going to go up and they’re going to go down, but you know what? We have to rebuild our country,” Trump said on Tuesday.

After a weeklong slump, US markets started making small gains on Tuesday morning after inflation figures that were better than projected.

Trump and members of his administration have spent the last week on the cable news circuit downplaying the impacts the tariffs could have on the economy. When asked whether the US could experience a recession in an interview with Fox News on Sunday, Trump said the country was in a “period of transition”.

“What we’re doing is very big. We’re bringing wealth back to America. That’s a big thing. And there are always periods of, it takes a little time. It takes a little time, but I think it should be great for us,” Trump said.

Kevin Hassett, head of the national economic council, told CNBC on Monday that Trump’s economic policies were having their intended effect of “creating jobs in the US” and said there were lots of reason to be “bullish going forward”.

The uncertainty around Trump’s trade policies has made officials with the Federal Reserve all but confirm that they will not be changing interest rates at their meeting next week. The Fed chair, Jerome Powell, said in prepared remarks last week that there was “heightened uncertainty about the economic outlook” but said that the economy was stable for now.

“It remains to be seen how these developments might affect future spending and investment,” he said.

Meanwhile, a new Reuters/Ipsos poll found that most Americans have found Trump’s recent actions on the economy to be “too erratic”. Some 70% of the more than 1,400 respondents – including nine in 10 Democrats and six in 10 Republicans – said they expected higher tariffs would make groceries and other purchases more expensive. Americans instead want Trump to continue to focus on combating high prices even as there are growing concerns his policies will drive costs up, not down, the poll found.

Reuters contributed reporting

Donald Trump has accused Ireland of stealing the US pharmaceutical industry and the tax revenue that should have been paid to the US treasury, in a blow to the Irish premier, Micheál Martin, who had hoped to emerge unscathed from a visit to the White House marking St Patrick’s Day.

The US president showed grudging respect for Martin, alternately ribbing and complimenting him, while also launching several broadsides against the EU.

He repeatedly took aim at Ireland’s historical low-tax policies, which helped lure US multinationals including Pfizer, Boston Scientific and Eli Lilly to its shores.

Big pharma now drives Ireland’s €72bn (£60bn) worth of annual exports to the US, with taxes paid in Ireland on drugs consumed in the US.

“The Irish are smart, yes, smart people,” Trump said. “You took our pharmaceutical companies and other companies … This beautiful island of 5 million people has got the entire US pharmaceutical industry in its grasps.”

The US president told reporters in the Oval Office he did not want to punish the Irish too much, as it might risk support among the American-Irish vote, but said he was determined “to take back” his country’s “wealth”, predicting an easy battle with the EU.

“I think the Irish love Trump,” he said. “We won the Irish with a tremendous amount of [their] vote. I got it locked up pretty good unless I did something very stupid, like drained your country, your wonderful place of all of its companies. Maybe [then] I’d lose the Irish vote.”

Trump also said that previous presidents had “lost big segments” of the US economy to Europe and repeated his claim that “the EU was set up in order to take advantage of the United States”.

Referring to the EU’s successful lawsuit against Apple, forcing it to pay €13bn (£11bn) in back taxes to Ireland, he said: “Apple has been treated very badly … That is unfair.”

In one of several fawning moments, Martin pointed out that Ireland had fought against the EU case in the European court of justice – a move born out of the country’s desire to hold on to US tech firms such as Intel, Microsoft and Google, which have sited their EU headquarters in and around Dublin.

He also said the Irish companies Ryanair and AerCap, which is the world’s biggest aircraft-leasing company, buy more US-made Boeing planes than anyone else.

Nodding, Trump said: “I’m not blaming you. I’m blaming the European Union. The European Union’s gone after our companies.

“We have a problem with the European Union. They don’t take our farm products. They don’t take our cars. We take millions of cars, BMWs and Mercedes-Benz and Volkswagens and everything. We take millions of cars.”

Referring to the former German chancellor, Trump added: “I said to Angela Merkel at the time, I said: ‘Angela, how many Chevrolets do we have in the middle of Munich?’ [She replied:] ‘Why, none’ … No, I’m not happy with the European Union.”

He said he did not want to “hurt Ireland” but just wanted what was fair.

“I’d like to see the United States not have been so stupid for so many years, not just with Ireland, with everybody,” he said.

After an hour-long discussion for the benefit of the press, Trump and Martin’s subsequent private bilateral lasted just 10 minutes, underlining the emphasis the president puts on meetings in front of the media.

Trump’s comments came as the EU unveiled plans to impose “countermeasures” on up to €26bn worth of US imports after Washington introduced 25% tariffs on global imports of steel and aluminium.

One EU official said there was no point negotiating with the US at this stage, saying it would be like arguing over rotten fish.

“It is not very productive to now start negotiating about removing the tariffs,” the official said. “You put a stinking fish on the table, and then you start negotiating to remove that stinking fish, and then you say: ‘Wow, we have a great result: there’s no stinking fish on the table.’ That is not a very productive conversation.

“What we are looking for in negotiations is a productive discussion about creating value to what is the largest trade and investment relationship in the world, which is the transatlantic relationship.”

An operation to rescue hundreds of people taken hostage when a train was hijacked by a separatist militant group in remote south-west Pakistan has ended with dozens killed in the onslaught, a spokesperson for the army has said.

Pakistan’s security services claimed late on Wednesday to have rescued about 190 people who were being held captive after militants from the Baloch Liberation Army (BLA) blew up a railway line and launched an attack on the Jaffar Express train.

The hijacking took place as the train, which was carrying about 450 passengers, was travelling through a tunnel in the rugged mountains of Balochistan province on Tuesday afternoon.

Officials said 33 militants and 21 hostages were killed, after military and security personnel launched an air and land offensive to take back control. The efforts had been hindered by the remote, treacherous terrain, which has made communication and mobilisation difficult.

The BLA had threatened to start killing hostages unless authorities met its 48-hour deadline for the release of Baloch political prisoners, activists and missing people it says had been abducted by the military.

On Wednesday night, the group claimed in a statement it had killed 50 of the hostages over Pakistan’s “failure to engage in a serious prisoner exchange”.

According to local media reports, the BLA had stationed suicide bombers in explosive vests close to some of the hostages, further complicating their rescue. “The terrorists are using innocent people as human shields,” an official told Radio Pakistan.

Yousaf Bashir was among the passengers who were allowed to leave the train. Describing the moment that the train was held up by the militants, he said: “There was a huge blast. Everyone was scared and people were screaming and crying loudly. We laid down during the blasts. Everyone laid down in the train as there was firing too.”

He said militants had come over after the firing stopped and demanded all the passengers get off the train or be killed. “They freed my children, my wife and me too. They warned us not to look back and kept walking. I did not see how many people there were left behind,” said Bashir.

Those the BLA allowed to leave the train described walking overnight to safety through the rugged mountain terrain for more than seven hours.

In a written statement sent to the Guardian, the BLA said the hijacking was “a direct response to Pakistan’s decades-long colonial occupation of Balochistan and the relentless war crimes committed against the Baloch people”.

Balochistan, a vast and underdeveloped region bordering Iran and Afghanistan, has for decades been home to a separatist insurgency fighting against the Pakistani state and military, which it has accused of neglecting and exploiting the region.

“The Bolan operation is a tactical response to these atrocities, intended to demonstrate that the occupying forces are not invincible and that their continued presence in Balochistan will be met with unwavering resistance,” the BLA statement said.

The BLA has recently ramped up its operations in Balochistan and has been behind some of the worst terrorist attacks in Pakistan in the past few years.

Zahid Hussain, a security analyst, said the train hijacking was “unprecedented”. He added: “This attack shows the situation in Balochistan has become very challenging for the military. They have failed to contain the insurgency and militants are recruiting large numbers to carry out such attacks.”

Ayo Edebiri, the actor best known for her Emmy-award winning work on The Bear, has said she received “insane death threats” after Elon Musk shared a fake news report about her being cast in a film.

On her Instagram, Edebiri recalled the furore that met Musk’s reposting of a story by “Unlimited L’s”, a rightwing account with no apparent Hollywood connection or insight, that she was to replace Johnny Depp in a reboot of the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise.

“Disney sucks,” commented Musk at the time.

“Just remembering when I got some of the most insane death threats and racial slurs of my life (idk if it’s the #1 moment, but for sure top 3) for a fake reboot of a movie I had never even heard of because of this man,” Edebiri wrote while sharing Musk’s original post. “LMAO. So not only is he double s**g h**l-ing [sieg heil-ing] fascist, he’s an idiot but anyway.”

Responding to Edebiri’s post on Wednesday, the owner of the original account said: “I clearly stated ‘reportedly’ because it was the latest information coming from credible Hollywood sources. And yes, I am a HUGE fan and supporter of Mr Musk. He has my loyalty for LIFE, and I don’t say that lightly.”

The rumour was not run by any credible industry outlet.

In a previous Instagram story post, Edebiri applauded comedian Bill Burr for his comments on NPR’s Fresh Air, calling Musk “evidently a Nazi,” and commenting on his hand gesture at Donald Trump’s inauguration: “I just refuse to believe it was an accidental two-time Sieg Heil.”

Burr went on to call Musk an “idiot” with “dyed hair plugs and a laminated face” and someone “who makes a bad car and has an obsolete social media platform”. He continued by asking why liberals are “so afraid of this guy who can’t fight his way out of a wet paper bag?”

Producer Jerry Bruckheimer confirmed last year that a reboot of the series, which earned nearly $5bn globally, was being developed. He neither confirmed nor denied that Depp would star in it, saying: “It’s a reboot, but if it was up to me, he would be in it. I love him. He’s a good friend. He’s an amazing artist and he’s a unique look.”

Edebiri voiced Envy in the Pixar sequel Inside Out 2; her new horror film, Opus, opens in the US this month. She is also set to write and star in Daniel Kaluuya’s Barney the dinosaur film. Edebiri is a member of the Democratic Socialists of America, for whom she has frequently canvassed.

Vanuatu’s new prime minister has said his government intends to “revisit” a security agreement with Australia, arguing it does not reflect his country’s priorities including climate change and travel mobility for its citizens.

Jotham Napat, who was elected in February, said the pact with Canberra had to be taken “back to the drawing board” as he sought a “win-win situation” in a renegotiated deal.

“Climate change for us is a security issue that is not reflected in the security agreement,” Napat told the Guardian.

“It’s something that we would like to revisit and be able to discuss openly with the Australian government.”

The bipartisan security deal, signed in 2022 but yet to be ratified by either nation, aims to strengthen cooperation in areas including disaster response, policing, cybersecurity and border security. Climate change is mentioned once in the document, under a section on “Environment and Resource Security”.

In addition to greater reference to climate change, Napat said he also wanted “an official waiver-free agreement with Australia” as part of a new deal so citizens could more easily travel between the two countries.

He had already spoken about these terms to Australian officials including the deputy prime minister, Richard Marles, and they were “happy for the two countries to revisit the security agreement”.

In a statement to the Guardian, an Australian foreign affairs department spokesperson said the government “welcome[s] recent comments by Vanuatu’s leaders on strengthening the bilateral relationship” and was “listening to Vanuatu’s priorities”.

Australia’s push for security and policing agreements with Pacific countries – including Papua New Guinea, Tuvalu, Solomon Islands, Fiji – has been widely viewed as part of its effort to counter China’s growing influence in the region. Beijing has expanded its security, diplomatic and economic presence across the Pacific, most recently signing a wide-ranging strategic partnership with the Cook Islands that covers areas including deep-sea mining, education and transport.

When asked about China, Napat said Vanuatu did not “have any preferences” in development partners: “We treat Australia the same as China and the United States.”

Mihai Sora, director of the Pacific Islands programme at the Lowy Institute, said Vanuatu was well positioned to take advantage of the geopolitical competition.

“Vanuatu has a lot of leverage right now – Australia needs these sorts of security partnerships,” he said. “It’s looking to formalise existing activities and to elevate existing agreements wherever it can in a bid to build strategic insulation from China’s encroachment.”

China had been taking an “opportunistic approach” to expanding security partnerships in the Pacific, Sora said, relying on individual Pacific leaders to take up its open offers for further support. “China is looking to elevate its political ties and then for that to open the way for closer security cooperation across the Pacific.”

Vanuatu’s bid to secure new commitments with Australia comes as the US looks to retreat from significant pledges it has made to Pacific countries, particularly around economic development and climate action.

Donald Trump has ordered the withdrawal of his country from the Paris climate agreement, a move Napat said was deeply troubling for Vanuatu, a country on the frontlines of climate change.

“For us, it’s about our survival,” he said, adding that he would like to convince Trump “not to withdraw because everybody depends on the Paris agreement”.

Napat also said his government had not yet received confirmation on whether US aid to Vanuatu would be cut, but hoped that Washington would reconsider any plans to scale back support.

Under Joe Biden’s presidency, the US widened its presence in the Pacific, opening new diplomatic posts, negotiating a security deal with PNG, and vowing to deepen economic aid. Sora said some of these initiatives were unlikely to continue under the Trump administration.

“What is likely to happen based on recent developments coming out of Washington is that the US will maintain a narrow security interest in the Pacific,” Sora said.

“But we’re not likely to see the United States live up to its commitments on engaging with economic development and climate change.”

Beyond security and diplomacy, Napat said his new government’s priority was ongoing recovery efforts after the devastating 7.3-magnitude earthquake that struck Vanuatu in December in 2024. The downtown of the capital, Port Vila, remains largely closed as damaged buildings are still being cleared and rebuilt.

“We are hoping that before the middle of this year, we should be able to open the main central business district,” Napat said.

Vanuatu’s new prime minister has said his government intends to “revisit” a security agreement with Australia, arguing it does not reflect his country’s priorities including climate change and travel mobility for its citizens.

Jotham Napat, who was elected in February, said the pact with Canberra had to be taken “back to the drawing board” as he sought a “win-win situation” in a renegotiated deal.

“Climate change for us is a security issue that is not reflected in the security agreement,” Napat told the Guardian.

“It’s something that we would like to revisit and be able to discuss openly with the Australian government.”

The bipartisan security deal, signed in 2022 but yet to be ratified by either nation, aims to strengthen cooperation in areas including disaster response, policing, cybersecurity and border security. Climate change is mentioned once in the document, under a section on “Environment and Resource Security”.

In addition to greater reference to climate change, Napat said he also wanted “an official waiver-free agreement with Australia” as part of a new deal so citizens could more easily travel between the two countries.

He had already spoken about these terms to Australian officials including the deputy prime minister, Richard Marles, and they were “happy for the two countries to revisit the security agreement”.

In a statement to the Guardian, an Australian foreign affairs department spokesperson said the government “welcome[s] recent comments by Vanuatu’s leaders on strengthening the bilateral relationship” and was “listening to Vanuatu’s priorities”.

Australia’s push for security and policing agreements with Pacific countries – including Papua New Guinea, Tuvalu, Solomon Islands, Fiji – has been widely viewed as part of its effort to counter China’s growing influence in the region. Beijing has expanded its security, diplomatic and economic presence across the Pacific, most recently signing a wide-ranging strategic partnership with the Cook Islands that covers areas including deep-sea mining, education and transport.

When asked about China, Napat said Vanuatu did not “have any preferences” in development partners: “We treat Australia the same as China and the United States.”

Mihai Sora, director of the Pacific Islands programme at the Lowy Institute, said Vanuatu was well positioned to take advantage of the geopolitical competition.

“Vanuatu has a lot of leverage right now – Australia needs these sorts of security partnerships,” he said. “It’s looking to formalise existing activities and to elevate existing agreements wherever it can in a bid to build strategic insulation from China’s encroachment.”

China had been taking an “opportunistic approach” to expanding security partnerships in the Pacific, Sora said, relying on individual Pacific leaders to take up its open offers for further support. “China is looking to elevate its political ties and then for that to open the way for closer security cooperation across the Pacific.”

Vanuatu’s bid to secure new commitments with Australia comes as the US looks to retreat from significant pledges it has made to Pacific countries, particularly around economic development and climate action.

Donald Trump has ordered the withdrawal of his country from the Paris climate agreement, a move Napat said was deeply troubling for Vanuatu, a country on the frontlines of climate change.

“For us, it’s about our survival,” he said, adding that he would like to convince Trump “not to withdraw because everybody depends on the Paris agreement”.

Napat also said his government had not yet received confirmation on whether US aid to Vanuatu would be cut, but hoped that Washington would reconsider any plans to scale back support.

Under Joe Biden’s presidency, the US widened its presence in the Pacific, opening new diplomatic posts, negotiating a security deal with PNG, and vowing to deepen economic aid. Sora said some of these initiatives were unlikely to continue under the Trump administration.

“What is likely to happen based on recent developments coming out of Washington is that the US will maintain a narrow security interest in the Pacific,” Sora said.

“But we’re not likely to see the United States live up to its commitments on engaging with economic development and climate change.”

Beyond security and diplomacy, Napat said his new government’s priority was ongoing recovery efforts after the devastating 7.3-magnitude earthquake that struck Vanuatu in December in 2024. The downtown of the capital, Port Vila, remains largely closed as damaged buildings are still being cleared and rebuilt.

“We are hoping that before the middle of this year, we should be able to open the main central business district,” Napat said.

The US government is relying on a rarely used provision of the law to try to deport a prominent Palestinian activist who recently completed his graduate studies at Columbia University, where he was a leader in last year’s campus protests.

A government charging document addressed to Mahmoud Khalil, a permanent US resident and green card holder who is currently being held in a Louisiana detention center, said that secretary of state Marco Rubio “has reasonable ground to believe that your presence or activities in the United States would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States”.

Green cards are rarely revoked in the absence of a criminal conviction, but the foreign policy provision is the only ground for deportation listed in the document.

Khalil was arrested in front of his wife and taken into custody on Saturday night by federal immigration authorities at his university-owned apartment.

Khalil served as a lead negotiator for the Gaza solidarity encampment at Columbia University last year, mediating between the pro-Palestine protesters and the university administrators. The arrest has sparked alarm from free-expression advocates who see the move to deport Khalil as a flagrant violation of his free speech rights.

A Manhattan federal court held a hearing on Wednesday morning after Khalil’s lawyers challenged his detention, but it ended without a decision on whether he would be released from custody. During the brief hearing, an attorney for the Department of Justice asked for a change of venue for the case, from New York to Louisiana or New Jersey, where he was held before being sent south.

The judge, Jesse Furman, asked the government to file written arguments by Friday.

Earlier this week, Furman, an Obama-appointed judge in New York’s southern district, issued a ruling preventing Khalil’s deportation while the court reviews the legal challenge. Khalil’s lawyers contend that the Trump administration is unlawfully retaliating against their client for his activism and constitutionally protected speech.

Outside the courthouse after the hearing on Wednesday, Ramzi Kassem, a member of Khalil’s legal team and the founder and co-director of Clear, a legal clinic at the City University of New York, said that the provision of the law that the government is claiming to revoke the green card have gone beyond what Congress intended.

“The government, as far as we understand, is relying on a rarely used provision in immigration law to justify the detention of a lawful permanent resident and his placement in removal proceeding,” he said. “It is a provision that basically says that if the secretary of state determines that a non-citizen’s presence or activity in this country poses a serious risk of adverse foreign policy consequences, then that person can be processed for removal. That provision is not only rarely used, it is certainly not intended by Congress to be used to silence dissent.”

The New York Times recently reported that the state department’s rationale holds that its foreign policy to combat antisemitism around the world will be adversely affected by Khalil’s continued presence in the US, as the administration perceives most pro-Palestinian protests on campus as antisemitic.

Bill Hing, professor of law and migration at University of San Francisco, said that simply invoking US foreign policy aims would not be enough. He said: “The government has to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that his presence or activities in the US has potential serious adverse foreign policy consequences. The question is, how will they prove that? If he has done nothing more than decry the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, or accuse Israel of genocide, and demand ceasefire, is that adverse to US foreign policy? I don’t think so. I think that is protected free speech.”

Khalil’s lawyers are requesting that Furman order Khalil’s return to New York, enabling him to reunite with his wife, an American citizen who is expected to give birth next month. Baher Azmy, the legal director of the Center for Constitutional Rights, which is also representing Khalil, said that his legal team would be filing briefs dealing with both the legality of the detention and the venue dispute over the next week.

Khalil’s legal team also includes the American Civil Liberties Union, the New York Civil Liberties Union, and his lawyer Amy Greer.

Hundreds of protesters gathered outside the court. Margaret Jay Finch, holding a sign that read “Civil rights for all people”, said she was “so upset that Mahmoud is in the darkness in Louisiana. I can’t tell you.”

The 83-year-old retiree added: “I feel so bad for his wife. I am so worried that this is against the first amendment and we’re going to lose our rights … This is such a dictatorship.”

Other protesters held signs saying “Then they came for Mahmoud” and “Hands off our students, Ice off our campuses”. They chanted “Free, free, Palestine” and “Release Mahmoud right now” as they crowded into the large public square in lower Manhattan that is surrounded by grand civic buildings, including the federal courthouse with its imposing pillars and sweeping staircase.

Actor and activist Susan Sarandon told the Guardian: “No matter where you stand on the genocide, freedom of speech affects everyone and this is a turning point in our history.”

On Monday, Donald Trump said that Khalil’s presence in the US was “contrary to national and foreign policy interests” and said that the arrest was the first of “many to come”. The president has repeatedly promised to revoke the visas of international students who have participated in pro-Palestine protests.

Furman has the authority to order Khalil’s release if he finds his rights were violated. The future of Khalil’s immigration status will be determined in a separate process in front of an immigration judge.

Diala Shamas, another of Khalil’s lawyers, said that speaking out on the issue of Palestine was the “canary in the coal mine” for free speech.

“Speaking out against what the Trump administration is doing does not give them the right to disappear our people … We need to fight as hard as we can for Mahmoud because of what this portends,” she said.

Sam Levine contributed reporting

An Israeli hostage freed by Hamas last month has described the distressing conditions and abuse he says he endured during 505 days held in Gaza.

In an interview on Israeli television, Omer Wenkert, 23, said he had hidden in a bomb shelter with a close friend when it became clear the Nova music festival was under attack by Hamas and other militants from Gaza on 7 October 2023.

“You say ‘Well … this is probably the end,’ and then one of them … started shooting us. It started to get hot and smoke came into the shelter, and then someone shouted from the entrance: ‘Listen, they’re burning us.’ … There was silence in the shelter,” Wenkert told Channel 12.

“I was very busy the whole time … It’s terrible to say that, busy taking people’s bodies and putting them on my head to protect my head if they come to shoot us again, if a grenade comes.”

Wenkert survived but was forced into a pickup truck, driven into Gaza and hidden underground in a tunnel. His friend Kim Damti, a 22-year-old Irish-Israeli, was killed in or around the shelter.

In remarks widely reported in Israel, Wenkert said that he was held in a very small cell for much of his time in captivity, usually in complete darkness. The former restaurant manager described being punched, beaten with an iron bar, spat on and forced to do physical exercises.

Mistreatment by his captors was often sparked by events during the war, Wenkert said.

“Every hostage deal that falls through … it brings up a lot of frustration and rage and anger in them … That’s just one of the reasons [for the abuse], also some days when their father is killed, their families, their elders are killed. You feel it. You know exactly what’s happening,” Wenkert said.

At night, there was “complete darkness, silence; absolute fear”, Wenkert said, saying he spoke to himself out loud for two hours a day in order to “stay sane”.

About 1,200 people, mostly civilians, were killed in the surprise Hamas raid into Israel and 251 taken hostage. In the ensuring Israeli offensive, more than 48,000 Palestinians in Gaza have been killed, also mostly civilians, and much of the territory devastated.

After a short-lived truce in November 2023, multiple efforts to secure a further pause in hostilities have failed.

There was no independent confirmation of Wenkert’s statements, but they match those of many other accounts.

Since a ceasefire deal came into effect in mid-January, 25 living Israeli hostages have been freed by Hamas and the remains of eight returned. Israel has freed 1,900 Palestinian prisoners and detainees and withdrawn from many of its positions in Gaza.

Accounts of mistreatment and the poor physical condition of some released hostages have increased pressure on the government of Benjamin Netanyahu to agree a deal to secure the release of the 59 still held, of whom two-thirds are thought to be dead.

The first phase of the ceasefire ended almost 10 days ago, but so far both Israel and Hamas have maintained a fragile de facto truce. There are currently daily Israeli airstrikes in Gaza, which have killed dozens. Israeli military officials say they are targeting militants who threaten their forces.

Indirect talks are under way in Qatar but the demands of Israel and Hamas are proving difficult to reconcile. Israel has proposed an extension to the first phase of the ceasefire for up to 60 days along with further hostage and prisoner releases. Hamas want a definitive end to the war and a full Israeli withdrawal from Gaza.

Islamophobic incidents – including physical attacks, verbal harassment, people being spat on and rape threats – have more than doubled in the past two years, with girls and women bearing the brunt of hatred towards Muslims in Australia, new research shows.

The fifth Islamophobia in Australia report details 309 in-person incidents between January 2023 and December 2024 – a more than 2.5-fold increase from the previous reporting period. Verified online incidents more than tripled to 366.

Girls and women accounted for three quarters of all incidents and were a third more likely to be physically attacked than boys and men.

• Sign up for Guardian Australia’s breaking news email

“It’s really become a gendered Islamophobia,” said Dr Nora Amath, the executive director of the Islamophobia Register. “The majority of victims are Muslim women and the majority of perpetrators are male. It’s very obvious and really concerning.”

The research by the Islamophobia Register and Deakin and Monash universities, released on Thursday, represented the largest rise in Islamophobic incidents since the report began as a Facebook post in 2014. It’s released every two years.

Children were present in a number of cases and were witness to their mothers being “choked, bashed, punched or called some awful names”, Amath said.

One mother was allegedly set upon while sitting at a food court in a shopping centre with her five children, the report states.

“An unknown lady yelled out ‘fuck Muslims’ and punched me in the head, knocking me out in front of my kids. I was admitted to hospital where a CT scan showed my nose was broken,” she told researchers.

“Me and my kids are seeing a psychologist for the trauma. We don’t leave the house unless it’s necessary as we have a fear that it will happen again.”

Another woman recounted: “When walking to get into train station, a man said to me, ‘I’ll rip that scarf off your head and smash your head and rape you’.”

In one incident, a man entered a mosque and desecrated it with faeces, the report states.

Almost half of the in-person incidents were in New South Wales, home to Australia’s largest Muslim population.

More than a quarter took place on streets or while parking or driving, while the second most common setting was workplaces, alongside schools, shopping centres, universities and public transport.

Women reported more than three times the number of Islamophobic incidents at workplaces than men – a finding the authors said was “even more significant” given Muslim women were under-employed compared to Muslim men in Australia.

School was the only location where more cases were reported against Muslim boys than girls, with boys making up 63% of incidents in schools, according to the report.

There was a spike in incidents in the three weeks after the Hamas attacks on Israel on 7 October 2023 and during the subsequent war in Gaza. There was a 1,300% increase in reports to the register during that period compared to the same time the previous year, the report states.

The register defines Islamophobia as targeting Muslims and perceived Muslims. A number of the victims were not Muslim, Amath said.

She said much of the abuse was “dehumanising” and more research was needed on the long-term impact of Islamophobia, but data suggested victims suffered from trauma, anxiety, self-exclusion and fear of being in public.

“People are scared. For Muslim women, the most dangerous space to her is the public space,” Amath said.

“The impact is that women are then afraid to leave their homes, some quit their jobs and are in debt because they can’t work. For those in workplaces, it means they can’t bring their whole self to work, they can’t be seen to be in solidarity with Palestine.”

The report’s authors believe the figures were an underestimation of the true extent of Islamophobia in Australia because of under-reporting.

There has also been a steep rise in the number of antisemitic incidents in Australia during the ongoing wars in the Middle East.

In its 2024 report, the Executive Council of Australian Jewry detailed 2,062 incidents of antisemitism, including physical attacks, such as rock throwing, vandalism of synagogues, Hitler salutes, and abusive graffiti and chants.

Marriage triples the risk of obesity for men, but does not affect women, according to research.

Global obesity rates have more than doubled since 1990, with more than 2.5 billion adults and children classed as being overweight or obese. Worldwide, more than half of adults and a third of children are predicted to be overweight or obese by 2050.

While poor diet, inactivity, genetics, environmental toxins and underlying health conditions are known to increase the risk, scientists at the National Institute of Cardiology in Warsaw, Poland, wanted to study whether other factors were also relevant.

The researchers examined the medical and general health data of 2,405 people with an average age of 50. Statistical analysis was used to ascertain links between increased body weight and age, marital status, mental health and other factors.

The study, presented at this year’s European Congress on Obesity in Málaga, Spain, found that married men were 3.2 times more likely to be obese than unmarried men, but there was no increase in obesity risk for married women. Marriage also increased the odds of being overweight by 62% in men and 39% in women.

The findings came after a study conducted in China in 2024 found that male BMI increases for the first five years after marriage, owing to higher calorie intake and less exercise. It found being married was associated with a 5.2% increase in men being overweight and a 2.5% rise in men being obese.

An earlier study by the University of Bath found that, on average, married men were 1.4kg heavier than their unmarried counterparts.

The Warsaw research found age was also a factor in weight gain, with each year of increased age increasing the risk of being overweight by 3% in men and 4% in women, and the risk of obesity by 4% in men and 6% in women.

Some factors appeared to affect the odds of obesity only in women, the scientists said. Being depressed doubled the risk of women being obese and inadequate health literacy increased it by 43%, while obesity was more common among women living in smaller communities. None of these factors increased men’s risk.

Katharine Jenner, the director of the Obesity Health Alliance, said: “This study is yet another reminder that excess weight is driven by a complex mix of social, psychological and wider environmental factors – not simply personal choice. With each passing year, the risk of living with overweight or obesity increases, particularly for women. Meanwhile, the link between marriage and obesity in men highlights how lifestyle changes, habits, and societal expectations shape our health.

“The research also suggests that men may be more likely to gain weight after marriage due to factors like increased portion sizes, social eating, and a decline in physical activity, whereas women perhaps remain more conscious of body weight due to societal pressures.

“Instead of blaming individuals, we need policies that make healthy choices the easy choices – through better food environments, education, and support at every stage of life.”

Joanna Syrda, a lecturer in business economics at the University of Bath, said the Warsaw study “confirms what I found in 2017: male BMI increases after marriage and decreases just before and after divorce. The main possible reasons are that single men looking for a partner have higher incentives and exert more effort to stay fit than those who are already or still married. And second, those in relationships may eat more regular meals and/or richer foods due to social obligations, which may arise because of marriage.”

Jim Pollard, a consultant at the Men’s Health Forum, cautioned against over-interpreting the results. He said increased BMI in marriage could be a result of stressful careers with long hours and unhealthy meals.

“Men are more likely to die prematurely of heart disease and cancer, and weight is a key factor in these conditions. We need a more targeted approach to tackling men’s and women’s obesity. The government has promised both a men’s health strategy and a women’s health strategy – this research shows how important it is to get them right.”