The UK supreme court has issued a historic and definitive ruling that the terms “woman” and “sex” in the Equality Act refer only to a biological woman and to biological sex.

In a decision that delighted gender-critical activists, five judges ruled unanimously that the legal definition of a woman in the Equality Act 2010 did not include transgender women who hold gender recognition certificates (GRCs).

The judgment could have far-reaching ramifications and lead to greater restrictions on the access for trans women to services and spaces reserved for women. It prompted calls for the UK’s laws on gender recognition to be rewritten.

The UK government said the ruling brought “clarity and confidence” for women and those who run hospitals, sports clubs and women’s refuges.

A spokesperson said: “We have always supported the protection of single-sex spaces based on biological sex. Single-sex spaces are protected in law and will always be protected by this government.”

The case was brought to the supreme court by the gender-critical campaign group For Women Scotland, which is backed financially by JK Rowling, after two Scottish courts rejected its arguments that the Equality Act’s definition of a woman was limited to people born biologically female.

Lord Hodge, the deputy president of the court, said the Equality Act was very clear that its provisions dealt with biological sex at birth, and not with a person’s acquired gender, regardless of whether they held a gender recognition certificate.

That affected policymaking on gender in sports and the armed services, hospitals, as well as women-only charities, and access to changing rooms and women-only spaces, he said. However, trans women still have equal pay rights as women, and could have the right to be treated as women in some situations.

In its 88-page judgment, the court said that while the word “biological” did not appear in the definition of man or woman in the Equality Act, “the ordinary meaning of those plain and unambiguous words corresponds with the biological characteristics that make an individual a man or a woman”.

If “sex” did not only mean biological sex in the 2010 legislation, providers of single-sex spaces including changing rooms, homeless hostels and medical services would face “practical difficulties”, it said.

The justices added: “Read fairly and in context, the provisions relating to single-sex services can only be interpreted by reference to biological sex.”

The ruling represents a significant defeat for the Scottish government. For Women Scotland had initially challenged legislation that allowed trans women with a GRC to sit on public boards in posts reserved for women.

Scotland’s first minister, John Swinney, said his government accepted the court’s judgment. He said it clarified the limits of the Gender Recognition Act 2004, which introduced gender recognition certificates for trans people.

“We will now engage on the implications of the ruling,” he said. “Protecting the rights of all will underpin our actions.”

The Scottish government defended its actions in the case, which it said were always guided by the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s advice. It said it would now engage with UK ministers and with the EHRC to look at the ruling’s implications, since the legislation involved was passed by Westminster.

Trans rights campaigners urged trans people and their supporters to remain calm about the decision.

The campaign group Scottish Trans said: “We are really shocked by today’s supreme court decision, which reverses 20 years of understanding of how the law recognises trans men and women with gender recognition certificates.

“We will continue working for a world in which trans people can get on with their lives with privacy, dignity and safety. That is something we all deserve.”

Sacha Deshmukh, the chief executive of the human rights group Amnesty International UK, which joined with the Scottish government in the supreme court case, said the decision was “clearly disappointing”.

“There are potentially concerning consequences for trans people, but it is important to stress that the court has been clear that trans people are protected under the Equality Act against discrimination and harassment,” he said.

“The ruling does not change the protection trans people are afforded under the protected characteristic of ‘gender reassignment’, as well as other provisions under the Equality Act.”

Susan Smith, a co-founder of For Women Scotland, said the legal action had been “a really, really long road”. “Today the judges have said what we always believed to be the case, that women are protected by their biological sex,” she said.

“Sex is real and women can now feel safe that services and spaces designated for women are for women and we are enormously grateful to the supreme court for this ruling.”

In a social media post, JK Rowling said: “It took three extraordinary, tenacious Scottish women with an army behind them to get this case heard by the supreme court,” adding: “I’m so proud to know you.”

Hodge, the deputy president of the court, said it believed the position taken by the Scottish government and the EHRC that people with gender recognition certificates did qualify as women, while those without did not, created “two sub-groups”.

This would confuse any organisations they were involved with. A public body could not know whether a trans woman did or did not have that certificate because the information was private and confidential.

And allowing trans women the same legal status as biological women could also affect spaces and services designed specifically for lesbians, who had also suffered historical discrimination and abuse.

Kishwer Falkner, the chair of the EHRC, said it was pleased the ruling had dealt with its concerns about the lack of clarity around single-sex and lesbian-only spaces, but would need time to fully understand its implications.

“We are pleased that this judgment addresses several of the difficulties we highlighted in our submission to the court, including the challenges faced by those seeking to maintain single-sex spaces, and the rights of same-sex attracted persons to form associations.”

For all the negative stereotypes, many politicians are thoughtful, diligent and caring. But they are also human, and it is their more self-serving instincts that may have caused some to breathe a sigh of relief at the supreme court ruling on gender recognition.

After a challenge by the gender-critical group For Women Scotland – which started out as a dispute over Scottish government legislation about female representation on public boards – judges ruled that the terms “woman” and “sex” in the Equality Act refer to biological women and biological sex.

The verdict will be heavily contested, and could bring serious and perhaps unforeseen repercussions for transgender women. But such an unexpectedly definitive view allows leaders in Scotland and Westminster to (and there is no gentle way of putting this) dodge responsibility over one of the most contentious and toxic debates of our age.

The Scottish government’s response was particularly eloquent. While stressing that no one should see the ruling as cause to triumph, it otherwise talked blandly about “engaging with the UK government to understand the full implication of this ruling”.

There is logic to this. The Equality Act and the Gender Recognition Act, the legislative focus of the deliberations, are both UK-wide and thus not something the Holyrood administration can decide unilaterally.

But beneath this reassuring constitutional hum lurks the sound of quiet footsteps, as the SNP’s first minister, John Swinney, shuffles his party away from an era when Nicola Sturgeon’s government was very proudly at the vanguard of transgender rights.

It was little more than two years ago that Sturgeon’s government was openly seeking a battle with Westminster over a plan to make it easier for transgender people in Scotland to get gender recognition certificates – a move blocked by Rishi Sunak.

We are in a very different political climate now, and not just with the open prejudice of the Donald Trump administration, which is purging transgender people from the military on the stated basis that their very identity makes them unfit to serve.

Scotland’s government has been on the receiving end of pushback from other controversies, for example the decision to send Isla Bryson, a transgender woman convicted of double rape, to a women’s prison. To again frame it in slightly unpalatable political terms, this is no longer seen as a vote-winner for the SNP.

For Keir Starmer and the Westminster administration, there had been an unspoken worry about a fudged or unclear court ruling, one that placed the impetus on politicians to decide.

Instead, as a UK government spokesperson said, it gave “clarity and confidence”, both for women and for those who run single-sex spaces. Clarity and confidence, perhaps. Political cover? Most definitely.

Starmer has spent his five years as Labour leader having TV and radio interviewers intermittently asking him to declare, yes or no, whether a woman can have a penis. Starmer’s standard dual response – under the law, a tiny number of trans people are recognised as women but might not have completed gender reassignment surgery – prompted an inevitable and arguably damaging wave of attacks from political opponents.

Kemi Badenoch has been particularly relentless in this, despite having served as equalities minister in a government that did not amend or clarify the Equality Act to reflect her view that, as she put it in a celebratory tweet on Wednesday, “saying ‘trans women are women’ was never true in fact”.

This was not just a Conservative obsession. Starmer faced criticism from some inside Labour – notably from the now independent MP for Canterbury, Rosie Duffield – for, as they saw it, failing to stand up for women. Others condemned him in the belief he was edging away from trans rights.

From a nakedly political-management perspective, the supreme court decision was ideal, making the decision judicial rather than political. No 10 officials believe there will be no need to tweak the Equality Act, leaving their role as little more than a neutral voice in helping organisations adjust to the new reality.

Starmer’s aides deny he has been on a political journey from a few years ago, when as a Labour leadership candidate he signed up to a pledge from the LGBT Labour group “that trans women are women, that trans men are men” – or 18 months later when he criticised Duffield for saying only women could have a cervix.

This is perhaps disingenuous. But in a debate where niceties and nuance are so often trampled on, the prime minister is very much not the first politician to try to fudge things.

The UK supreme court has ruled on how a woman is defined in the Equality Act, deciding unanimously that this does not include transgender women who hold gender recognition certificates (GRCs). The judgment could significantly affect how associated rules and restrictions are applied in Scotland, England and Wales.

For all the negative stereotypes, many politicians are thoughtful, diligent and caring. But they are also human, and it is their more self-serving instincts that may have caused some to breathe a sigh of relief at the supreme court ruling on gender recognition.

After a challenge by the gender-critical group For Women Scotland – which started out as a dispute over Scottish government legislation about female representation on public boards – judges ruled that the terms “woman” and “sex” in the Equality Act refer to biological women and biological sex.

The verdict will be heavily contested, and could bring serious and perhaps unforeseen repercussions for transgender women. But such an unexpectedly definitive view allows leaders in Scotland and Westminster to (and there is no gentle way of putting this) dodge responsibility over one of the most contentious and toxic debates of our age.

The Scottish government’s response was particularly eloquent. While stressing that no one should see the ruling as cause to triumph, it otherwise talked blandly about “engaging with the UK government to understand the full implication of this ruling”.

There is logic to this. The Equality Act and the Gender Recognition Act, the legislative focus of the deliberations, are both UK-wide and thus not something the Holyrood administration can decide unilaterally.

But beneath this reassuring constitutional hum lurks the sound of quiet footsteps, as the SNP’s first minister, John Swinney, shuffles his party away from an era when Nicola Sturgeon’s government was very proudly at the vanguard of transgender rights.

It was little more than two years ago that Sturgeon’s government was openly seeking a battle with Westminster over a plan to make it easier for transgender people in Scotland to get gender recognition certificates – a move blocked by Rishi Sunak.

We are in a very different political climate now, and not just with the open prejudice of the Donald Trump administration, which is purging transgender people from the military on the stated basis that their very identity makes them unfit to serve.

Scotland’s government has been on the receiving end of pushback from other controversies, for example the decision to send Isla Bryson, a transgender woman convicted of double rape, to a women’s prison. To again frame it in slightly unpalatable political terms, this is no longer seen as a vote-winner for the SNP.

For Keir Starmer and the Westminster administration, there had been an unspoken worry about a fudged or unclear court ruling, one that placed the impetus on politicians to decide.

Instead, as a UK government spokesperson said, it gave “clarity and confidence”, both for women and for those who run single-sex spaces. Clarity and confidence, perhaps. Political cover? Most definitely.

Starmer has spent his five years as Labour leader having TV and radio interviewers intermittently asking him to declare, yes or no, whether a woman can have a penis. Starmer’s standard dual response – under the law, a tiny number of trans people are recognised as women but might not have completed gender reassignment surgery – prompted an inevitable and arguably damaging wave of attacks from political opponents.

Kemi Badenoch has been particularly relentless in this, despite having served as equalities minister in a government that did not amend or clarify the Equality Act to reflect her view that, as she put it in a celebratory tweet on Wednesday, “saying ‘trans women are women’ was never true in fact”.

This was not just a Conservative obsession. Starmer faced criticism from some inside Labour – notably from the now independent MP for Canterbury, Rosie Duffield – for, as they saw it, failing to stand up for women. Others condemned him in the belief he was edging away from trans rights.

From a nakedly political-management perspective, the supreme court decision was ideal, making the decision judicial rather than political. No 10 officials believe there will be no need to tweak the Equality Act, leaving their role as little more than a neutral voice in helping organisations adjust to the new reality.

Starmer’s aides deny he has been on a political journey from a few years ago, when as a Labour leadership candidate he signed up to a pledge from the LGBT Labour group “that trans women are women, that trans men are men” – or 18 months later when he criticised Duffield for saying only women could have a cervix.

This is perhaps disingenuous. But in a debate where niceties and nuance are so often trampled on, the prime minister is very much not the first politician to try to fudge things.

The UK supreme court has ruled on how a woman is defined in the Equality Act, deciding unanimously that this does not include transgender women who hold gender recognition certificates (GRCs). The judgment could significantly affect how associated rules and restrictions are applied in Scotland, England and Wales.

UK officials are tightening security when handling sensitive trade documents to prevent them from falling into US hands amid Donald Trump’s tariff war, the Guardian can reveal.

In an indication of the strains on the “special relationship”, British civil servants have changed document-handling guidance, adding higher classifications to some trade negotiation documents in order to better shield them from American eyes, sources told the Guardian.

The White House has upended global financial markets and torn up key relationships, with unpredictable and rapidly changing taxes on trading partners including China, the EU and the UK.

Officials were told that the change in protocols was specifically related to tensions over important issues on trade and foreign policy between Washington and London, sources said.

Keir Starmer has prioritised striking a trade deal with Washington, opting not to retaliate over Trump’s decision to impose 10% tariffs on goods exported to the US, and 25% tariffs on UK car and steel exports, instead offering concessions on areas including digital taxes and agriculture.

JD Vance said on Tuesday he believed a mutually beneficial US-UK trade deal was within reach. The US vice-president said officials were “certainly working very hard with Keir Starmer’s government” on a trade deal, adding that it was an “important relationship”.

“There’s a real cultural affinity,” Vance said. “And, of course, fundamentally, America is an anglo country. I think there’s a good chance that, yes, we’ll come to a great agreement that’s in the best interest of both countries.”

However, behind the scenes concern is growing over the vulnerability of UK industries and companies to Trump’s “America first” agenda.

Before Trump’s inauguration, UK trade documents related to US talks were generally marked “Official – sensitive (UK eyes only)”, according to examples seen by the Guardian, and officials were allowed to share these on internal email chains. This classification stood while British officials attempted to negotiate with Joe Biden’s administration, even after a full-blown trade deal was ruled out by the White House.

Now, a far greater proportion of documents and correspondence detailing the negotiating positions being discussed by officials from No 10, the Foreign Office and the Department for Business and Trade come with additional handling instructions to avoid US interception, with some classified as “secret” and “top secret”, sources said. These classifications also carry different guidance on how documents may be shared digitally, in order to avoid interception.

Companies with commercial interests in the UK have also been told to take additional precautions in how they share information with the trade department and No 10, senior business sources said. These include large pharmaceutical companies with operations in the UK and EU.

A Department for Business and Trade spokesperson said: “The US is an indispensable ally and negotiations on an economic prosperity deal that strengthens our existing trading relationship continue.”

Wider questions have been asked about whether the special relationship between the UK and US can withstand increasingly divergent policies on Russian hostility, as well as deep criticisms of Nato and defence collaboration. On trade, pressures are mounting in sensitive areas such as car manufacturing and pharmaceuticals.

Other reports suggest the European Commission has also changed its perspective on the risks of sensitive or secret information being intercepted by the US. Commission employees have been issued with burner phones if they are visiting the US, the Financial Times has reported.

So close has the UK and US position been on defence and security in recent years that secure government material is sometimes marked “UK/US only”, or given a “Five Eyes” marking, in reference to the intelligence-sharing collective made up of the US, UK, Australia, New Zealand and Canada. So far, the Guardian has only established a change in document-handling related to trade discussions.

Trump’s plan to reboot domestic industry, including in automotive and pharmaceutical manufacturing, has caused consternation among foreign governments keen to protect domestic industries and jobs while trying to strike trade deals to protect against heavy tariffs.

Trump has sought to defend his decision to put vast tariffs in place, saying there would be a “transition cost” from his policies.

The US president also said he would “love” to make a deal with China and that, in his view, he and the Chinese president, Xi Jinping, would “end up working out something that’s very good for both countries”.

In a move regarded by some observers as an attempt to soothe market reactions, including a rise in US government borrowing costs, Trump said last week that he would delay further tariffs for 90 days. The European Commission president, Ursula von der Leyen, said the EU would also delay its response to US tariffs.

Until July, the EU will face a 10% duty on exports to the US, rather than the 20% “reciprocal tariff” rate that was in force for a matter of hours, until Trump’s reversal last Wednesday. US duties of 25% tariffs on steel, aluminium and cars are still in place, however.

Despite suggestions that Trump may be chastened by the markets’ volatile response to his trade policies, the president’s incremental steps have increased duties on Chinese imports to 145%. China responded on Friday by announcing it would increase tariffs on US goods to 125%. The announcement from the Chinese commerce ministry also suggested that it would not pursue higher tariffs in any further retaliatory steps against the US, adding that “at the current tariff level, there is no market acceptance for US goods exported to China”.

“If the US continues to impose tariffs on Chinese goods exported to the US, China will ignore it,” it said, flagging that there were other countermeasures to come. Xi, meanwhile, urged the EU to resist Trump’s “bullying”.

The UK Foreign Office has confirmed that the foreign secretary, David Lammy, met his Israeli counterpart, Gideon Sa’ar, while Sa’ar was on an unannounced visit to London.

The Foreign Office described Sa’ar’s visit as “private”, though it said Lammy had discussed a full range of Middle East issues with the Israeli foreign minister. News of Sa’ar’s presence in the UK – at a time when Israel is intensifying its offensive in Gaza, having ended a ceasefire last month – has triggered outrage among critics of Israel, and a formal request from activists for an arrest warrant to be issued against him on charges of alleged complicity in war crimes.

The Global Legal Action Network (Glan), a London-based group seeking legal redress for disadvantaged and persecuted communities, and the Brussels-based Hind Rajab Foundation (HRF), which focuses on legal accountability for Israeli war crimes, wrote joint letters on Wednesday to the UK’s attorney general and the director of public prosecutions to seek their consent for a private prosecution against Sa’ar in the UK.

They also said an application for an arrest warrant had been prepared for Westminster magistrates court.

Glan and the HRF cited Sa’ar’s position in the Israeli security cabinet and his public statements on Gaza as grounds for alleging the foreign minister’s complicity in war crimes carried out by Israeli forces.

Sa’ar’s visit to London was not publicised by him or his ministry, and the Israeli embassy did not reply to a request for comment on Wednesday afternoon. The Israeli government has denied committing war crimes, and has rejected the jurisdiction of the international criminal court (ICC) and the international court of justice (ICJ).

The HRF has been particularly criticised in Israel for its legal pursuit of Israeli soldiers when they travel abroad. The organisation’s founders, Dyab Abou Jahjah and Karim Hassoun, have been accused of expressing public support for Hezbollah and Hamas.

A spokesperson for the HRF said: “Since our formation, there has been a baseless campaign to smear our founders, led mostly by the Israeli government. Dyab Abou Jahjah is not, nor has he ever been, a member of Hezbollah. Karim Hassoun is originally from Morocco. While both support and respect the rights of all people to resist occupation – as is their human right under international law – neither adhere to any political party in Lebanon.”

The UK Foreign Office confirmed that Lammy met Sa’ar on Tuesday to discuss Gaza and other pressing Middle East issues, during what it described as the latter’s “private visit to the UK”.

Sa’ar was spotted by an Israeli journalist leaving Israel for the UK on Monday. His meeting with Lammy was first reported by the UK-based news website Middle East Eye, and Ynet in Israel.

Zarah Sultana, the independent MP for Coventry South, said Sa’ar’s visit was “a direct affront to both international law and the Palestinian people enduring genocide, military occupation and apartheid under his government”.

“Sa’ar has openly justified the denial of life-saving aid to a besieged civilian population,” Sultana said. “That is why I fully support the initiative by humanitarian law groups to demand an arrest warrant. The UK must stand firmly with international law and ensure all those responsible for war crimes and crimes against humanity are held accountable, no matter how powerful they are.”

In the submissions presented on Wednesday, Glan and the HRF said the ICC had issued arrest warrants for the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, and the former defence minister Yoav Gallant for their involvement in the military campaign in Gaza, in which an estimated 51,000 people have been killed over 18 months, and in the restriction of humanitarian aid supplies to Gaza’s population of 2.2 million.

On Wednesday, the ICC called on the Hungarian government of Viktor Orbán to formally explain its actions earlier this month, when it hosted Netanyahu in Budapest, ignoring the arrest warrant. During Netanyahu’s visit, Hungary announced it was leaving the ICC, though under the court’s founding Rome statute, it takes a year for withdrawal to take effect.

The ICJ is also reviewing an allegation of genocide, first brought by South Africa, directed at Israel’s war in Gaza. The ICJ issued provisional orders last year calling for Netanyahu’s government to halt its offensive and urgently address the humanitarian situation. In March, the Netanyahu government ended a ceasefire agreement and intensified its military operations and aid blockage of Gaza.

Glan and the HRF said in a joint press statement: “As a senior member of Israel’s security cabinet alongside Benjamin Netanyahu – wanted by the international criminal court for war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza – Gideon Sa’ar is deeply implicated in the collective decisions that led to mass civilian death and suffering following October 7, 2023.

“His central role in shaping and defending the government’s military policy makes him a key figure in the leadership responsible for a campaign the ICJ has found plausibly genocidal.”

The UK Foreign Office passed on a question about the arrest warrant request to the attorney general’s office. It said that in Lammy’s meeting with Sa’ar on Tuesday, the British foreign secretary “raised the ongoing hostage negotiations, protection of aid workers, the need to end the humanitarian blockade of Gaza and stop settlement expansion in the West Bank, and the Iranian nuclear issue”.

Lammy also “raised the importance” of visits by UK members of parliament to Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories, after two Labour MPs were denied entry by Israeli authorities.

In their submission, Glan and the HRF said Sa’ar had been a member of Israel’s security cabinet and an informal consultative group around Netanyahu since he rejoined the governing coalition in September.

Among their list of alleged war crimes committed by the Israel Defense Forces in Gaza is the siege of the Kamal Adwan hospital in northern Gaza between October and December last year and the detention of its medical director, Dr Hossam Abu Safiya, who the organisations say has been subjected to torture while in Israeli prisons.

Israel, the complaint says, is responsible in general for the “wanton destruction” of Gaza’s infrastructure, aimed at “destroying the fabric of Gaza’s society and for the purpose of starving Gaza”. It also pointed to the harm caused to civilians by the Israeli blockade of medical supplies and basic provisions into Gaza.

As well as citing Sa’ar’s membership of the Israeli security cabinet, the groups’ submission in support of the arrest warrant request quotes Sa’ar’s public statements on seizing territory in Gaza and cutting off humanitarian aid. They also argued that he did not have immunity from arrest on the basis of his government position.

The Israeli government and Sa’ar himself have previously denounced attempts to pursue prosecutions against Israel in international courts as antisemitic. In January, Sa’ar said: “What we are witnessing is a systematic and antisemitic campaign aimed at denying Israel’s right to self-defence.”

“Countless international actors and many countries are complicit in this,” he added.

Members of the Board of Deputies, the largest body representing British Jews, have said they can no longer “turn a blind eye or remain silent” over the war in Gaza.

In a significant break with the board’s customary support for the Israeli government, the 36 signatories to an open letter published in the FT say “Israel’s soul is being ripped out”.

Since the war began after the terrorist atrocities committed by Hamas against Israelis on 7 October 2023, statements by the Board of Deputies of British Jews have been broadly supportive of the Israeli government.

But the letter, signed by about one in eight of the board’s members, is highly critical of recent actions by the Israeli government.

It says: “The inclination to avert our eyes is strong, as what is happening is unbearable, but our Jewish values compel us to stand up and to speak out.”

Last month, after a pause in fighting during which dozens of Israelis held hostage in Gaza were released, the Israeli government “chose to break the ceasefire and return to war in Gaza … Since then, no hostages have returned. Hundreds and hundreds more Palestinians have been killed; food, fuel and medical supplies have once again been blocked from entering Gaza; and we are back in a brutal war where the killing of 15 paramedics and their burial in a mass grave is again possible and risks being normal.

“Such incidents are too painful and shocking to take in, but we know in our hearts we cannot turn a blind eye or remain silent at this renewed loss of life and livelihoods, with hopes dwindling for a peaceful reconciliation and the return of the hostages.

“This most extremist of Israeli governments is openly encouraging violence against Palestinians in the West Bank, strangling the Palestinian economy and building more new settlements than ever … Israel’s soul is being ripped out and we, members of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, fear for the future of the Israel we love and have such close ties to.”

The letter adds: “Silence is seen as support for policies and actions that run contrary to our Jewish values. Led by the families of the hostages, hundreds of thousands of Israelis are demonstrating on the streets against the return to war by an Israeli government that has not prioritised the return of the hostages. We stand with them. We stand against the war … It is our duty, as Jews, to speak out.”

One of the signatories, Philip Goldenberg, a lawyer, said the Israeli government had “absolutely adopted the Trump playbook”, including demonising those who disagreed with it. “That is not what Israel is about,” he told the BBC’s The World at One.

There was a “whole range of views” among British Jews, “and there are those who think we should not have done this”, he said. There were others who shared the views expressed in the letter but “don’t want to put their heads above the parapet”.

What was happening in Gaza was “a total breach of Jewish ethical values”, he added. “More damage is being done to the Zionist project by Netanyahu than Hamas could ever achieve.”

A spokesperson for the Board of Deputies said other members would “no doubt put more emphasis on the fundamental responsibility of Hamas for this ghastly situation and the need to ensure that they are prevented from ever repeating the heinous crimes of 7 October”.

Within the diversity of views among British Jews, “however, there is much unity”, the spokesperson added. The UK Jewish community wanted to see Hamas release the remaining hostages, aid flowing in to Gaza and “definitive progress towards lasting peace and security for Israelis, Palestinians and the wider Middle East”.

Israel has said it will keep blocking humanitarian aid from entering Gaza, as it vowed to force Hamas into releasing the remaining hostages from the 7 October attacks.

Aid supplies including food, fuel, water and medicine have been blocked by Israel from entering Gaza since 2 March, more than two weeks before the collapse of the ceasefire between Israel and the Palestinian militant group with a return to air and ground attacks on the territory.

The medical charity Médecins Sans Frontières said on Wednesday that Gaza was becoming a “mass grave for Palestinians”.

The Israeli defence minister, Israel Katz, said: “Israel’s policy is clear: no humanitarian aid will enter Gaza, and blocking this aid is one of the main pressure levers preventing Hamas from using it as a tool with the population.”

He added: “No one is currently planning to allow any humanitarian aid into Gaza, and there are no preparations to enable such aid.”

Amnesty International is among the aid agencies that have described Israel’s blockade on all supplies going into Gaza as a crime against humanity and a violation of international humanitarian law. Israel has denied any violations.

More than 51,000 Palestinians have died in Gaza since the conflict began, including more than 1,600 since Israel resumed airstrikes and ground operations on 18 March. The Gaza health ministry does not distinguish between combatants and civilians but has said more than half of those dead were women and children.

Another 13 people were killed in airstrikes overnight, with a well-known photographer, Fatema Hassouna, among those reported dead in the northern area of the strip.

Doctors and aid groups on the ground said the humanitarian situation in Gaza was becoming graver by the day. “The situation is the worst it has been in 18 months in terms of being deprived of your basic necessities and the resumption of hostilities and attacks against Palestinians in all of Gaza,” said Mahmoud Shalabi, a director at Medical Aid for Palestinians.

Israel has been accused of worsening the humanitarian situation by targeting hospitals and medical personnel working in Gaza, with two hospitals struck and debilitated by airstrikes this week. Israel has claimed Hamas has used medical facilities as a cover for terrorist operations.

On Tuesday, a report by the New York Times revealed that the autopsy reports of 14 medics and rescue workers killed by Israeli troops in Gaza in March showed they had mainly died from gunshot wounds to the head and the chest, and most had been shot several times.

The resumption of aid into Gaza has become a highly inflammatory political issue in Israel. There are 58 hostages still in Gaza, who were taken captive after the Hamas attacks on southern Israel on 7 October 2023, with 24 believed to still be alive. Far-right figures in Benjamin Netanyahu’s government have said no aid should be restored to the civilians of Gaza until Hamas agrees to the hostages’ release.

“As long as our hostages are languishing in the tunnels, there is no reason for a single gram of food or any aid to enter Gaza,” the national security minister, Itamar Ben-Gvir, said on Wednesday.

Katz said Israel intended to eventually set up its own “civilian-based distribution infrastructure” for aid in Gaza, to prevent supplies falling into the hands of Hamas militants, but he gave no timelines or details of how it would be established.

Reports have suggested this could involve the Israel Defense Forces setting up and running logistics centres for aid, and vetted aid agencies being tasked with distributing it. However, the plan remains unclear and the UN is said to have so far refused to hand over the names of employees.

Efforts by mediators from Egypt, Qatar and the US to restore the collapsed ceasefire in Gaza and return the hostages have continued to hit stumbling blocks.

Katz said that no matter what deal was agreed, Israeli troops would remain in the buffer zones it had occupied in Gaza, as well as in neighbouring Syria and Lebanon.

Since resuming operations in March, Israeli troops have seized control of 30% of the Gaza Strip, establishing what they describe as an “operational security perimeter”. Hamas has demanded that any hostage deal must guarantee the withdrawal of Israeli troops from Gaza.

Katz said: “Unlike in the past, the [Israeli military] is not evacuating areas that have been cleared and seized.” The military would “remain in the security zones as a buffer between the enemy and [Israeli] communities in any temporary or permanent situation in Gaza, as in Lebanon and Syria”, he said.

A federal judge ruled on Wednesday that there was probable cause to hold Trump officials in criminal contempt for violating his temporary injunction that barred the use of the Alien Enemies Act wartime power to deport alleged Venezuelan gang members.

In a scathing 46-page opinion, James Boasberg, the chief US district judge for Washington, wrote that senior Trump officials could either return the people who were supposed to have been protected by his injunction, or face contempt proceedings.

The judge also warned that if the administration tried to stonewall his contempt proceedings or instructed the justice department to decline to file contempt charges against the most responsible officials, he would appoint an independent prosecutor himself.

“The court does not reach such conclusions lightly or hastily,” Boasberg wrote. “Indeed, it has given defendants ample opportunity to explain their actions. None of their responses have been satisfactory.”

The threat of contempt proceedings marked a major escalation in the showdown over Donald Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to deport alleged Venezuelan gang members, without normal due process, in his expansive interpretation of his executive power.

It came one day after another federal judge, in a separate case involving the wrongful deportation of a man to El Salvador, said she would force the administration to detail what steps it had taken to comply with a US supreme court order compelling his return.

In that case, US district judge Paula Xinis ordered the administration to answer questions in depositions and in writing about whether it had actually sought to “facilitate” the return of Kilmar Ábrego García, who was protected from being sent to El Salvador.

Taken together, the decisions represented a developing effort by the federal judiciary to hold the White House accountable for its apparent willingness to flout adverse court orders and test the limits of the legal system.

At issue in the case overseen by Boasberg is the Trump administration’s apparent violation of his temporary restraining order last month blocking deportations under the Alien Enemies Act – and crucially to recall planes that had already departed.

The administration never recalled the planes and argued, after the fact, that they did not follow Boasberg’s order to recall the planes because he gave that instruction verbally and it was not included in his later written order.

In subsequent hearings, lawyers for the Trump administration also suggested that even if Boasberg had included the directive in his written order, by the time he had granted the temporary restraining order, the deportation flights were outside US airspace and therefore beyond the judge’s jurisdiction.

Boasberg excoriated that excuse and others in his opinion, writing that under the so-called collateral-bar rule, if a party is charged with acting in contempt for disobeying a court order, it cannot raise the possible legal invalidity of the order as a defense.

“If Defendants believed – correctly or not – that the Order encroached upon the President’s Article II powers, they had two options: they could seek judicial review of the injunction but not disobey it, or they could disobey it but forfeit any right to raise their legal argument as a defense,” Boasberg wrote.

Boasberg also rejected the administration’s claim that his authority over the planes disappeared the moment they left US airspace, finding that federal courts regularly restrain executive branch conduct abroad, even when it touches on national security matters.

“That courts can enjoin US officials’ overseas conduct simply reflects the fact that an injunction … binds the enjoined parties wherever they might be; the ‘situs of the [violation], whether within or without the United States, is of no importance,’” Boasberg wrote.

Boasberg added he was unpersuaded by the Trump administration’s efforts to stonewall his attempts to date to establish whether it knew it had deliberately flouted his injunction, including by invoking the state secrets doctrine to withhold basic information about when and what times the planes departed.

“The Court is skeptical that such information rises to the level of a state secret. As noted, the Government has widely publicized details of the flights through social media and official announcements thereby revealing snippets of the information the Court seeks,” Boasberg wrote.

A federal judge ruled on Wednesday that there was probable cause to hold Trump officials in criminal contempt for violating his temporary injunction that barred the use of the Alien Enemies Act wartime power to deport alleged Venezuelan gang members.

In a scathing 46-page opinion, James Boasberg, the chief US district judge for Washington, wrote that senior Trump officials could either return the people who were supposed to have been protected by his injunction, or face contempt proceedings.

The judge also warned that if the administration tried to stonewall his contempt proceedings or instructed the justice department to decline to file contempt charges against the most responsible officials, he would appoint an independent prosecutor himself.

“The court does not reach such conclusions lightly or hastily,” Boasberg wrote. “Indeed, it has given defendants ample opportunity to explain their actions. None of their responses have been satisfactory.”

The threat of contempt proceedings marked a major escalation in the showdown over Donald Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to deport alleged Venezuelan gang members, without normal due process, in his expansive interpretation of his executive power.

It came one day after another federal judge, in a separate case involving the wrongful deportation of a man to El Salvador, said she would force the administration to detail what steps it had taken to comply with a US supreme court order compelling his return.

In that case, US district judge Paula Xinis ordered the administration to answer questions in depositions and in writing about whether it had actually sought to “facilitate” the return of Kilmar Ábrego García, who was protected from being sent to El Salvador.

Taken together, the decisions represented a developing effort by the federal judiciary to hold the White House accountable for its apparent willingness to flout adverse court orders and test the limits of the legal system.

At issue in the case overseen by Boasberg is the Trump administration’s apparent violation of his temporary restraining order last month blocking deportations under the Alien Enemies Act – and crucially to recall planes that had already departed.

The administration never recalled the planes and argued, after the fact, that they did not follow Boasberg’s order to recall the planes because he gave that instruction verbally and it was not included in his later written order.

In subsequent hearings, lawyers for the Trump administration also suggested that even if Boasberg had included the directive in his written order, by the time he had granted the temporary restraining order, the deportation flights were outside US airspace and therefore beyond the judge’s jurisdiction.

Boasberg excoriated that excuse and others in his opinion, writing that under the so-called collateral-bar rule, if a party is charged with acting in contempt for disobeying a court order, it cannot raise the possible legal invalidity of the order as a defense.

“If Defendants believed – correctly or not – that the Order encroached upon the President’s Article II powers, they had two options: they could seek judicial review of the injunction but not disobey it, or they could disobey it but forfeit any right to raise their legal argument as a defense,” Boasberg wrote.

Boasberg also rejected the administration’s claim that his authority over the planes disappeared the moment they left US airspace, finding that federal courts regularly restrain executive branch conduct abroad, even when it touches on national security matters.

“That courts can enjoin US officials’ overseas conduct simply reflects the fact that an injunction … binds the enjoined parties wherever they might be; the ‘situs of the [violation], whether within or without the United States, is of no importance,’” Boasberg wrote.

Boasberg added he was unpersuaded by the Trump administration’s efforts to stonewall his attempts to date to establish whether it knew it had deliberately flouted his injunction, including by invoking the state secrets doctrine to withhold basic information about when and what times the planes departed.

“The Court is skeptical that such information rises to the level of a state secret. As noted, the Government has widely publicized details of the flights through social media and official announcements thereby revealing snippets of the information the Court seeks,” Boasberg wrote.

The Labour chairs of the foreign and trade committees have called for parliament to have a vote on any UK trade deal with the United States.

Emily Thornberry, who chairs the foreign affairs committee, and Liam Byrne, who chairs the business and trade committee, said MPs should have a say on the deal ministers are hoping to strike with Donald Trump.

The government is hopeful of finalising an agreement that would exempt the UK from some of Trump’s most punishing tariffs, including on cars and pharmaceuticals, after positive signals from Washington.

Trump’s press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, on Wednesday said the US would be announcing its first deals “very soon” and the vice-president, JD Vance, said this week there was a “good chance” of the US agreeing one with the UK.

But ministers have offered controversial concessions, including slashing the digital services tax on US tech giants and reviewing the enforcement of online safety laws, as part of their negotiations.

Byrne said: “The new US-UK agreement may not be a full-blown free trade agreement, but it will still be a treaty of strategic consequence. Its provisions could touch sensitive areas of domestic policy – even legislation like the Online Safety Act.

“Some may see such a deal as a means for economic alignment; others may raise the spectre of economic coercion.

“In light of its significance, its controversy and its speed, it would be both reasonable and responsible for parliament to have its say. Our democratic institutions deserve no less.”

Thornberry said: “Since Brexit we have had responsibility for our own trade policy. Some trade deals can have a profound effect on Britain and yet parliament does not have the automatic right to vote on them. This is a huge hole in our democratic system and I have long campaigned to change this.”

The Liberal Democrats have also called for a vote and warned that avoiding one would be “deeply undemocratic”.

Ed Davey, the party’s leader, said: “Trump is an unreliable partner who breaks deals whenever he feels like it. He and his sidekick JD Vance must not be allowed to bully their way into a bad trade deal for the UK.”

In 2021, Labour called on the Conservative government to give MPs a vote on its proposed trade deal with Australia because of its implications for farmers and food standards. Ministers have insisted they are sticking by their manifesto commitment not to compromise food safety standards in their talks with the US.

There are fears that Washington could seek to exact further concessions from the UK, including by pressuring ministers to stop pursuing closer economic ties with China.

The Wall Street Journal reported that Trump’s administration planned to use ongoing tariff negotiations to pressure countries to limit their dealings with Beijing, and had already broached the subject in some of their talks. Trump told Fox News on Tuesday that “we don’t like the China influence”.

Besides the UK, the countries thought to be close to agreeing trade deals with the US are Australia, India, Japan and South Korea.

The Guardian reported that Jonathan Reynolds, the trade secretary, is due to travel to Beijing later this year to revive a trade dialogue that has not taken place since 2018. Douglas Alexander, a trade minister, is the latest government minister to have visited the country for talks last week.

The Lib Dems wrote to David Lammy, the foreign secretary, on Wednesday arguing that ministers should stop making official visits to China until its government explained why Lib Dem MP Wera Hobhouse was denied entry to Hong Kong last week.

The jail term given to a man who murdered his mother and two siblings as part of a plan to kill 30 children is to be reviewed after an intervention by an MP who claimed it was unduly lenient.

Nicholas Prosper, 19, was jailed for life last month with a minimum term of 49 years after he admitted murdering Juliana Falcon, 48, Kyle Prosper, 16, and Giselle Prosper, 13.

The murders were part of his wider plan to storm a morning assembly at his former primary school with a shotgun and “cause the biggest massacre of the 21st century”.

The attorney general’s office confirmed on Wednesday that the sentence had been referred to the court of appeal.

It comes after the Conservative shadow justice minister Kieran Mullan referred the sentence to the attorney general’s office under the unduly lenient sentence scheme on the day Prosper was jailed.

“It will be argued that Prosper ought to have been given a whole-life order,” a spokesperson for the attorney general said on Wednesday. “It is now for the court to decide whether to increase the sentence.”

Passing sentence last month, the high court judge Mrs Justice Cheema-Grubb told Luton crown court that she had met her duty to the public with the 49-year minimum term, rather than using “the sentence of last resort” and jailing him for the rest of his life.

Mullan welcomed the referral to the court of appeal, adding in a post on X: “These were the most heinous crimes deserving of the most severe penalty a court can give.”

Rules were changed in 2022 to allow defendants aged between 18 and 20 to receive whole-life orders in exceptional circumstances, but none of the orders imposed since then have been on criminals in that age bracket.

The court heard how Prosper had shot his family dead at their home in Luton after a violent struggle and how it was part of a wider plan to carry out a mass shooting at St Joseph’s Catholic primary school.

His plan was months in the making. Prosper surveilled St Joseph’s, taking images of staff and students from the school’s website and noting times of lessons and assembly.

The day before the murders, he bought a shotgun from an online seller for £650 after he “made a high-quality forgery of a shotgun certificate or licence”.

He had planned to murder his family while they slept on Friday 13 September, and then leave the home at about 8.30am to travel to St Joseph’s to carry out the attack. However, his plans were disrupted when his family realised that something was wrong. After they challenged him, there was a violent struggle.

Toby Carvery has been threatened with legal action by a council over the felling of an ancient oak in a park in north London.

The restaurant chain is facing national outrage after its decision to fell the up to 500-year-old tree without warning on 3 April.

On Wednesday, Enfield council, which had leased the land on which the tree stood for a Toby Carvery car park, escalated its dispute with the company by challenging its rationale for the felling and indicating it planned to sue.

It came after Mitchells & Butlers Retail (M&BR), which owns Toby Carvery, claimed the tree had to be taken down because it was “mostly dead and diseased” and posed a risk to the public.

The council leader, Ergin Erbil, said this was false. “We have evidence that this tree was alive and starting to grow new spring leaves when this action was taken. Our team of experts checked the tree in December 2024 and found it was healthy and posed no risk to the neighbouring car park and its users,” he said.

“As the tree shows clear signs of life, we will also do everything we can to help the tree regrow.”

The council had reported Toby Carvery to the Metropolitan police, but officers decided to take no further action as there was no preservation order on the tree. On Tuesday the police closed their investigation after deciding it was a civil matter.

Erbil said: “The police are treating it as a civil matter, but we will continue to take appropriate legal action.”

He added: “As the landowner, we believe this action has broken the terms of the lease which requires Toby Carvery to maintain and protect the existing landscape. The tree was the oldest one on site and cutting it down seems to be a clear breach of this condition.”

“We’re therefore seeking advice and will take appropriate legal action. If any criminal activity is found during our investigation, we will not hesitate to report this to the police again.”

Erbil said he was “outraged” that Toby Carvery had “cut down this beautiful ancient oak tree without seeking any permissions or advice from Enfield council”.

He said: “This tree would have been home to countless wildlife, fungi and pollinators. This tree is a part of our ecological and cultural heritage.”

The Woodland Trust said the oak in Whitewebbs Park was an important habitat, supporting hundreds of species including endangered deadwood beetles.

Ed Pyne, the Woodland Trust’s senior conservation adviser for trees, said: “This is the most shocking fell I think I’ve ever seen in more than a decade working with ancient trees. In my view, and the view of many others, this is ecologically much more significant than the Sycamore Gap – and certainly a more irreplaceable tree.

“Ancient oaks are particularly rich in biodiversity, with habitats that take centuries to develop. They simply can’t be replaced by younger trees and can’t be replaced quickly.”

He added: “Some of the biodiversity associated with ancient trees, like the Whitewebbs oak, is among the most threatened in Europe.”

Ed Allnut, an Enfield resident and the secretary of the Guardians of Whitewebbs group, said local people wanted justice for the old oak.

He said: “The tree belonged to Enfield and to our national heritage. I am personally devastated. We want answers, and we want guarantees the other trees here are being protected properly.”

M&BR has been approached for comment.

It is understood M&BR plans to conduct a review of the incident to determine whether felling the tree was right or wrong. Its chief executive, Phil Urban, also plans to respond to all those who have complained to him about the destruction of the tree.

A source close to the company says Urban will apologise for the distress caused but not the action taken.

Entire ecosystems have been “decimated” and endangered species put at risk after one of the worst wildfire seasons on record in the UK, charities have warned.

Vast areas of habitat for animals including butterflies, beetles and falcons have been damaged, and some peat bogs may take “hundreds of years” to recover following one of the driest Marches in decades combined with warmer than average temperatures in April.

Abergwesyn Common in Powys, Wales, was consumed by a 1,600-hectare (3,950-acre) fire, an area about 400 times larger than Cardiff’s Principality Stadium.

The common is a site of special scientific interest (SSSI), and a breeding habitat for the area’s last known population of golden plovers. National Trust rangers now fear this rare, protected moorland bird may have been lost to the area entirely.

Chris Smith, the National Trust’s countryside manager for Mid and South Wales, said: “The impacts on wildlife are widespread, with birds’ nests, insects, amphibians and reptiles all scorched by fire.

“Whole ecosystems have been decimated and will remain altered well into the future.

“Alongside this, the huge loss of surface vegetation leaves the peat bogs we have been working hard to restore … vulnerable to erosion and at further risk of fire and carbon loss.

“Where the flames burnt down to the peat soils, they will take hundreds of years to recover.”In 2024, South Wales fire and rescue service responded to 34 wildfire callouts between 1 January and 10 April. This year, it has faced 445 over the same period – a 1,200% increase.

In total, Wales’s three fire services have reported responding to more than 1,300 grass fires so far this year.

In Northern Ireland, recent fires on the Mourne Mountains have scorched land used by an array of wildlife including small heath butterflies, rove beetles, skylarks and peregrine falcons.

Small birds such as skylarks rely on insects and beetles for food, and in turn provide a food source for birds of prey.

In the Peak District, the National Trust said a recent fire on Howden Moor that stretched for 2km had caused £30,000-worth of damage, ruining years’ worth of conservation efforts.

The National Trust said it is adapting its landscapes by making big areas of land wetter and boggier, including by planting special mosses that hold water and by creating wetlands that, once established, act like natural fire breaks.

Ben McCarthy, its head of nature conservation, said the country needs “urgent government action” to help mitigate and adapt to grass fires and other climate risks.

WWF Cymru said the “devastating” wildfires were a “stark reminder that the climate and nature crisis is upon us”.

Earlier this month, the National Fire Chiefs Council warned it needed “long term and sustained investment” to cope with climate change and “increased demand” on its services.

At the time, it said there had been over 100 more wildfires this year than in the first three months of 2022.

Tens of thousands of Spotify users around the world reported being unable to stream music on the app, which was hit by several hours of technical problems on Wednesday.

Downdetector, which tracks platforms, showed more than 48,000 outage reports for Spotify worldwide on Wednesday afternoon.

In the UK, the number of people reporting that Spotify was not functioning peaked at about 1.30pm BST, after problems began 30 minutes earlier. By 3pm, the number had fallen to about 10,000.

Two hours later Spotify confirmed the service was up and running again. The streaming platform posted on X at 5.08pm: “All clear – thanks for your patience. Get in touch with @SpotifyCares if you still need help.”

Users had said they were able to play music they had downloaded on to their devices, but were unable to view artists or use the search function on the app. Others said the platform was slow or unresponsive.

After trying to search for music, Spotify appeared to time out, displaying the message “something went wrong” with a refresh button.

Many users expressed their frustration on social media, including that the outage had interrupted their gym sessions or study routines.

A spokesperson for the Sweden-based streaming platform said: “Spotify experienced an outage today beginning around 6:20am EDT. As of 11:45am EDT, Spotify is back up and functioning normally.”

Earlier, a spokesperson had said the company was “aware of the outage and working to resolve it as soon as possible”, adding: “The reports of this being a security hack are completely inaccurate.”

Spotify did not provide further information on what had caused the problem.

Spotify, which has more than 675 million users worldwide, told the BBC “the issue with search has been addressed” and it was rolling out an update to its users.