Maryland’s Democratic senator Chris Van Hollen says the government of El Salvador has denied his request to visit Kilmar Ábrego García, his constituent who was wrongly deported to the Central American country last month.

Van Hollen traveled to El Salvador on Wednesday with the intention of meeting Ábrego García at the Terrorism Confinement Center (Cecot), where US authorities have said that the Maryland resident is being held along with others deported at Donald Trump’s orders.

The senator’s visit came days after Trump and El Salvador’s president, Nayib Bukele, refused to take steps to return Ábrego García to the United States, even though the US supreme court last week said the administration must “facilitate” his return.

At a press conference in El Salvador, Van Hollen said that he had met with the country’s vice-president, Félix Ulloa, who told him it would not be possible for him to speak with Ábrego García in person or on the phone.

“I asked the vice-president if I could meet with Mr Ábrego García. And he said, well, you need to make earlier provisions to go visit Cecot,” Van Hollen said. “I said, I’m not interested at this moment in taking a tour of Cecot, I just want to meet with Mr Ábrego García. He said he was not able to make that happen.”

Van Hollen said he offered to come back next week to meet with Ábrego García, but Ulloa “said he couldn’t promise that either”. The vice-president also said he could not arrange for Ábrego García’s family to speak to him by phone. When the senator asked if he could do so, Ulloa told him that the US embassy must make that request, Van Hollen said.

“We have an unjust situation here. The Trump administration is lying about Ábrego García,” said Van Hollen, who said his constituent had been wrongly named as a member of the MS-13 criminal gang. The Trump administration has admitted that an “administrative error” led to the deportation of Ábrego García to his native country, despite an immigration judge granting him protected status in 2019.

Van Hollen said that he had asked Ulloa if he would consider releasing Ábrego García, to which the vice-president replied by reiterating Bukele’s comments from earlier this week that he would not “smuggle” the deportee back into the United States.

The senator’s visit came as Democrats have seized on the deportation and the Trump administration’s refusal to take any steps to return him, in apparent defiance of the supreme court, to argue that the president is plunging the United States into a constitutional crisis by defying the courts.

The White House has attacked Van Hollen for his visit to the country, releasing a statement on Wednesday that touted the arrests of suspected undocumented immigrant criminals and saying: “Where was his concern for Maryland constituents put at risk by the many other illegal immigrants allowed to roam free until now?”

In an appearance on Fox News, Trump’s border czar, Tom Homan, said: “Rather than taking care of the constituents in his state, the victims of illegal crime in his state, he’s going to run to El Salvador to protect an MS-13 terrorist. It’s just disgusting.”

Several other Democratic lawmakers have signaled that they would like to visit El Salvador to check on Ábrego García, including Adriano Espaillat, chair of the Congressional Hispanic caucus, and Robert Garcia and Maxwell Alejandro Frost, both members of the House oversight committee.

“I can assure the president, the vice-president, that I may be the first United States senator to visit El Salvador on this issue, but there will be more and there will be more members of Congress coming,” Van Hollen said.

“This is an unsustainable and unjust moment, and so it cannot continue this way.”

The ongoing legal saga of Kilmar Ábrego García, a man wrongly deported to a notorious prison in El Salvador, has become a flashpoint as Donald Trump tests the limits of his executive power and continues with his plans for mass deportations.

On Tuesday, a federal judge sharply rebuked the Trump administration for taking no steps to secure Ábrego García’s release despite a supreme court order last week ordering the administration to facilitate his return to the US.

The administration previously conceded Ábrego García’s deportation was an “administrative error”, but it has since refused to bring him back and dug in on its contention that it should not be responsible for his repatriation.

Here’s what to know about the case.

Who is Kilmar Ábrego García?

Ábrego García, 29, is a Salvadorian immigrant who entered the US illegally around 2011 because he and his family were facing threats by local gangs.

In 2019, he was detained by police outside a Home Depot in Maryland, with several other men, and asked about a murder. He denied knowledge of a crime and repeatedly denied that he was part of a gang.

He was subsequently put in immigration proceedings, where officials argued they believed he was part of the MS-13 gang in New York based on his Chicago Bulls gear and on the word of a confidential informant.

A US immigration judge granted him protection from deportation to El Salvador because he was likely to face gang persecution. He was released and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice) did not appeal the decision or try to deport him to another country.

Ábrego García was living in Maryland with his wife, a US citizen, and has had a work permit since 2019. The couple are parents to their son and her two children from a previous relationship.

Why was he deported?

Ábrego García was stopped and detained by Ice officers on 12 March and questioned about alleged gang affiliation.

He was deported on 15 March on one of three high-profile deportation flights to El Salvador. That flight also included Venezuelans whom the government accuses of being gang members and assumed special powers to expel without a hearing.

Ábrego García is currently being detained in the Center for Terrorism Confinement (Cecot), a controversial mega-prison in Tecoluca, El Salvador, known for its harsh conditions.

The US is currently paying El Salvador $6m to house people who it alleges are members of the Tren de Aragua gang for a year.

His wife, Jennifer Vásquez Sura, said she has not spoken to him since he was flown to El Salvador and imprisoned.

What have the courts said?

The US district judge Paula Xinis directed the Trump administration on 4 April to “facilitate and effectuate” the return of Ábrego García, in response to a lawsuit filed by the man and his family challenging the legality of his deportation.

The supreme court unanimously upheld the directive on 10 April. In an unsigned decision, the court said the judge’s order “properly requires the government to ‘facilitate’ Ábrego García’s release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador”.

However, the supreme court said the additional requirement to “effectuate” his return was unclear and may exceed the judge’s authority. It directed Xinis to clarify the directive “with due regard for the deference owed to the executive branch in the conduct of foreign affairs”.

Xinis admonished the government in a hearing on 11 April, saying it was “extremely troubling” that the administration had failed to comply with a court order to provide details on Ábrego García’s whereabouts and status.

On Saturday, the Trump administration confirmed Ábrego García was alive and confined in El Salvador’s mega-prison, Cecot.

Xinis once again, on Tuesday, criticized justice department officials for not complying with the supreme court’s order, saying “to date, nothing has been done”. She gave the government two weeks to produce details of their efforts to return Ábrego García to US soil.

What has the US government said?

The White House has cast Ábrego García as an MS-13 gang member and asserted that US courts lack jurisdiction over the matter because the Salvadoran national is no longer in the US.

Earlier this month, the Trump administration acknowledged that Ábrego García was deported as a result of an “administrative error”. An immigration judge had previously prohibited the federal government from deporting him to El Salvador in 2019 regardless of whether he was a member of the MS-13 gang.

The justice department has said it interpreted the court’s order to “facilitate” Ábrego García’s return as only requiring them to “remove any domestic obstacles that would otherwise impede the alien’s ability to return here”.

The US attorney general, Pam Bondi, has characterized the court’s order as only requiring the administration to provide transportation to Ábrego García if released by El Salvador.

“That’s up to El Salvador if they want to return him. That’s up to them,” Bondi said. “The supreme court ruled that if El Salvador wants to return him, we would ‘facilitate’ it, meaning provide a plane.”

Justice department lawyers have argued that asking El Salvador to return Ábrego García should be considered “foreign relations” and therefore outside the scope of the courts.

But the administration’s argument that it lacks the power to return Ábrego García into US custody is undercut by the US paying El Salvador to detain deportees it sends to Cecot prison.

What have his lawyers said?

Ábrego García’s attorneys have said there is no evidence he was in MS-13. The allegation was based on a confidential informant’s claim in 2019 that Ábrego Garcia was a member of a chapter in New York, where he has never lived.

Ábrego García had never been charged with or convicted of any crime, according to his lawyers. He had a permit from the Department of Homeland Security to legally work in the US, his attorneys said.

The Maryland senator Chris Van Hollen, a Democrat, traveled to El Salvador on Wednesday where he hopes to visit Ábrego García. He said the government of El Salvador had not responded to his request to visit Cecot.

Van Hollen told the Guardian: “This is a Maryland man. His family’s in Maryland, and he’s been caught up in this absolutely outrageous situation where the Trump administration admitted in court that he was erroneously abducted from the United States and placed in this notorious prison in El Salvador in violation of all his due process rights.”

What has El Salvador said?

Nayib Bukele, the president of El Salvador, has said that he would not order the return of Ábrego García because that would be tantamount to “smuggling” him into the US.

During a meeting with Donald Trump in the Oval Office on Monday, Bukele was asked whether he would help to return Ábrego García. “The question is preposterous,” he replied.

“How can I smuggle a terrorist into the United States? I’m not going to do it.” He added that he would not release Ábrego García into El Salvador either. “I’m not very fond of releasing terrorists into the country.”

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.

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 US Federal Reserve chair, Jerome Powell, warned Donald Trump’s tariffs were generating a “challenging scenario” for the central bank and were likely to worsen inflation.

Powell’s comments on Wednesday came US stock markets had already been rattled by a new trade restriction on the chip designer Nvidia. The sell-off picked up as Powell spoke to The Economic Club of Chicago.

The S&P 500 index ended the day down 2%, the tech-heavy Nasdaq index fell 3% and the Dow Jones dropped 1.7%.

“The new administration is in the process of implementing substantial policy changes in four distinct areas: trade, immigration, fiscal policy and regulation. Those policies are still evolving, and their effects on the economy remain highly uncertain,” said Powell.

Powell said the US economy was well-positioned but added that Trump’s tariffs were likely to cause “at least a temporary rise in inflation. The inflationary effects could also be more persistent.”

Nvidia, the California company at the heart of the revolution in artificial intelligence technology, lost billions of dollars from its market value at the opening bell, with its shares down 8.5% by early afternoon.

The sell-off, which has spread to semiconductor makers in Asia and Europe, comes after Nvidia said the Trump administration had restricted the sale of its H20 chip in China by means of new licence requirements.

The company now expects to report a $5.5bn (£34.1bn) hit in its financial quarter that ends on 27 April, covering the cost of licences for its stock of the chips and associated sales commitments.

The US restriction will also hit the MI308 processor made by rival chip business Advanced Micro Devices (AMD). Its shares dropped 6.5% as it expects to take a charge of as much as $800m because of the new rule.

In Asia, South Korean semiconductor businesses such as Samsung Electronics and SK Hynix fell by about 4% overnight, and the Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) dropped 2.5%.

Meanwhile in Europe, shares in semiconductor tech firm ASML fell 5.2% as its chief executive, Christophe Fouquet, said tariffs had “increased uncertainty in the macro environment”. The Dutch company, which produces lithography machines used to make chips, also reported orders of €3.94bn in its first financial quarter, about €1bn less than investors had expected.

So far the chip industry has been exempt from the 10% tariffs imposed by the US since 2 April. The US government has historically built up regulations to limit Chinese access to advanced chips – including under Joe Biden as it raced for supremacy in AI. But the Trump administration has been paving the way for more levies on the sector.

Global stocks were also hit by a warning from the World Trade Organization. It said Trump’s tariffs will send international trade into reverse this year and depress global economic growth. While the WTO had previously expected goods trade to expand by 2.7% this year, it now forecasts a 0.2% decline.

There were some more positive indicators across the market, with a 1.4% rise in US retail sales in March being higher than expected. It compared with a 0.2% gain in February, according to the US Census Bureau, though this could suggest consumers were snapping up goods before the implementation of tariffs.

Oil prices also rose on Wednesday amid hopes of trade talks between China and the US, and following a report that Iraq plans to cut oil production in April. Brent crude rose by 84 cents, or 1.3%, to $65.49 a barrel, while US crude rose by a similar amount to $62.12 a barrel.

If there are trade talks with China, they will involve the country’s new international trade negotiator. Beijing unexpectedly announced on Wednesday that Li Chenggang will take over the role from the veteran trade tsar Wang Shouwen. No reason was given for the change, although it came amid a broader reshuffle in Chinese government.

In the US, California has launched a legal challenge to Trump’s tariffs, accusing the president of overstepping his authority and threatening trade in the state. The lawsuit was brought by California’s governor, Gavin Newsom, and its attorney general, Rob Bonta.

Also on Wednesday, Trump posted on his social media platform Truth Social that he would attend a trade meeting with Japanese officials and his cabinet secretaries.

“Japan is coming in today to negotiate Tariffs, the cost of military support, and “TRADE FAIRNESS,” he wrote. “I will attend the meeting, along with Treasury & Commerce Secretaries. Hopefully something can be worked out which is good (GREAT!) for Japan and the USA!”

Japan was hit with a 24% tariff rate on its exports to the US, though, like most of Trump’s “reciprocal” tariffs, this was paused for 90 days last week. However, a 10% universal rate remains in place, as well as a 25% duty on the sale of Japanese cars to Americans.

The doctor who carried out the autopsies of the 15 paramedics and rescue workers who were killed by Israeli troops in Gaza in March has said they were mostly killed by gunshots to the head and torso, as well as injuries caused by explosives.

There was international outcry last month after it emerged that Israeli troops had launched a deadly attack on a group of paramedics from the Palestinian Red Crescent, civil defence and United Nations workers, as they carried out a rescue operation in southern Gaza.

Their bodies, along with the crushed vehicles, were buried in a sandy mass grave in Gaza by Israeli troops. After digging up the bodies days later, the UN claimed they had been executed “one by one”.

Ahmed Dhair, the forensic doctor in Gaza who carried out autopsies on 14 out of the 15 victims, told the Guardian he had found “lacerations, entry wounds from bullets, and wounds resulting from explosive injuries. These were mostly concentrated in the torso area – the chest, abdomen, back, and head.”

Most had died from gunshot wounds, including what Dhair said was evidence of “explosive bullets”, otherwise known as the “butterfly bullet”, which explodes in the body upon impact, ripping apart flesh and bone.

“We found remains of explosive bullets,” said Dhair. “In one case, the bullet head had exploded in the chest, and the rest of the bullet fragments were found within the body. There were also remnants or shrapnel from bullets scattered on the back of one of the victims.”

The Israel Defense Forces did not immediately respond to allegations that these bullets had been used in the attack.

Details of the incident have remained disputed. Video footage that emerged from the beginning of the attack shows the convoy of ambulances coming under fire, but the subsequent events that led to 15 workers being buried dead in a mass grave are still unclear.

Israel’s military admitted to carrying out the killings but was forced to change its version of events after evidence emerged that contradicted its account that the vehicles had been “moving suspiciously” without lights. Israel has claimed, without publicly presenting evidence, that six of the unarmed workers killed were Hamas operatives, which has been denied by Red Crescent.

Dhair said his findings did not suggest the paramedics had been shot at close range, but emphasised he was not a munitions expert. He said the shrapnel found in the bodies also suggested they had been hit with some form of explosive devices. “In some cases, the injuries seemed to be a mix of explosive and regular gunfire wounds,” he said.

Responding to the allegations that some of the bodies had been dug up with their hands tied, suggesting they were captured or held before they were killed, Dhair said he had not seen visible signs of restraint. “Only in one case, there were discoloration and bruising on the wrists that could possibly be due to restraints,” he said. All the men were clearly in their work uniforms and their bodies had begun to decompose.

The findings are likely to increase pressure on Israel to give a full account of the incident, who has been accused of carrying out a war crime. Israel has said it still under investigation. This week it emerged that one of the two paramedics who survived the incident, Assad al-Nsasrah – whose whereabouts had been unknown since – was being held in Israeli detention.

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

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.

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.

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.”

“No one is currently planning to allow any humanitarian aid into Gaza, and there are no preparations to enable such aid,” said Katz, who threatened to escalate the conflict with “tremendous force” if Hamas did not return the hostages.

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.

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 prime minister 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.

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.”

“No one is currently planning to allow any humanitarian aid into Gaza, and there are no preparations to enable such aid,” said Katz, who vowed to escalate the conflict with “tremendous force” if Hamas did not return the hostages.

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.

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.

Faculty members from US universities – including public ones which do not receive endowments – are banding together in attempts to resist the Donald Trump administration’s attacks on academic freedoms.

This month, Indiana University’s Bloomington faculty council followed in the footsteps of Rutgers University in passing a resolution to establish a pact with all 18 universities under the Big 10 academic alliance to defend academic freedoms.

The resolution comes as a result of “recent and escalating politically motivated actions by governmental bodies [which] pose a significant threat to the foundational principles of American higher education including the autonomy of university governance, the integrity of scientific research, and the protection of free speech”.

The 18 universities part of the Big 10 academic alliance include the University of Illinois, Indiana University, University of Iowa, University of Maryland, University of Michigan, Michigan State University, University of Minnesota, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Northwestern University, Ohio State University, University of Oregon, Pennsylvania State University, Purdue University, Rutgers University-New Brunswick, University of California Los Angeles, University of Southern California, University of Washington and the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

The resolution says the “preservation of one institution’s integrity is the concern of all and an infringement against one member university of the Big Ten shall be considered an infringement against all”.

This move from Indiana University’s Bloomington faculty council comes after FBI and Department of Homeland Security agents raided the homes of Xiaofeng Wang, a Chinese national and cybersecurity professor who taught at the university for 20 years.

On the same day of the raid, Wang – who has not been charged with any offenses – was fired from the university over email in a move that contradicts the university’s own policy.

Wang’s firing was condemned by faculty as well as the Bloomington chapter of the American Association of University Professors which said: “The mere fact of an investigation or of unadjudicated allegations cannot justify failure to comply with university policies on the part of the administration… It is fundamental that individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty.”

In order for a pact to be formed, university leaders across the Big 10academic alliance would have to convene a summit and initiate its implementation, Indiana Daily Student reports.

If a pact is formed, the universities shall “commit meaningful funding to a shared or distributed defense fund”. The fund will be in turn used to provide “immediate and strategic support to any member institution under direct political or legal infringement”.

In recent weeks, Trump has come after dozens of universities, including private institutions such as Harvard University, which has an endowment, unlike public universities, as part of his administration’s crackdowns on alleged antisemitism and civil rights violations. Many of the Big 10 academic alliance schools have also been targeted by Trump.

Indiana University Bloomington is among 60 schools under federal investigation over alleged violations “relating to antisemitic harassment and discrimination”. The administration has also come after the University of Washington and Penn State University which saw over a dozen of their international students’ visas cancelled. Meanwhile, federal authorities are investigating University of Oregon’s partnership with the PhD Project, a non-profit organization that supports students from marginalized communities in obtaining degrees.

The Guardian has reached out to the Big 10 academic alliance schools.

In a statement to the Guardian, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign’s associate chancellor Robin Kaler said: “Free speech and academic freedom are foundational to our university’s missions of discovery and exploration… The university remains committed to protecting the first amendment rights of all individuals. This is a legal obligation of any public entity and, we believe, an ethical responsibility for an institution like ours that values diverse perspectives and academic interrogation.”

Meanwhile, Rutgers University’s assistant vice-president, Dory Devlin, said: “The university appreciates the guidance of the university senate to encourage the efforts of universities across the Big Ten, and more broadly, to find common ground and shared values during a time of shifting federal policies, while recognizing that each school in the conference has its own local dynamics and pressures.”

In addition to demanding universities close their diversity, equity and inclusion programs, Trump has frozen funding to universities and issued a slew of extortive and broadly-worded demands to the institutions.

Most recently, Trump ordered Harvard University to conduct audits on study bodies, faculty and leadership on their views about diversity, ban face masks, as well as halt the recognition and funding of “any student group or club that endorses or promotes criminal activity, illegal violence or illegal harassment”.

Harvard has refused to capitulate to the Trump administration’s demands, prompting support from Barack Obama and Yale University, as well as further complaints from Trump who called Harvard a “joke” that “teaches hate and stupidity”.

Donald Trump has declared that Harvard University should no longer receive federal funds, calling the pre-eminent university in the US a “joke” that “teaches hate and stupidity”.

Harvard made headlines on Monday by becoming the first university to stand up against a series of onerous demands from the Trump administration, setting the stage for a showdown between the federal government and one of the US’s most prestigious institutions.

The Trump administration swiftly retaliated by announcing it would freeze more than $2bn in multiyear grants and contracts with the university. On Wednesday it was also reported by CNN that the IRS was planning to take away Harvard’s tax-exempt status.

Numerous Democratic politicians and top universities across the country have rallied in support of Harvard, but the Trump administration has doubled down, threatening to strip Harvard of its tax-exempt status and insisting that the university apologize.

As part of an ongoing government review of various universities over allegations of antisemitism following the student-led campus protests against the war in Gaza last year, the Trump administration sent a letter to Harvard University on Friday outlining a list of demands it must meet in order to “maintain Harvard’s financial relationship with the federal government”.

It demanded Harvard close all diversity, equity and inclusion programs; share various admission details with the government; report foreign students who commit conduct violations to federal authorities; commission an outside party to audit each academic department to make sure the student body, faculty, staff and leadership is “viewpoint diverse”; and more.

On Monday, Harvard’s president, Alan Garber, responded that the university would not yield to the government’s demands, describing them as “an attempt to control the Harvard community”.

“The University will not surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights,” he said. “The administration’s prescription goes beyond the power of the federal government. It violates Harvard’s first amendment rights and exceeds the statutory limits of the government’s authority under Title VI. And it threatens our values as a private institution devoted to the pursuit, production, and dissemination of knowledge.”

He added: “No government – regardless of which party is in power – should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue.”

Other universities responded quickly. In a statement on Tuesday, the acting president of Columbia University said that it would “reject any agreement in which the government dictates what we teach, research, or who we hire”.

This comes after Columbia agreed to several demands from the administration last month after the White House pulled $400m of research grants and other funding from the school over its handling of the protests against the war in Gaza.

“To put minds at ease,” Columbia’s acting president, Claire Shipman, wrote on Tuesday, “though we seek to continue constructive dialogue with the government, we would reject any agreement that would require us to relinquish our independence and autonomy as an educational institution.”

The president of Stanford University, Jonathan Levin, and the school’s provost, Jenny Martinez, also released a statement in response to Harvard’s decision, praising the university.

“Universities need to address legitimate criticisms with humility and openness,” Levin and Martinez wrote. “But the way to bring about constructive change is not by destroying the nation’s capacity for scientific research, or through the government taking command of a private institution.”

Christopher Eisgruber, the president of Princeton University, also weighed in. “Princeton stands with Harvard,” he wrote. “I encourage everyone to read President Alan Garber’s powerful letter in full.”

So did Barack Obama. “Harvard has set an example for other higher-ed institutions – rejecting an unlawful and ham-handed attempt to stifle academic freedom, while taking concrete steps to make sure all students at Harvard can benefit from an environment of intellectual inquiry, rigorous debate and mutual respect,” the former president wrote. “Let’s hope other institutions follow suit.”

Maura Healey, the governor of Massachusetts, where Harvard is located, also praised the university for “standing against the Trump Administration’s brazen attempt to bully schools and weaponize the US Department of Justice under the false pretext of civil rights”.

In response, Trump threatened Harvard’s tax-exempt status. Most universities in the US are exempt from federal income tax under the US tax code because they are considered to be “operated exclusively” for public educational purposes.

Later on Tuesday, the White House press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, told reporters that Trump “wants to see Harvard apologize”.

Then on Wednesday morning, Trump took to social media again to attack Harvard on his social media platform, Truth Social.

“Harvard is a JOKE, teaches Hate and Stupidity, and should no longer receive Federal Funds,” Trump wrote in the lengthy post. “Thank you for your attention to this matter!”

Harvey Weinstein’s lawyers asked a judge on Wednesday to allow the ailing ex-studio boss to spend his nights at a New York City hospital instead of jail for the duration of his #MeToo rape retrial.

Weinstein’s lawyers made the request as jury selection resumed for a second day. The 73-year-old disgraced movie mogul arrived in court in a wheelchair, as he has at all of his recent court appearances.

In court papers, his lawyers argued that Weinstein’s stay at New York City’s notorious Rikers Island jail complex was exacerbating his health issues and that he would be better off in the prison ward at Bellevue hospital. He had been back and forth to Bellevue several times in recent months for treatment of various maladies.

Weinstein has numerous health conditions, including chronic myeloid leukemia, heart issues, diabetes, obstructive sleep apnea, sciatica and severe limitations on his ability to walk. A recent tongue infection was misdiagnosed at Rikers, requiring hospitalization, and he had gained nearly 20lb (9kg) in the past month, his lawyer, Imran Ansari, said.

In a statement, Ansari said Weinstein was also subjected to freezing temperatures at Rikers and was not provided with clean clothing.

“Because of this mistreatment, he has been worn down considerably health-wise, and now faces the stress of trial in this condition, which may very well lead to serious health complications, even death,” Ansari said.

Weinstein’s lawyers filed a legal claim against New York City last November, alleging he was receiving substandard medical treatment in unhygienic conditions at Rikers. The claim, which seeks $5m in damages, argues that Weinstein has been returned to Rikers each time before fully recovering at the hospital.

The troubled jail complex has faced growing scrutiny for its mistreatment of detainees and dangerous conditions. Last year, a federal judge cleared the way for a possible federal takeover, finding the city had placed prisoners in “unconstitutional danger”.

Judge Curtis Farber has yet to rule on the transfer request, and the issue was not discussed in court before jury selection resumed on Wednesday morning.

The first day ended on Tuesday with no one chosen for the panel of 12 jurors and six alternates. Wednesday kicked off with two dozen prospective jurors being brought to the courtroom for more questioning after making it through an initial round a day earlier.

Weinstein is being tried again after New York’s highest court, the court of appeals, last year overturned his 2020 conviction and 23-year prison sentence and ordered a new trial, finding that improper rulings and prejudicial testimony tainted the original one.

Weinstein is being retried on two charges from his original trial. He is accused of raping an aspiring actor in a Manhattan hotel room in 2013 and a criminal sex act by forcing oral sex on a movie and TV production assistant in 2006.

He is also charged with one count of criminal sex act based on an allegation from a woman who was not a part of the original trial. That woman, who has asked not to be named publicly, alleges that Weinstein forced oral sex on her at a Manhattan hotel.

Weinstein has pleaded not guilty and denies raping or sexually assaulting anyone.

Harvey Weinstein’s lawyers asked a judge on Wednesday to allow the ailing ex-studio boss to spend his nights at a New York City hospital instead of jail for the duration of his #MeToo rape retrial.

Weinstein’s lawyers made the request as jury selection resumed for a second day. The 73-year-old disgraced movie mogul arrived in court in a wheelchair, as he has at all of his recent court appearances.

In court papers, his lawyers argued that Weinstein’s stay at New York City’s notorious Rikers Island jail complex was exacerbating his health issues and that he would be better off in the prison ward at Bellevue hospital. He had been back and forth to Bellevue several times in recent months for treatment of various maladies.

Weinstein has numerous health conditions, including chronic myeloid leukemia, heart issues, diabetes, obstructive sleep apnea, sciatica and severe limitations on his ability to walk. A recent tongue infection was misdiagnosed at Rikers, requiring hospitalization, and he had gained nearly 20lb (9kg) in the past month, his lawyer, Imran Ansari, said.

In a statement, Ansari said Weinstein was also subjected to freezing temperatures at Rikers and was not provided with clean clothing.

“Because of this mistreatment, he has been worn down considerably health-wise, and now faces the stress of trial in this condition, which may very well lead to serious health complications, even death,” Ansari said.

Weinstein’s lawyers filed a legal claim against New York City last November, alleging he was receiving substandard medical treatment in unhygienic conditions at Rikers. The claim, which seeks $5m in damages, argues that Weinstein has been returned to Rikers each time before fully recovering at the hospital.

The troubled jail complex has faced growing scrutiny for its mistreatment of detainees and dangerous conditions. Last year, a federal judge cleared the way for a possible federal takeover, finding the city had placed prisoners in “unconstitutional danger”.

Judge Curtis Farber has yet to rule on the transfer request, and the issue was not discussed in court before jury selection resumed on Wednesday morning.

The first day ended on Tuesday with no one chosen for the panel of 12 jurors and six alternates. Wednesday kicked off with two dozen prospective jurors being brought to the courtroom for more questioning after making it through an initial round a day earlier.

Weinstein is being tried again after New York’s highest court, the court of appeals, last year overturned his 2020 conviction and 23-year prison sentence and ordered a new trial, finding that improper rulings and prejudicial testimony tainted the original one.

Weinstein is being retried on two charges from his original trial. He is accused of raping an aspiring actor in a Manhattan hotel room in 2013 and a criminal sex act by forcing oral sex on a movie and TV production assistant in 2006.

He is also charged with one count of criminal sex act based on an allegation from a woman who was not a part of the original trial. That woman, who has asked not to be named publicly, alleges that Weinstein forced oral sex on her at a Manhattan hotel.

Weinstein has pleaded not guilty and denies raping or sexually assaulting anyone.

The US health secretary, Robert F Kennedy Jr, said in his first press conference that the significant and recent rise in autism diagnoses was evidence of an “epidemic” caused by an “environmental toxin”, which would be rooted out by September.

Autism advocates and health experts have repeatedly stated the rise in diagnoses is related to better recognition of the condition, changing diagnostic criteria and better access to screening. Many also reject the label of an “epidemic”, arguing that neurodivergence should be valued.

“This is a preventable disease, we know it’s environmental exposure, it has to be,” said Kennedy. “Genes do not cause epidemics, they can provide a vulnerability, but you need an environmental toxin,” he said, despite known evidence against this claim.

Kennedy’s remarks come after a new federal report suggests that autism rates in the US are rising. The report states that autism prevalence across the country has increased from one in 36 children to one in 31. Health researchers across various autism advocacy groups attribute the increase to the expansion of diagnostic tools and access to care, along with other factors.

RFK disagreed with the consensus of health researchers, and said that “we need to move away” from the idea that the increase in autism prevalence “is simply due to better diagnostic tools”.

The health secretary is instead using the data to support the idea that the rise in autism diagnoses is evidence of a growing “epidemic”. He added that “epidemic denial” towards autism had become a “feature of mainstream media”.

Kennedy also asserted that he was going to lift the “taboo” on autism research – at the same time that the CDC has gutted numerous programs and the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the largest publicly funded biomedical and behavioral research body in the world, is conducting an ideological review of grants that has led to widespread fear among researchers.

“We’re going to remove the taboo – that people will know they can research and follow the science no matter what it says, without any kind of fear that they’re going to be censored,” said Kennedy.

Autism Speaks, a non-profit advocacy and research group, says there could be a link between environmental toxins and autism in certain cases, such as pre-natal exposure to the chemicals thalidomide and valproic acid.

But the organization asserts that “none of these influences appears to ‘cause’ or ‘prevent’ autism by themselves. Rather they appear to influence risk in those genetically predisposed to the disorder.”

In a statement about the CDC’s research, the Autism Society of America said: “This rise in prevalence does not signal an ‘epidemic’ as narratives are claiming – it reflects diagnostic progress, and an urgent need for policy decisions rooted in science and the immediate needs of the autism community.”

The statement emphasized that the “rise in prevalence likely reflects better awareness, improved screening tools, and stronger advocacy”.

Dr Peter Marks, who previously served as the FDA’s top vaccine official before stepping down due to RFK’s “misinformation and lies”, recently expressed his scepticism about the health secretary’s promise to identify the causes of autism by September.

“If you just ask me, as a scientist, is it possible to get the answer that quickly? I don’t see any possible way,” Marks said in an interview with CBS’s Face the Nation.

He added: “You can be incredibly supportive of people, but giving them false hope is wrong.”

Kennedy has a long history of suggesting a link between childhood vaccines and autism, despite a lack of scientific evidence, and many studies that have found there is no link.

A delegation of EU lawmakers visiting Hungary has called on Europe’s top court to suspend a new law banning Budapest Pride, as they criticised a “very hostile atmosphere” for LGBTQ+ people in the country and urged a return to “real democracy”.

Tineke Strik, a Dutch Green politician who led a cross-party group of MEPs to investigate democratic standards in Hungary, said developments were going “rapidly in the wrong direction”.

Concluding the three-day visit on Wednesday, Strik said: “We eagerly want this country to turn back into a real democracy, because we think that Hungarian citizens should enjoy the same rights and values as we all do into the EU.”

The five MEPs arrived in Hungary on the day that lawmakers passed a constitutional amendment allowing the government to ban LGBTQ+ events. That change codified a law passed in March banning Pride marches and allowing authorities to use facial recognition technology to track attenders so they could be fined. It has been described by one rights group as a “full-frontal attack” on LGBTQ+ people.

Strik said: “Organisers and participants of the Budapest Pride risk facing criminal charges for marching peacefully in support of diversity, equality and freedom, as they have done for the last 29 years.”

The MEPs said they were calling on the European Commission – the guardian of EU law – to ask the European court of justice to suspend the law pending further legal action.

In response to the constitutional changes, the European Commission said on Tuesday it would not hesitate to act if necessary. The Guardian has requested comment on the MEPs’ request for suspension, known as an interim measure.

Krzysztof Śmiszek, of the Polish New Left, said the new law had created “a very hostile atmosphere” for LGBTQ+ Hungarians that had “already led to rise of physical, violent attacks and other types of hate crimes”.

Michał Wawrykiewicz, a centre-right Polish MEP who campaigned to preserve independent judiciary in his home country, said the group had observed an “indisputable deterioration of the situation” and “an open denial of the rule of law”. He also said some officials had shown a “very aggressive approach toward us” and “rude behaviour”.

Sophie Wilmès, a former Belgian prime minister and a liberal MEP, said some authorities had displayed “very aggressive rhetoric” towards the group. She voiced alarm about pressure on independent media. She said the Hungarian government’s extensive control of the media landscape meant “smear campaigns have become the new norm”.

Several government departments declined to meet the MEPs, without giving any reason, Strik said. Three nationalist and far-right European parliament groups declined to join the parliamentary visit: the European Conservatives and Reformists, Patriots for Europe and the Europe of Sovereign Nations Group.

The visit wrapped up soon after the US government announced it was lifting sanctions on a close aide to Hungary’s prime minister, Viktor Orbán, describing the punitive measures as “inconsistent with US foreign policy interests”.

Antal Rogán had been added to the US sanctions list in January, in the final days of Joe Biden’s administration, for alleged corruption. The Hungarian government said at the time it intended to challenge this as soon as Donald Trump took office.

Orbán is one of Trump’s biggest supporters, once saying he would open several bottles of champagne if Trump was re-elected. Hungary was the only EU member state to vote against the EU’s retaliatory measures against Trump’s tariffs, which were later suspended after a last-minute policy reversal by the White House.

In an awkward moment for the Orbán government, the Trump administration released a report on foreign trade barriers raising concerns about corruption in Hungary’s public procurement system. Hungary’s foreign minister, Péter Szijjártó, claimed in response that parts of the report had been “dictated by” the previous US ambassador to Budapest, David Pressman, who was a vocal critic of the government’s democratic backsliding and foreign policy positions.

Canada’s Green party has been removed from the country’s two election debates amid accusations it would “undermine the integrity” of the events, just hours before leaders square off in Montreal.

The last-minute upheaval follows a decision to shift the timing of the first televised debate on Wednesday evening over fears the French language showdown would clash with a closely watched Montreal Canadiens ice hockey game.

The independent leaders’ debates commission announced on Wednesday morning that it had revoked the Green party’s inclusion from both the French and English debates after determining the party “intentionally” reduced the number of candidates running in the election for strategic reasons.

“Deliberately reducing the number of candidates … is inconsistent with the Commission’s interpretation of party viability,” the commission said in its decision to revoke the inclusion of the party’s co-leaders, Jonathan Pedneault and Elizabeth May. The commission said that inclusion of a Green leader would “undermine the integrity of the debates and the interests of the voting public”.

Canada’s federal election is on 28 April. Only two debates will be held: one in French on 16 April and the other in English on 17 April.

In order to qualify for the only two federal debates, a party needs to meet two of three criteria: it must be running candidates in at least 90% of Canada’s 343 ridings 28 days before the 28 April general election, poll above 4% and have a sitting member of parliament. Despite initially indicating they would run a full slate, the Greens eventually only nominated 232 candidates.

Pedneault accused the commission trying to “silence” the party, and said the last-minute change was “unjust and baseless”.

The decision to exclude the Greens came a day after commission shifted the debate timing to avoid clashing with the Montreal Canadiens-Carolina Hurricanes match. The team is facing a must-win game in order to advance to the national hockey league playoffs.

On Tuesday, both the Bloc Québécois and New Democratic party requested the debate be rescheduled. The NDP said in a news release that failing to change the timing of the debate would effectively force people to choose between “political engagement and national pride”.

“Hockey is in our blood,” said leader Jagmeet Singh, adding the commission risked looking “out of touch” with the national mood if it didn’t change course.

Later that day, the commission relented and agreed to move the debate to 6pm eastern time, a decision supported by all parties.

The last time Montreal reached the playoffs was 2021.

Changing the debate because of an important hockey game has precedent: in 2011, the then Bloc Québécois leader, Gilles Duceppe, asked for the French-language debate be rescheduled to avoid conflict with a key playoff showdown between the Canadiens and the Boston Bruins, a request the commission agreed to.

The Liberal party is polling ahead of rival Conservatives and poised to capture a majority government. For the Tories, a party that has seen a dramatic reversal of political fortunes, the debates are widely seen as a last-ditch attempt to regain momentum.

The colossal squid, the heaviest invertebrate in the world, has been filmed alive in the wild for the first time since it was identified a century ago.

Growing up to 23ft (seven metres) long and weighing up to half a tonne, the squid, Mesonychoteuthis hamiltoni, is the heaviest invertebrate on the planet. The individual captured on film near the South Sandwich Islands, in the south Atlantic Ocean, is a baby, at just 11.8in (30cm) in length.

The video, taken by an international team of scientists and researchers on board the Schmidt Ocean Institute’s research vessel, Falkor, shows the almost transparent juvenile, with eight arms, swimming in its natural habitat, the deep sea. It was captured on video by a remotely operated vehicle, SuBastian, while on a 35-day expedition searching for new marine life.

“These unforgettable moments continue to remind us that the ocean is brimming with mysteries yet to be solved,” Virmani said.

For 100 years, the animal, a type of glass squid, had only been seen in the stomachs of whales and seabirds. Dying adults have previously been filmed in the nets of fishermen, but it had have never been seen alive at depth.

Little is known about the life cycle of the colossal squid, which loses its transparent appearance as an adult.

It took days for the team aboard the Falkor to get verification of the footage. The squid has sharp hooks on the end of its tentacles, which distinguish it from other glass squid species.

“It’s exciting to see the first in situ footage of a juvenile colossal and humbling to think that they have no idea that humans exist,” said Dr Kat Bolstad of the Auckland University of Technology, one of the independent scientific experts the team consulted to verify the footage.

The expedition was a collaboration between the Schmidt Ocean Institute, the Nippon Foundation-Nekton Ocean Census and GoSouth, a joint project between the University of Plymouth (UK), the Geomar Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research (Germany) and the British Antarctic Survey.

This year marks the 100-year anniversary of the identification and formal naming of the colossal squid.

Burglars tunneled through a concrete wall to gain access to a Los Angeles jewelry store, making off with at least $10m worth of watches, pendants, gold chains and other merchandise, police said.

The heist happened around 9.30pm on Sunday at Love Jewels on Broadway in the heart of downtown, according to officer David Cuellar with the LA police department.

Investigators were reviewing security camera footage that shows the suspects entering the store from a large hole they drilled from the property next door, he said.

“They tunneled through multiple levels of concrete into the target location,” Cuellar said on Tuesday.

An unknown number of suspects fled through the same hole and drove off in a late model Chevy truck, he said. The heist was not discovered until store employees arrived for work on Monday morning.

Initial estimates were that about $10m worth of merchandise was stolen, Cuellar said, adding that the number could change. In an interview with local television station KTTV, the owner said the loss was upwards of $20m.

In security video obtained by KTTV, the sound of a drill can be heard from inside the store. Once inside, the burglars apparently cut the cameras’ wires.

The TV station showed holes cut in a large safe, overturned jewel cases and an empty bottle of scotch whisky.

Love Jewels’s website advertises items like a 14-karat yellow gold rope chain for $1,200, heart-shaped gold earrings for $200 and a gold cross pendant for $550. Videos on the store’s social media shows glass cases filled with rings, watches and necklaces.

Phone calls and emails were sent to the store on Tuesday.

Detectives examined the scene for fingerprints and DNA, police said.