“We don’t care about sales to the United States,” says Hu Tianqiang as one of his toy fighter jets flies past our heads.

It’s hard to hear him above the buzzing toy planes and miniature drones, an almost rhythmic backdrop to the cacophony of toys that surround him, all clamouring for the attention of buyers.

Hu’s stall, Zhongxiang Toys, sits inside the world’s biggest wholesale market in the small Chinese city of Yiwu.

It’s a huge showroom of more than 75,000 shops where buyers come seeking just about everything, from twinkling Christmas lights and kitchenware to umbrellas and massage guns. It can take most of the day just to get around one department given each of them has an airport hangar’s worth of goods on show.

Yiwu is in the province of Zhejiang, along China’s eastern coast. The manufacturing and export hub, home to more than 30 ports, accounted for 17% of all Chinese sales to the US last year.

That puts Yiwu, and this region, at the frontline of the US-China trade war.

Mr Hu, too, is on the frontline. He sits among rows of snazzy toy jets, squeaking dogs, fluffy stuffed animals, barbies and motorcycle-riding spidermen – a sliver of the $34bn (£25bn) worth of toys China exported in 2024.

About $10bn of it went to the US. But now, these Chinese exports to America face up to 245% tariffs. And US President Donald Trump has made it clear that he blames Beijing in particular for cornering too much of the global market.

But things have changed here since Trump’s first trade war against China, which kicked off in 2018. It taught Yiwu a lesson, summed up by Mr Hu: “Other countries have money too!”

That defiance has become a familiar theme in the world’s second-biggest economy, which is bracing itself for another turbulent Trump presidency.

Beijing, which has been repeatedly telling the world that the US was bullying countries into trade negotiations, has not backed down yet from the trade war.

The propaganda online has ratcheted up, applauding Chinese innovation and diplomacy in contrast to the uncertainty unleashed by Trump. On the country’s highly controlled social media, there are plenty of posts echoing the leadership’s promise that China will keep fighting.

And in factories and markets, businessmen and exporters now say they have other alternatives, beyond Trump’s America. Mr Hu, for instance, says around 20%-30% of his business came from US buyers. But not anymore.

“We don’t care about that 20-30%,” Mr Hu says. “We now sell mostly to South America and the Middle East. We are not lacking money, we are rich.”

When we ask about Trump, his colleague Chen Lang jumps in, rolling his eyes: “He’s cracking international jokes like no other. One day, one joke. Adding tariffs for him is like cracking a joke.”

Nearby, one of the thousands of buyers that flock to this market every day is negotiating a price to buy more than 100 robots that turn into cars in a series of beeps and buzzes. After tapping various numbers into a calculator, the final price is written in chalk on the floor.

The buyer, we are told, is from Dubai. The BBC met many others from across Africa and South America.

Lin Xiupeng says he has noticed the shift away from American buyers in his last 10 years in the toy business.

“A few days ago, the shop next to us had an order from a US client. It’s worth more than one million yuan. But because of tariffs, the shop owner decided to cancel it,” he says, offering us cups of tea.

“They must need China,” he says, adding that the country supplies most of America’s toys.

“I think there are a lot of businesses in the US protesting these days.”

Mr Lin is correct. Some toy shop owners in the US have written to the White House describing the tariffs as “disastrous” for their business.

“The tariffs are taking a hatchet to small businesses across America,” Jonathan Cathey, who owns a toy company in Los Angeles, told the BBC over the phone.

He invested his last $500 in his company, Loyal Subjects, in 2009, which he ran from his two-bedroom bungalow in West Hollywood. He says it’s now a multi-million-dollar business, but the tariffs could derail his plans.

“The entire toy industry could go under. We are looking at the total implosion of the supply chain. It’s going to get really ugly,” he warns.

He says swapping suppliers is a huge task: “You need a lot of resources on the ground to produce a toy and many of these Chinese businesses have spent 40 years perfecting their craft.”

China has been a big part of Donald Trump’s first 100 days in office, with his administration going head-to-head with Beijing.

“He seems to be launching a crusade against the whole world,” says former Senior Colonel Zhou Bo, who served in the People’s Liberation Army. “But of course he’s trying to bash China the hardest.”

Trump accused China of operating the Panama Canal, which is run by a Hong Kong-based firm, and vowed to take it back. He has been on the hunt for ways to mine rare earth minerals, which China effectively has a monopoly over, making this a key part of any deal with Ukraine. His threats to take Greenland are also likely aimed at curbing China’s ambitions in the Arctic.

And, of course, he initiated another trade war, which takes special aim at China’s neighbours, such as Vietnam and Cambodia, that have been crucial to its evolving supply chain.

In the last week, he suggested the levies on Chinese goods could be halved and spoke of “a fair deal with China” that his administration was “actively” negotiating.

But China’s Commerce Ministry rebuffed this as “groundless with no factual basis”. The headlines in state media haven’t spared him either: “Trump is probably the worst president in American history,” read one on state TV.

It seems the US president is waiting for his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping to pick up the phone.

“We in China say – we have to let the bullet fly for a moment,” Col Zhou says. “That means in the fog of war, we do not know what will come next. I believe this kind of tit-for-tat would last for maybe one or two months – hopefully not more than three months.”

It cannot go on, he adds, because that would not be good.

It’s certainly not good for China. Trump’s tariffs are not even the biggest challenge facing the country, which is also grappling with domestic economic pain, from low consumption to a housing crisis that has dented people’s savings and confidence in the future.

The terrible timing aside, the tariffs are biting Chinese businesses.

Goldman Sachs has forecast that China’s economy will grow by 4.5% this year, short of the government’s target: 5%.

The BBC reported from the trading hub of Guangzhou in mid-April that US-China trade was grinding to a halt, with exports to American households piling up on factory floors. That is borne out by this month’s economic data, which show that activity in factories has sharply slowed.

When the BBC rang suppliers to see if shipments to the US had resumed, what emerged was a messy picture. One supplier said he had half-a-million pieces of clothing waiting to ship to Walmart, and a few others echoed his uncertainty. But two exporters we spoke to said some shipments from US retailers had indeed restarted.

The range and complexity of the trade between the two economies, which includes cargo cranes, umbrellas and everything in between, means that it’s often down to different businesses and supply chains as to how they deal with the tariffs.

Whatever the business, there is no doubt the American consumer will feel the absence, or potentially higher prices, of Chinese goods.

The US still relies heavily on Chinese manufacturing to meet its own domestic demand – think phones, computers, semiconductors, furniture, clothes and, of course, toys. Electronics and machinery alone account for more than 50% of US imports.

Walmart and Target reportedly told Mr Trump in a meeting last week that shoppers are likely to see empty shelves and higher prices from next month. They also warned that supply shocks could carry on until Christmas.

Some 90% of all Christmas decorations hung around American homes come from Yiwu in China, where sellers, surrounded by signs wishing the world “Feliz Navidad” told us they’re now trying to focus on sales to South America.

And that effort is very evident in Yiwu.

In the early morning, before the shutters even open, the cavernous lobby of the wholesale market echoes with voices reciting key phrases.

“Shukran,” says the teacher in Arabic. The students repeat it several times to perfect the pronunciation before learning that it means “thank you”. “Aafwan” comes the reply, or “you’re welcome”.

These are free lessons offered by a local government association. Most of the students are women, dressed in their best to also impress their customers.

“These women are the backbone of trade across China,” says one stall holder, who is originally from Iran and is giving private lessons to an eager student.

“They’re doing these lessons to stay ahead of one another, to stay in competition.”

Most of the traders can already speak a few words of English. Now they say they need to greet their new buyers in Spanish and Arabic – a small but crucial sign of China’s shifting trade relationships.

Oscar, a Columbian who would only give us his first name, was wandering the halls of the market with bags filled with fluffy bunnies and bears.

He says the US-China trade war offers “many opportunities” for traders from other parts of the world.

“Doing business with China is very important,” he insists. “[Doing business with] the US these days, less so.”

North Korea has said the development of its first road bridge to Russia is a “significant” milestone in relations between the two countries, according to the country’s state media KCNA.

Construction of the bridge – set to span the Tumen river in the country’s northeast – began on Wednesday. It will be situated near the only other land connection between Russia and North Korea – a Soviet era rail bridge called the ‘Friendship Bridge’.

The bridge is set for completion by mid-2026, according to Russia’s Kommersant newspaper.

It comes shortly after North Korea confirmed for the first time that it had sent troops to support Russia in its war against Ukraine.

The new bridge is the latest sign of deepening ties between the two heavily-sanctioned countries, which have drawn closer since Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022.

Plans for the new bridge were decided during Russian president Vladimir Putin’s visit to Pyongyang last year, where he signed an agreement on “comprehensive strategic partnership” with North Korea – the highest level of bilateral ties for Moscow.

At a ceremony marking the start of the bridge’s construction, Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin said the bridge was “far beyond just an engineering task”.

“It symbolises our common desire to strengthen friendly, good-neighbourly relations and increase inter-regional cooperation,” he added.

Construction of the bridge began on the same day South Korean lawmakers said more than 600 North Korean troops had been killed fighting for Russia in its war against Ukraine, citing their intelligence officials.

In return for military support, Moscow appeared to have provided Pyongyang with technical assistance on spy satellites, drones and anti-air missiles, they added.

Earlier this week, North Korea said its soldiers had helped “completely liberate” Russia’s Kursk border region, eight months after Ukraine’s surprise incursion.

Ukraine says some of its forces are still in the Russian region.

At least three people have died in Spain in an incident linked to a massive power cut that shut the country down on Monday, the Civil Guard has told the BBC.

They died in the north-west municipality of Taboadela and were from the same family, according to Spanish media.

Police are reportedly investigating whether carbon monoxide from a faulty electricity generator played a role in their deaths, but the Civil Guard could not provide more details.

Officials are still working to confirm what caused the power cut that triggered chaos across Spain and Portugal on Monday.

The trio who died in Taboadela were a married couple and their adult son, according to the Madrid-based newspaper El Pais.

Their bodies were discovered in their beds by a care worker on Tuesday, El Pais reported.

Other deaths are under investigation, including a woman in Madrid who died in a fire that may have been caused by a candle being used during the blackout, local media reported.

The woman, in her fifties, was found dead on Monday night after a fire broke out in a building in the city’s Carabanchel district.

Thirteen people were treated for smoke inhalation, including five who were taken to hospital, according to the city’s emergency information office.

Elsewhere, a woman in her forties is reported to have died in Valencia, though there is no clear consensus in Spanish media on the cause of her death.

Local police have suggested the woman, who suffered from a lung condition, died after the ventilator she was using lost power during the outage, according to media reports.

However, El Pais cited regional health sources who said the woman suffered from a number of health conditions and that she died of natural causes.

The blackout caused huge disruption across Spain and Portugal. Andorra and parts of France were also affected.

In Spain and Portugal, traffic lights stopped working, metro systems ground to a halt, and businesses were unable to accept card payments – triggering huge queues at the few cash machines that were still working.

Initially, mobile phone networks also went down, leaving many scrambling for information.

In the Hunter Valley, long, brown trains chug through lush pastures, carrying stacks of black rock – the lifeblood of the region, though not for much longer.

This has long been Australia’s coal country. But the area, a three-hour drive from Sydney, is now begrudgingly on the frontline of the country’s transition to clean energy.

“This town was built around a coal mine,” says Hugh Collins from Muswellbrook, “so it’ll be a big shift. I don’t know what will happen.”

Nowhere captures this dilemma quite like the soon-to-be demolished smokestacks of Liddell power station, which tower over the rolling hillside nearby. Liddell, one of Australia’s oldest coal plants, was closed two years ago. Across the highway is sister-power station Bayswater, scheduled for retirement by 2033.

Liddell’s owners want to redevelop both stations into a renewable energy hub – in line with the Labor government’s plans for a grid powered almost completely by solar and wind energy.

The opposition Liberal-National coalition, though, has proposed converting Liddell into one of seven nuclear power plants across the country.

Currently banned, nuclear is the controversial centrepiece of the Coalition’s clean energy plan.

Nuclear has historically been deeply unpopular among Australians scared of having radioactive plants in their metaphorical backyards. But with the Coalition plugging it as a cheap and reliable option to complement renewables, interest is growing.

Ahead of the election on 3 May, each party has insisted that their visions are the best way to both fulfil Australia’s commitment to net zero emissions by 2050 and tame rising power bills.

But there are fears this renewed debate over Australia’s energy future takes the country back to the past.

Brutal arguments over climate change had plagued Australian politics for years – but the incoming Labor government last election declared that era was over.

Now experts worry the so-called “climate wars” are back, and this could potentially delay the urgent emissions reduction the globe has been begging the country to take for years.

“I don’t think peace will be declared no matter what happens with the election,” says Tony Wood from the Grattan Institute think tank.

It is hard to overstate just how central coal has been to the Hunter region.

In 1799, Newcastle, the area’s biggest city, farewelled Australia’s first commodity export – a shipment of coal. Today it is home to the world’s largest coal port, with A$38.6bn-worth ($26.8bn; £18.9bn) passing through in 2023.

The livelihoods of about 52,000 people here rely on coal mines, power stations or supporting industries.

Made up of a handful of parliamentary seats, the region has traditionally been a Labor stronghold. But in recent years electorates like Hunter and Paterson have been faltering, and the Coalition is banking on its vision of a nuclear-powered future to win over these largely blue-collar constituents.

It says it can have the first nuclear plant up and running by 2037 and that nuclear plants will provide a similar number and range of jobs as the coal-fired power stations they’re going to supersede.

“I think in the Hunter, and elsewhere to be honest, people realise that if there is not a replacement industry for coal, then these jobs go,” opposition leader Peter Dutton said on the campaign trail.

While nuclear power has been part of the energy mix in many countries around the globe for decades, this is uncharted territory for Australia.

The country’s only nuclear reactor, at Lucas Heights in Sydney, is used for medical research.

Nuclear has been banned at a federal level since the late 1990s. If the Coalition wins the election, it could convince parliament to overturn that, but persuading states to scrap their own bans on nuclear may not be so simple.

Leaders in four of the five states where nuclear plants are proposed have outright ruled out doing so.

Critics also say the Coalition’s claims on timeframe and its $300bn price tag are unrealistic given the need to train workers, develop regulations and build the infrastructure. 

Some have accused it of simply trying to prolong the use of fossil fuels – the ageing coal plants will have to run for longer to plug the energy gap.

From Mr Collins’ perspective, that wouldn’t be so bad. “Being in the coal industry, I would like coal to go as long as possible,” he says.

But he understands the need to “embrace” cleaner sources of energy. Though a variety of sources “all have their place”, he is particularly interested in nuclear.

“There [may have been] a lot of scary notions around nuclear power… but technology has come a long way,” he says, referring to deadly disasters like Chernobyl in 1986 and Fukushima in 2011.

But others in Muswellbrook are adamant the need for employment in the region does not outweigh the “risks” of nuclear.

“Liddell’s closure meant a few jobs were lost but I don’t think that really affected the community… I think [nuclear] is dangerous,” says 25-year-old Chloe.

Another cafe owner simply says “it’s not going to happen”.

“We don’t have the technology to build it. We can’t afford it,” he says. “We’re always going to have to burn coal, I believe.”

The topic clearly evokes strong feelings. Many people here are more than happy to share their opinions with the BBC, but are hesitant to be named or photographed. “Our community group is ruthless,” one woman explains.

But elsewhere in the Hunter region, it is Labor’s renewables plan that is stirring heated conversation.

Renewables currently supply 46% of Australia’s electricity and Labor wants to raise the proportion to 82% by 2030. As weather is unpredictable, this plan must be backed up by batteries and gas, it argues.

“Australia needs to be ambitious. We must be optimistic… We can be a renewable energy superpower for the world,” Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said last month, adding that this vision will create jobs in “every part of the country”.

Ben Abbott is one of those unconvinced by these plans.

“We are not experts in energy. But where we will put our hat into the ring is when it concerns where we live. We know what’s at stake,” said Mr Abbott, who is president of No Offshore Turbines Port Stephens.

The government has earmarked a 1,854 sq km (716 sq miles) area between Newcastle and Port Stephens – a popular spot for whale watching and game fishing – as Australia’s second offshore wind zone.

Mr Abbott’s group is concerned that the construction and operation of wind turbines will disturb marine life – though scientists say more research is needed – and adversely affect tourism.

He also accused Labor of running a “scare campaign” against nuclear.

Some in the party have savaged the opposition’s nuclear pitch by flooding social media with, among other things, memes featuring beloved cartoon koala Blinky Bill with three eyes.

“I’d like to learn more about it from an impartial point of view, not as a political issue,” Mr Abbott says.

On the other hand, some have also accused the Coalition of capitalising on fear around wind farms. Billboards along the highway to Port Stephens profess that only their local candidate will “stop Labor’s offshore wind farms”.

There is also concern that local anti-renewables movements are being driven or backed by people who outright reject climate change, as a tactic to delay the country’s turn away from fossil fuels. According to Guardian Australia, that includes the Saltbush Club, a group of the country’s most prominent and powerful climate change deniers.

Mr Abbott says the Port Stephens campaign is not one of these. “None of us are against renewables,” he says, noting that he agrees with the commitment to net zero.

The conversations taking place in the Hunter region are playing out on a national level too.

Polls indicate the country is still split on the best path forward, with support for nuclear hovering around 40%, with the rest fluctuating between undecided or opposed.

For every argument from each side of the debate, there’s a point to counter it on the other.

Both parties have been flouting the jobs created for communities hosting their energy infrastructure, but have been using cost-of-living relief to appeal to the nation more broadly.

However the price tag on each of these plans depends on who you ask.

Labor has for years said a grid dominated by renewables would cost A$122bn, and has dangled energy bill rebates and discounts on solar home batteries as part of its pitch.

But the Coalition says they believe it will cost at least five times more, and that their plan is half the price. They too have promised lower power bills with nuclear.

Australia’s national science agency, though, says they estimate electricity generated from nuclear reactors will cost twice as much as renewable energy, even after accounting for their longer lifespans.

Environmental economics professor Frank Jotzo argues that the Coalition’s promises can only be put to test a long time in the future. “Given that Australia runs on three-year terms of government, they will not be under pressure to deliver,” he says.

Grattan Institute’s Mr Wood believes the Coalition is wielding nuclear energy as a political weapon, noting that Australia has for at least the last decade seen bipartisan support for renewables.

“They needed a point of difference. And nuclear met the objective,” he says.

Both note the Coalition has already signalled it could abandon Australia’s 2030 emissions reduction target if it wins government – while Labor says it is on track to meet it.

“A Coalition government, majority or minority, would have very big challenges introducing the nuclear proposal. I suspect we would see an escalation in the climate war,” Mr Wood said.

But nuclear advocates are frustrated nuclear power isn’t even an option here.

While Australia has abundant solar and wind resources, these are intermittent, says nuclear engineer Jasmin Diab. Nuclear is more reliable and facilities last twice as long – so she argues an “ideal energy mix” would be heavy on renewables with a “backbone built on nuclear”.

“Labor’s position prevents Australia from making use of what’s going to be an important source of energy in the future,” said nuclear law expert Helen Cook. She points to countries across the world already benefiting from nuclear energy, such as the US and Canada, and several others at least studying it, including Indonesia.

But Justin Page, from the Hunter Jobs Alliance, argues the Hunter doesn’t have time to opt for the Coalition’s “fundamentally flawed” plan.

The region is well on the way in its transition to renewables, he says, with proposed wind projects, for example, expected to create some 3,000 jobs.

“To go nuclear will mean starting off the ground… Such a transition will take too long and be too costly,” he says. “It will be ridiculous to change courses now.”

Many Hunter residents say they just want certainty.

“The best plan will be for the two parties to get together and come up with a credible, realistic and deliverable plan… rather than using such a serious issue for electioneering,” one Newcastle resident tells us.

One of the world’s most endangered amphibians – the strange, perpetually smiling Mexican axolotl – has thrived after being released in artificial wetlands, scientists have discovered.

In a study that provides hope for the long-term future of a creature that was pushed to the brink of extinction, scientists released 18 captive-bred axolotls in restored and artificial wetland close to Mexico City.

The researchers fitted the animals with radio trackers and found that they “survived and foraged successfully at both sites” – even gaining weight.

Lead researcher Dr Alejandra Ramos from the Autonomous University of Baja California said this was an “amazing result”.

The findings are published in the journal PLoS One and they suggest, the researchers say, that the axoltol can be brought back to its native habitat.

The waters of Xochimilco – shaped by traditional farming practices and flushed with spring water from the mountains – used to teem with these amphibians.

But as Mexico City grew, urbanisation, pollution and other pressures pushed axolotls to the brink of extinction, with some estimates suggesting that there were as few as 50 left in the wild.

“If we lose this species, we lose part of our Mexican identity,” said co-lead researcher Dr Luis Zambrano from the National University of Mexico.

It is no exaggeration to call the axoltol an icon. Aztec legend has it that the creature is a god in salamander form – the Aztec god of fire and lightning, Xolotl, disguised as a salamander.

“If we can restore this [wetland] habitat and restore the axolotl’s population in a city of more than 20 million people,” Dr Zambrano continued, “I feel that we have hope for humanity.”

To lay the foundations for releasing the animals, the researchers worked with local farmers and a team of volunteers to create wetland “refuges” for the axolotls. They installed natural filtering systems to clean the water,

The scientists released their captive-bred animals at two sites – one in Xochimilco and one at a disused quarry that, over decades, has turned into what they called an “artificial wetland”.

Every animal was tagged with a radio tracking device.

“The amazing news is that they all survived,” Dr Ramos told BBC News. “And not only that, but the ones that we recaptured had gained weight – so they’re hunting.”

The monitoring also revealed intriguing insights into axolotl behaviour. “We found that some spend most of their time with one other individual – like they make these little friendships,” Dr Ramos explained.

Somewhat ironically, these charismatic salamanders are found in the world’s laboratories and pet aquariums in their hundreds of thousands. The species is biologically fascinating – it has the remarkable ability to regrow any part of its body that is damaged or lost. So there is research underway to understand whether that ability could be harnessed medically.

But in the murky wetlands of Mexico City, there is still a great deal of work to do to clean up and restore the habitat, and to give the wild axolotl a chance to recover.

“Many animals are losing their habitat around the world,” said Dr Ramos. “And restoration projects are not easy, but they can be done – they just need a lot of people.

“You don’t need to be a scientist to get involved – everybody in the world can help out.”

President Donald Trump has asked for more time on the US economy as it contracted for the first time in three years, stoking recession fears.

He said the figure was misleading because companies had stockpiled imports ahead of his imposition of tariffs.

Trump, however, said $8tn (£6tn) of inward investment had been promised, which he argued would restore American manufacturing prowess.

The US economy contracted at an annual rate of 0.3%, the US commerce department said, a sharp downturn after growth of 2.4% in the previous quarter. It comes as Trump marks 100 days in office, with opinion polls indicating public discontent over his economic stewardship.

Speaking on Wednesday afternoon at a White House event attended by business leaders, Trump blamed his Democratic predecessor, President Joe Biden, for the disappointing gross domestic product data.

“This is Biden’s economy because we took over on January 20th,” Trump said. “I think you have to give us a little bit of time to get moving.”

It comes in the aftermath of the Republican president’s import taxes, which have disrupted global trade and markets.

Trump’s finger pointing at Biden drew scorn from Democrats.

Congressman Hakeem Jeffries, minority leader of the US House of Representatives, said: “This is not Joe Biden’s economy, Donald, it is your economy.

“It is the Trump economy, it is a failed economy and the American people know it.”

• ‘We don’t care’: A defiant China looks beyond Trump’s America
• Why the IMF is worried about the economy – three things to know

At Wednesday’s White House event, Trump touted planned investments in technology, healthcare and infrastructure.

He introduced CEOs of major companies, including Hyundai’s Jose Munoz, Toyota’s Ted Ogawa, and Johnson & Johnson’s Joaquin Duato.

Trump also urged Congress to pass his tax bill, which includes trillions of dollars in tax and spending cuts, but faces opposition from Democrats and some Republicans.

At a television appearance earlier in the day with cabinet members, Trump played down fears of shortages of items such as toys, as trade between the US and China falls sharply.

“Well, maybe the children will have to have two dolls instead of 30 dolls, you know?” he said. “And maybe the two dolls will cost a couple of bucks more than they would normally.”

Trump has enacted 10% levies on almost all countries importing to the US, after announcing a 90-day pause on higher tariffs. The amount paid by these countries could change after the period expires in July.

Another 25% tariff has been imposed on Mexico and Canada. The levies on China, however, have led to an all-out trade war with the world’s second largest economy.

Trump imposed import taxes of up to 145% on Chinese goods coming into the US and China hit back with a 125% tax on American products.

His administration said when the new tariffs were added on to existing ones, the levies on some Chinese goods could reach 245%.

Pakistan’s army chief, General Asim Munir, is not known for seeking the spotlight.

Yet in recent weeks, it has found him – not only in Pakistan, but across the border in India and in diplomatic capitals far beyond.

His remarks on Kashmir – made just days before a militant attack in Indian-administered Kashmir which killed 26 people – have reignited a debate over Pakistan’s military stance and its role in rising regional tensions.

Kashmir, which India and Pakistan claim in full but administer only in part, has been a flashpoint between the countries since they were partitioned in 1947.

Though not directly linked to the violence, Gen Munir’s words have been dissected and interpreted as a shift towards a more confrontational tone, both from him and the institution he leads.

He is viewed as the most powerful man in Pakistan, where the military has long been blamed for interfering in politics, installing and removing governments. As tensions with India rise again, he is being watched as the central figure in a volatile nuclear-armed rivalry.

So who is Gen Munir? And what drives him?

Gen Munir, who is in his late 50s, is the son of a school principal and religious scholar. He joined the army through the Officers Training School in Mangla in 1986, earning the prestigious Sword of Honour given to the best-performing cadet. He was then commissioned into the 23 Frontier Force Regiment.

Over nearly four decades, Gen Munir has commanded troops along Pakistan’s sensitive northern borders near Kashmir, led its intelligence services and served in Saudi Arabia to bolster defence ties.

He holds a masters degree in public policy and strategic security management from the National Defence University in Islamabad and is also an alumnus of military institutions in Japan and Malaysia.

I first saw Gen Munir in Islamabad in 2023, at a packed hotel hall filled with ministers, diplomats, generals and journalists. Dressed in civilian clothes, he moved with calm authority, scanning the room as he approached the podium.

He opened his speech with a recitation from the Quran, reflecting his rare status as a hafiz – someone who has memorised Islam’s holy book in its entirety – among Pakistan’s military elite.

In person, Gen Munir seemed soft-spoken and polite. On stage, he was stern, with the sharp gaze of a former spymaster. A man trained to watch, listen and wait. Now, his words are echoing beyond Pakistan.

Gen Munir became Pakistan’s chief of army staff in November 2022, stepping into the role amid a perfect storm of political upheaval, an economic crisis and public disillusionment with the military’s role in governance.

His appointment followed months of speculation, largely because of his fallout with the then-prime minister Imran Khan.

Gen Munir had served just eight months as the chief of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) spy agency before being removed by Khan in what many believe was a deeply personal and political move – though both sides deny this. That moment remains a turning point in their relationship.

Today, Khan is serving a sentence in jail and Gen Munir is the most powerful man in the country.

Gen Munir is regarded by many commentators as differing in temperament and approach from his immediate predecessor, Qamar Javed Bajwa.

Gen Bajwa was more public-facing, supported backchannel diplomacy with India and handled a major escalation of tensions between the countries in 2019 with caution.

Under what came to be known as the “Bajwa Doctrine”, he increasingly emphasised regional stability and geo-economics alongside traditional security priorities.

After a suicide bomb attack on troops in Indian-administered Kashmir at Pulwama in 2019, Gen Bajwa oversaw Pakistan’s military response to Indian air raids but refrained from escalation, returning Indian pilot Abhinandan Varthaman and helping avert a full-blown war.

“Bajwa was clear,” says Abdul Basit, senior fellow at Singapore’s S Rajaratnam School of International Studies.

“He had diplomatic channels open and was managing multiple fronts like Kashmir, Afghanistan and the US withdrawal from Afghanistan with pragmatism,” he said, adding that Gen Munir “is under immediate, intense pressure to act”.

“He has come in with unfinished business to stabilise the country’s security situation internally… The problems he faces (rising terrorism, political instability, an economic crisis, regional tensions) are urgent and worsening. He cannot afford long, drawn-out strategies like his predecessor Bajwa could. He needs quicker, firmer responses – both at home and abroad.”

The dispute over Kashmir is an issue that no Pakistani military leader can appear weak on, observers say.

“Kashmir is Pakistan’s national security interest – every child in Pakistani schools is taught this,” political and defence analyst Amir Zia told the BBC, adding: “It’s a basic understanding here that we cannot give India any leverage.”

Last week’s attack was the deadliest on civilians in Indian-administered Kashmir in two decades and led to India accusing Pakistan of supporting the attackers, charges Islamabad denies. There are fears India will respond with military action.

Since he took over, Gen Munir has mostly not spoken in public, but one pivotal speech has gained widespread attention.

On 17 April, he told a meeting of expatriates in Islamabad “we are different from Hindus” in every possible way.

He doubled down on Kashmir, calling it Pakistan’s “jugular vein”, and vowed Pakistan would “never abandon Kashmiris in their heroic struggle against Indian occupation“.

The speech might have remained one of many ideological statements made by Pakistani leaders over the years except for what happened next.

Just five days later, on 22 April, militants opened fire on tourists in Pahalgam in Indian-administered Kashmir.

“This was not standard rhetoric,” says Joshua T White, a South Asia expert at Johns Hopkins University.

“While the substance aligns with Pakistan’s ideological narrative, the tone – especially its direct invocation of Hindu-Muslim differences – made it particularly inflammatory.”

“Coming just before the Pahalgam attack, it has badly complicated any effort by Pakistan to claim restraint or pursue backchannel diplomacy,” he adds.

Mr Basit agrees the optics were damaging: “He [Munir] may have been caught up in the moment. He said things that, in a private setting, may not have raised eyebrows but on that public platform, as army chief, they came across as overtly confrontational.”

“Some saw it as a power move,” says Mr Basit.

“It felt like his arrival moment. A declaration that he’s now firmly in control, that Pakistan’s direction is once again in the army’s hands,” he adds.

Gen Munir made another speech earlier in the year, which some think may signal he is adopting a harder line than his predecessor. Speaking in Muzaffarabad on Kashmir Solidarity Day on 5 February, he declared: “Pakistan has already fought three wars for Kashmir, and if 10 more wars are required, Pakistan will fight them.”

But given the timing, it’s his latest speech that has fuelled speculation after the Pahalgam attack, with Indian officials hinting at a link. Though no evidence has been presented so far, the rhetoric has deepened mistrust.

At home, Gen Munir’s actions are being seen by many as those of a leader who is calculated, uncompromising and determined to reassert military authority.

After the 9 May 2023 riots sparked by Khan’s arrest, Gen Munir launched an unprecedented crackdown on his supporters.

Civilians were tried under military laws, a top general was forced into early retirement, and former ISI chief Lt Gen Faiz Hameed (retired), once close to Khan, was arrested.

Critics called it a purge of Khan loyalists; supporters saw it as restoring discipline to Pakistan’s powerful military whose authority – and that of Bajwa and Munir – had been challenged. The two men were being heavily criticised in public.

Gen Munir is just over two years into his five-year term, but the contours of his legacy are already taking shape.

Whether the simmering crisis with India escalates into a larger military stand-off or is tackled through diplomacy, the future of Pakistan’s relationship with its neighbour may well hinge on which direction Gen Munir steers it in.

Mr Basit warns the next few weeks “will determine how things unfold”.

“How Gen Munir navigates this crisis will define him as a soldier, as a power broker, and what kind of regional actor Pakistan wants to be. And right now, that choice sits largely with him.”

Meta warned on Wednesday that European users could face a “materially worse” experience following a key regulatory decision by the European Commission.

Meta recently introduced a “consent or pay” model which leaves users to choose between paying for a monthly subscription or letting Meta combine data it has collected on Facebook and Instagram.

Last week, the European Commision – the EU’s executive – announced it had decided that the model does not comply with the Digital Markets Act (DMA) and fined Meta €200m (£171m).

“Based on feedback from the EC in connection with the DMA, we expect we will need to make some modifications to our model,” Meta said in its quarterly earnings statement.

Meta said it expected those modifications “could result in a materially worse user experience for European users and a significant impact” to its European business and revenue.

The company said those impacts could kick in as soon as the third quarter of this year, and may be in effect while it appeals the decision.

Eric Seufert, analyst at Mobile Dev Memo, said Meta may be trying to strategically turn European users into “vocal cheerleaders” for its products amid a regulatory clampdown.

“What they ultimately want to do is turn public opinion against this regulatory regime which will demonstrably degrade the product offerings that are available to EU residents,” Seufert told the BBC in a phone interview after the announcement.

Meta, formerly known as Facebook, includes the social media network in addition to the photo sharing app Instagram and the messaging service WhatsApp.

The Commission has said that Meta’s consent-or-pay model does not allow users to freely consent to how their data is used.

The body is currently assessing another option Meta introduced last year, which the company says uses less personal data to display advertisements.

Meta was given 60 days to comply with the DMA’s recent decision, or risk further fines.

Apple was also issued a €500m (£428m) fine over its App Store practices last week.

Meta’s announcement comes as it released quarterly earnings that beat Wall Street expectations.

The results showed Meta continues to bring in significant advertising revenue.

The company touted its AI tools on Wednesday.

“We’re making good progress on AI glasses and Meta AI, which now has almost 1 billion monthly actives,” Meta founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg said in a statement.

“Our community continues to grow and our business is performing very well,” he said.

Matt Britzman, senior equity analyst at Hargreaves Lansdown said the results showed that Meta has gone “full throttle on investments in AI” and notes

Britzman also noted the 6% jump in daily active users.

“There had been some concerns that we might see a slowdown in new users this year, but this was a very strong start and a signal to investors that Meta’s family of apps has a grip on users that’s hard to displace,” Britzman said.

The EC fine comes amid what Meta called “an active regulatory landscape” in its earnings report.

The company is currently defending itself at trial in a case brought by the US Federal Trade Commission which alleges that Meta runs a social media monopoly.

The FTC, the top antitrust watchdog in the US, says Meta cemented its monopoly by purchasing Instagram in 2012 and WhatsApp in 2014.

King Charles has sent a personal message to fellow cancer patients, speaking of the “daunting and at times frightening experience” for cancer sufferers and their loved ones.

In a heartfelt message to guests at a Buckingham Palace reception for cancer charities, the King spoke about becoming a cancer “statistic” – referencing the more than 1,000 new cases recorded in the UK every day.

He said his experience of living with cancer had shown that “the darkest moments of illness can be illuminated by the greatest compassion”.

The message doesn’t provide an update on the progress of the King’s own cancer treatment, but royal sources say he is continuing in a positive direction.

The King was diagnosed with an undisclosed form of cancer in February 2024 and continues to receive regular treatment, which is said to be successful and that he is getting better.

There was a brief hospital stay for the King in March after he suffered side effects, but he was well enough in April for a state visit to Italy with a busy schedule and is said to have plans for further overseas trips.

There has been an attempt to be more open about his health problems – and this latest message reflects his sense of a shared experience with the many other families affected by cancer.

The King’s statement continued: “But as one among those statistics myself, I can vouch for the fact that it can also be an experience that brings into sharp focus the very best of humanity.”

He praised the “community of care” of those who helped cancer patients, for their humanity as well as their expertise.

The King highlighted “the profound impact of human connection – whether in the careful explanation from a specialist nurse, the hand held by a hospice volunteer, or the shared experience in a support group”.

“While every patient’s journey may be different, together you are ensuring that a cancer diagnosis need never mean facing the future without hope and support,” said the King.

He quoted Dame Deborah James, who died of bowel cancer in 2022 and whose parents are guests at the reception, who said: “Have no regrets; and always, always have rebellious hope.”

The reception at Buckingham Palace on Wednesday evening, attended by the King and Queen Camilla, is in honour of community projects helping people who are living with cancer and for health groups trying to prevent cancer.

Among the guests will be representatives of cancer charities including Macmillan Cancer Support, Breast Cancer Now, Maggie’s and Children’s Hospice South West.

The reception includes displays showing the work of groups helping people affected by cancer, including Wigs for Heroes and Move Dance Feel, which uses dance to support women with cancer.

At the Palace there are also champions of cancer charities, people living with cancer and people who lost relatives, including radio presenter Adele Roberts, former footballer Ashley Cain and actor Richard E Grant.

“Every day we see the impact that cancer is having on people’s lives and that experience is even worse for some people because of who they are or where they live, which is entirely unacceptable. We are on a mission to transform cancer care, but we cannot do it on our own,” said Gemma Peters, chief executive officer at Macmillan Cancer Support.

If you are affected by any of the issues raised in this story, support and advice is available via the BBC Action Line.

Sign up here to get the latest royal stories and analysis every week with our Royal Watch newsletter. Those outside the UK can sign up here.

A Columbia University student and Palestinian activist arrested by US immigration authorities has been released from custody, US media reports.

Mohsen Mahdawi, who has permanent US residency or “green card” status, was detained by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice) when he turned up at an American citizenship interview in Vermont in mid-April.

Mr Mahdawi’s legal team petitioned for his release alleging unlawful incarceration.

The US government says he was undermining US foreign policy. Luna Droubi, one of his lawyers, argued that the arrest was “in direct retaliation for his advocacy on behalf of Palestinians and because of his identity as a Palestinian”.

Vermont District Judge Geoffrey Crawford ordered the release of Mohsen Mahdawi from prison on bail on Wednesday, pending the court’s ruling on the habeas petition challenging his detention, according to a statement by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which is part of his legal representation.

The judge denied a request from government lawyers to delay his release by seven days.

In the statement, Ms Droubi said the claims against him are “baseless” and a “disgrace to the US Constitution”. She said she was “relieved” that Mr Mahdawi had been released, and vowed to “keep fighting until Mohsen is free for good”.

Tricia McLaughlin, an assistant secretary at the Department of Homeland Security, responded after his release, saying “no judge, not this one or another, is going to stop the Trump Administration from restoring the rule of law to our immigration system”.

Mr Mahdawi thanked supporters outside the courtroom, saying, “We are pro-peace and anti-war”.

“To my people in Palestine: I feel your pain, I see your suffering; and I see freedom and it is very very soon.”

One day before his arrest, Mr Mahdawi had told CBS News, the BBC’s US partner, that he believed the citizenship interview could be a setup.

“It’s the first feeling of like, I’ve been waiting for this for more than a year,” Mr Mahdawi said. “And the other feeling is like, wait a minute. Is this a honey trap?”

Several prominent politicians, including independent Senator Bernie Sanders who represents Vermont, have spoken out in support of Mr Mahdawi and called for his release.

US authorities have detained multiple students and graduates involved in the protest movement against the war, including Columbia University’s Mahmoud Khalil and Tufts University’s Rumeysa Ozturk.

An Australian woman accused of cooking a fatal mushroom meal admits to picking wild funghi, lying to police and disposing of evidence, a court has heard, but will argue the “tragedy” was a “terrible accident”.

The Supreme Court trial of Erin Patterson, 50, began in the small Victorian town of Morwell on Wednesday and is expected to last six weeks.

She is charged with the murder of three relatives and the attempted murder of another, with the case centring on a beef wellington lunch at her house in July 2023.

Ms Patterson has pleaded not guilty and her defence team says she “panicked” after unintentionally serving poison to family members she loved.

Three people died in hospital in the days after the meal, including Ms Patterson’s former in-laws, Don Patterson, 70, and Gail Patterson, 70, as well as Gail’s sister, Heather Wilkinson, 66.

A single lunch guest survived – local pastor Ian Wilkinson – after weeks of treatment in hospital.

The fact that the lunch of beef wellington, mash potatoes and green beans contained death cap mushrooms and caused the guests’ illnesses is not in contention, the court heard.

“The overarching issue is whether she intended to kill or cause very serious injury,” Justice Christopher Beale said.

Opening the trial on Wednesday, prosecutor Nanette Rogers SC said this case was “originally thought to be a mass food poisoning event”.

But she alleges Ms Patterson “deliberately poisoned” her guests “with murderous intent”, after inviting them for lunch “on the pretence she’d been diagnosed with cancer”.

Dr Rogers said the jury would hear evidence that Ms Patterson had travelled to a location, near her home in Leongatha, where death cap mushroom sightings had been logged on a naturalist website.

And in the days after the lunch, she took a number of steps to “conceal” what she had done, the prosecution alleged.

There’d be evidence that she lied to investigators about the source of the mushrooms in the dish – saying some had come from Asian grocery in Melbourne and she’d never foraged wild ones. And she made a trip to a local dump to dispose of a food dehydrator prosecutors say she used to prepare the toxic meal.

“You might be wondering, ‘What is the motive?'” Dr Rogers said to the jury, “You might still be wondering this at the end of this trial.”

The prosecution will not be suggesting a specific motive, she explained.

“You do not have to be satisfied what the motive was, or even that there was one.”

What the jury could expect to hear, she said, was testimony from a range of witnesses, including: Mr Wilkinson, Ms Patterson’s estranged husband Simon Patterson, medical staff who treated the lunch guests, and police who investigated.

However the defence, in opening their case, reminded the jury they had not heard any actual evidence yet and needed to keep an open mind.

Barrister Colin Mandy says while the prosecution will try to cast Ms Patterson’s behaviour after the lunch as “incriminating”, jurors should consider how someone might react in that situation.

“Might people say or do things that are not well thought out, and might make them look bad?”

“The defence case is that she panicked because she was overwhelmed by the fact that these four people had become so ill because of the food she had served them. Three people died.”

He said Ms Patterson did not deliberately serve poisoned food to her guests.

“She didn’t intend to cause anyone any harm on that day… what happened was a tragedy, a terrible accident.”

The prosecution also detailed allegations of what took place in the lead up to the lunch, and at the table, in open court for the first time.

The trial heard that, in 2023, the accused had been amicably separated from her husband Simon Patterson for years.

“Simon remained hopeful for some time that he and the accused would someday reunite,” Dr Rogers told the jury.

He was also planning to attend the gathering but pulled out at the last minute because he had noticed a recent “change in his relationship” with Ms Patterson and felt “uncomfortable”, the prosecutor said. This was something that “disappointed” Ms Patterson who “emphasised the effort she had put into preparing the lunch”.

The jury was told it would hear testimony that Ms Patterson served her guests on large grey plates, but ate off a different, tan orange dish – prompting one of the guests to later ask if she had “a shortage of crockery”.

They said grace, dug in, and exchanged “banter” about how much they had eaten, before discussing how Ms Patterson should share her cancer diagnosis – which the defence admits was fake – with her children.

The lunch party broke up in the early afternoon, and by that night, all of the guests were feeling ill, Dr Rogers says. Within a day, the four had gone to hospital with severe symptoms. Donald Patterson – who had eaten his portion of lunch and about half his wife’s – told a doctor he’d vomited 30 times in the space of a few hours.

The prosecutor said the Wilkinsons had asked whether Ms Patterson was also in hospital, as she’d eaten the same meal as them.

She had gone to the hospital, reporting feeling ill, but repeatedly declined to be admitted, the court heard. A doctor who had treated the other lunch guests was so concerned for her welfare he called police to ask for help.

Likewise, the jury was told Ms Patterson kept refusing to seek treatment for her children, who she said had eaten the beef wellington leftovers – albeit with the mushrooms scraped off as they didn’t like them.

“Lots of people might have opinions or theories, but they aren’t based on the evidence,” the defence warned the jury at the end of the day.

“None of that should have any bearing on your decision.”

Swedish police have arrested a teenager after a fatal triple shooting in the city of Uppsala on Tuesday.

The shooter reportedly fled on a scooter following the attack in a hair salon in the centre of the city, triggering a manhunt.

Police confirmed on Wednesday that the person arrested for the shooting is under the age of 18.

All three victims were aged between 15 and 20 years old, Swedish police told a news conference, though the region’s chief of police Erik Åkerlund said their identities have not been “100%” confirmed.

Police are investigating the possibility the deaths are related to gang crime, Swedish media reported.

One of those murdered at the hair salon is reportedly known to the police, local media said.

The victim was involved in a police investigation over a planned attack against a relative of gang leader Ismail Abdo, according to the reports. The person was never charged.

Abdo, nicknamed ‘jordgubben’ or ‘the strawberry’, is a well-known gang leader.

A new, violent chapter in Sweden’s gang wars began when Abdo’s mother was murdered in 2023 at her home in Uppsala, north of Stockholm.

Sweden has seen a wave of teenage gang crime in recent years, with suspects accused of a range of offences from vandalism to murder.

The Swedish government has proposed new legislation that would allow police to wiretap children under the age of 15 in an attempt to grapple with the problem.

In a pre-planned press conference on gang violence on Wednesday, the Minister of Justice Gunnar Strömmer suggested police would not need concrete evidence to conduct the wiretaps.

While he has acknowledged the proposals involve a major breach of privacy, Strömmer has suggested the measures are necessary to stop the recruitment of children as young as ten and 11 to gangs, Swedish media reported.

The government has also said it wants to tighten the country’s gun laws.

The attack came on the eve of the Walpurgis spring festival, when large crowds are expected to descend on the streets of Uppsala, a university town north of Stockholm.

Known in Sweden as Valborg, university students gather in the city for champagne breakfasts, herring lunches and a raft race on the river.

There is a huge bonfire on the outskirts of the city planned for Wednesday evening.

Åsa Larsson, a local police chief in Uppsala and Knivsta, said that Swedes planning to visit Uppsala for its annual Valborg spring festival events, popular with students, should not change their plans.

However, visitors were urged to contact police if they spotted anything they were concerned about.

She said that there would be a large police presence across Uppsala in the coming days, but that there were “no guarantees” that further violence could be avoided.

Following the shooting, police officers cordoned off a large area near the hair salon.

“Everything happened so fast. It just went bang, bang, bang,” a witness told Swedish channel TV4.

Another man said he was cooking at home when he heard “two bangs that sounded a bit like fireworks” going off outside on the street.

He told Swedish television he was “very surprised and scared” and shortly after “swarms of police and ambulances” started blocking off the street and telling people to move back.

President Trump used a rally in Michigan to mark what he claimed had been “the most successful first 100 days of any administration in the history of our country, according to many, many people”.

He highlighted his efforts to tackle illegal immigration, to bring back jobs to the US and end what he called “the inflation nightmare”.

BBC Verify has looked into some of the main claims from his speech.

Trump said “gasoline prices are down by a lot” since he took office.

On 29 April, the average price for a gallon of “regular” gas – or petrol – across the US was $3.16 (£2.36), according to data from the American Automobile Association (AAA).

That is slightly up from the $3.125 (£2.33) recorded by the AAA on the day Trump entered the White House.

In his speech, he added that gas prices had “just hit $1.98 in a lot of states”.

This is a claim he has made several times but we cannot find evidence of prices this low.

As of 29 April, no state had an average gas price lower than $2.67 (£1.99), according to the AAA.

The US president also spoke about the cost of eggs – a concern for many US consumers due to an ongoing bird flu outbreak – and said: “Since I took office, the cost of eggs is down 87%.”

This claim is false.

The average national price for consumers of a dozen large Grade A eggs when Trump entered office in January was about $4.95 (£3.70).

This rose to a record high of around $6.23 (£4.65) per dozen in March – according to the latest available figures.

The White House has pointed to wholesale egg prices as evidence of improvement.

Wholesale prices have gone down since Trump took office – but by about 52% – from $6.55 (£4.89) for a dozen large white eggs in January to $3.15 (£2.34) in the past week, according to the US Department of Agriculture.

Trump spoke at length about his efforts to tackle illegal immigration – a key campaign issue in last year’s election.

He said: “For two months in a row, we have set all time records for the lowest number of illegal border crossings ever recorded.”

This claim is backed up by the latest monthly figures on “encounters” of illegal migrants recorded by officials at the US-Mexico border.

In March, there were 7,181 encounters of migrants there and in February there were 8,346.

These are the the lowest numbers since these monthly records began in 2000.

By comparison, there were about 140,000 encounters at this border in each of those months last year under President Biden.

His term saw record numbers of border crossings which then fell towards the end of his presidency.

The Migration Policy Institute think tank has studied monthly averages of annual figures available before 2000 and says this year’s illegal border crossings are the lowest since the late 1960s, rather than the lowest for “all time”.

President Trump praised Elon Musk’s work at the Department of Government Efficiency (Doge) saying: “They’ve saved over $150bn on waste, fraud and abuse”.

Doge, an advisory body, publishes a running total of its estimated savings on its website – it was $160bn the last time the site was updated on 20 April.

However, less than 40% of this figure is broken down into individual savings – which include cancelling government contracts, grants and leases.

Analysis by BBC Verify found only about half of these itemised savings had a link to a document or other form of evidence.

Doge says it is working to upload all receipts in a “digestible and transparent manner”.

Federal contract experts we spoke to also raised questions about Doge’s biggest claimed savings and said some had been overstated.

Trump said: “In three months we have created 350,000 jobs.”

This claim is backed up by official figures.

During Trump’s first two full months in office up until March (the latest available data) 345,000 jobs have been added, according to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics.

However, over the same period last year 468,000 jobs were added under President Biden.

Trump also said: “For the first time in recent memory, job gains for native-born Americans now exceed job gains for foreign workers.”

It is true that during President Trump’s first two full months in office more jobs have been created for native-born workers than foreign-born workers.

This also happened between February and April last year under President Biden.

What do you want BBC Verify to investigate?

US President Donald Trump has celebrated the 100th day of his second term in office with a campaign-style speech, touting his achievements and targeting political foes.

Hailing what he called a “revolution of common sense”, he told a crowd of supporters in Michigan that he was using his presidency to deliver “profound change”.

The Republican mocked his Democratic predecessor, Joe Biden, and aimed fresh criticism at the US Federal Reserve’s chairman, while dismissing polls that show his own popularity slipping.

Trump has delivered a dramatic fall in the number of migrants crossing illegally into the US, but the economy is a potential political vulnerability as he wages a global trade war.

“We’ve just gotten started, you haven’t seen anything yet,” Trump told the crowd on Tuesday in a suburb of Detroit.

Speaking at the hub of America’s automative industry, Trump said car firms were “lining up” to open new manufacturing plants in the Midwestern state.

Earlier in the day he softened a key element of his economic plan – tariffs on the import of foreign cars and car parts – after US car-makers warned of the danger of rising prices.

At his rally, Trump also said opinion polls indicating his popularity had fallen were “fake”.

According to Gallup, Trump is the only post-World War Two president to have less than half the public’s support after 100 days in office, with an approval rating of 44%.

But the majority of Republican voters still firmly back the president. And the rival Democratic Party is also struggling in polling.

The Democratic National Committee (DNC) said Trump’s first 100 days were a “colossal failure”.

“Trump is to blame for the fact that life is more expensive, it’s harder to retire, and a ‘Trump recession’ is at our doorstep,” the DNC said.

• Trump’s first 100 days – in numbers
• Trump’s breakneck start is fraught with political risk
• ‘Kicking butt’ or ‘going too fast’? Trump voters reflect on 100 days

Trump conducted his own informal poll in Tuesday’s remarks, asking the crowd for their favourite Biden nicknames. He also mocked his Democratic predecessor’s mental agility and even how he appears in a swim suit, while continuing to insist he was the real victor of the 2020 election, which he lost.

Other targets of his ire included Jerome Powell, head of the US central bank, who the president said was not doing a good job.

Trump touted progress on immigration – encounters at the southern border have plummeted to just over 7,000, down from 140,000 in March of last year.

The White House also said almost 65,700 immigrants had been deported in his term so far, although that is a slower pace than in the last fiscal year when US authorities deported more than 270,000.

Part of the way through his speech Trump screened a video of deportees being expelled from the US and sent to a mega-prison in El Salvador.

His immigration crackdown has faced a flurry of legal challenges, as has his effort to end the automatic granting of citizenship to anyone born on US soil.

During Tuesday’s speech he insisted egg prices had declined 87%, a claim contradicted by the latest government price figures.

Inflation, energy prices and mortgage rates have fallen since Trump took office, although unemployment has risen slightly, consumer sentiment has sagged and the stock market was plunged into turmoil by the tariffs.

Before the speech, Joe DeMonaco, who owns a carpentry business in Michigan, said Trump’s patchwork of on-again, off-again import taxes were starting to increase prices, which he will have to pass on to his customers.

“I was hoping. . . he would approach things a little bit differently seeing that he’s a little seasoned coming into a second term,” Mr DeMonaco told the BBC. “But we’re just treading water and seeing if things get better from here.”

But it’s clear that Trump’s most steadfast supporters stand by him.

“I’m just thrilled,” Teresa Breckinridge, owner of the Silver Skillet Diner in Atlanta, Georgia, told the BBC.

“He’s handling things wherever he can, multiple times a day, and he’s reporting back to the people. . . I think the tariffs will end up definitely being in our favour.”

US President Donald Trump has taken action to ease the impact of new tariffs on the car making industry, which had sparked warnings about higher prices and the potential for significant hits to sales and production.

The change will allow companies with US factories to reduce the amount they pay in import taxes on foreign parts, using a formula tied to how many cars they sell and the price.

The provision is intended to provide relief to businesses for two years as they rework their supply chains, the White House said.

Officials also moved to shield car firms from facing mounting tariffs on the same items.

They said businesses that have to pay tariffs on cars and parts would not be charged other duties the administration has imposed on steel, aluminium and goods from Canada and Mexico.

The changes came as Trump visited Michigan on Tuesday for a rally to mark his first 100 days in office.

The state is home to the so-called Detroit Three carmakers – Ford, General Motors (GM) and Stellantis – and a network of more than 1,000 major suppliers to the industry.

Those firms and the wider industry have been plunged into uncertainty since Trump announced new 25% tariffs on cars and car parts in March, saying he wanted to expand domestic car manufacturing – an industry the White House sees as key to national security.

Trump’s tariff announcement drove a spike in sales, as consumers rushed to get ahead of the tariffs. But it has also left businesses scrambling to respond.

Ahead of the latest announcement, General Motors and other carmakers said they welcomed the plans to soften the impact of the measures.

“We’re grateful to President Trump for his support of the US automotive industry and the millions of Americans who depend on us,” GM chief executive Mary Barra said in an emailed statement.

“We appreciate the productive conversations with the President and his Administration and look forward to continuing to work together.”

General Motors, which reported its quarterly performance to investors on Tuesday, also said on Tuesday that it needed to rework its forecast for the year and pulled its prior guidance.

In an unusual move, it also postponed the call with analysts that had been set to discuss the results.

Tariffs on foreign-made cars – which accounted for nearly half of US sales last year – went into effect last month.

The duties on parts were expected to come into force on 3 May.

Under the modified plan, carmakers will be able to claim an “offset” for what they pay in tariffs on car parts, worth up to 3.75% of the suggested retail price of all the cars they assemble in the US.

That share would fall to 2.5% in the second year.

The White House said the rules were designed so that a car with 85% of its parts made in the US – or in Canada or Mexico under the terms of an existing free trade deal – would not face any tariffs, a threshold that rises to 90% in the second year.

The adjustment is a recognition of the global nature of the industry’s current supply networks, where even cars that promote themselves as American-made often source a significant share of their parts from abroad.

In remarks to reporters ahead of the signing, Trump downplayed the easing, saying they applied to a “very, very small part of the car” and while noting he did not want to penalise companies with factories in the US.

“We just wanted to help them during this little transition, short-term,” he said.

Last week, a coalition of US motor industry groups called on the president to not impose the measures on parts.

A letter to his administration from groups representing companies including GM, Toyota and Volkswagen said the levies would “lead to higher auto prices for consumers, lower sales at dealerships and will make servicing and repairing vehicles both more expensive”.

Ford said it appreciated Trump’s decision, which it said would “help mitigate the impact of tariffs on automakers, suppliers and consumers”.

“We will continue to work closely with the administration in support of the president’s vision for a healthy and growing auto industry in America,” a statement added.

The car maker said policies that encouraged exports and ensured affordable supply chains to promote more domestic growth were “essential”.

“It will be important for the major vehicle importers to match Ford’s commitment to building in America,” the company said, adding that if they did, the US would see a “windfall of new assembly and supplier factories and hundreds of thousands of new jobs”.

Stellantis chairman John Elkann echoed the sentiments of his rival carmakers in response to the tariff reliefs.

“We look forward to our continued collaboration with the US administration to strengthen a competitive American auto industry and stimulate exports,” he added.

BBC’s North America team asked for your questions to mark US President Donald Trump’s first 100 days in office.

Here is a selection of those answered by our staff writers and correspondents.

They have aimed to explain the context and facts behind several of the biggest topics in the Trump administration, including the economy and how Trump would handle a war.

A UK-based reader asks how the UK economy might be impacted by tariffs.

The decisions made thousands of miles away will affect the UK economy. Most directly affected are those exporters selling into America, contending with that 10% extra charge (or even more in some cases) being applied to their goods: Do they try to compensate for that by cutting costs elsewhere – or risk a blow to sales?

And complex supply chains mean that disruption to other economies could be felt here. Bank of England Governor Andrew Bailey last week referred to a “growth shock” – many economists have cut their forecasts. No one yet is clear on how this trade war will play out, the uncertainty itself is damaging.

But the impact on inflation could work the other way. Countries such as China may be tempted to divert goods here instead, given the barriers they face in America. And the drop in oil and other commodity prices, amid market turmoil, could also bode well for keeping bills down.

So many economists reckon that with a weaker growth and inflation outlook, interest rates could fall faster than previously thought. A cut of 0.25 percentage points is widely expected next week, another could follow in June.

Another reader asks how Trump’s immigration policy is likely to affect Canadian-American relations, especially for dual citizens or people with mixed-status families.

If the first 100 days are anything to go by, relations between Canada and the US are almost certainly going to continue to be tense – both as a result of tariffs and Trump’s repeated, and near constant calls for Canada to become part of the US.

We had a taste of that just this week, when – as Canadians headed to the polls in their general election – Trump took to Truth Social to call on Canadians to elect him, seemingly referring to himself as a candidate, to reap the benefits of being the “cherished” 51st state.

“America can no longer subsidise Canada with the hundreds of billions a year that we have been spending in the past,” he said. “It makes no sense unless Canada is a state”.

How that impacts dual citizens or mixed-status families is a bit harder to answer.

But we’re seen a newfound sense of nationalism among many Canadians in response to Trump’s rhetoric and policies, and some Americans in Canada have even reportedly given up their citizenship.

While cross-border ties are very unlikely to ground to a standstill, many Canadian citizens – even those with US families – are likely to be more cautious when crossing the border, particularly after high-profile cases of Canadians being detained at the border.

In one case, an actress named Jasmine Moody was detained by ICE for about two weeks, later writing about her experience in a viral article in the Guardian.

A reader asks what Trump’s first 100 days tell us about how he’d handle a major international crisis, like another pandemic or a war.

It’s hard to say how exactly Trump would handle a major international crisis, but we have had glimpses that may provide a few clues.

Trump’s first crisis came just over a week into his administration on 29 January, when a US Army helicopter collided with a passenger aircraft over the Potomac river in Washington DC, killing 67 people.

Later that morning, I sat in the White House briefing room as Trump – with no evidence – alleged that the diversity, equity and inclusion policies at the Federal Aviation Administration may have led to the crash.

This suggests that in the event of a crisis, Trump is later to “fire from the hip”, sometimes speaking before all the facts are established. Many will remember Trump’s initial dismissal of the Covid-19 pandemic in his first administration, sometimes downplaying it as something that would soon “disappear”.

More so than other presidents, Trump also leans heavily on the power of the executive branch, making decisions from the Oval Office that have real-world implications, sometimes bypassing any discussion on Capitol Hill.

Those close to Trump are quick to say that he listens intently to his advisors, often letting discussions play out amongst them before his eyes. This is, for example, largely what happened with the tariffs issue.

Ultimately, however, he is the one who decides the government’s course of action, even if he lets his inner circle – which is perhaps more loyal and disciplined than in the last administration – carry out the details.

Arafin in Bangladesh wants to know how developing countries can navigate this evolving trade landscape and mitigate the risks.

There is just no way poorer countries could ever eliminate their trade surplus with the United States.

The world envisioned by Donald Trump – where citizens of developing countries buy as many American products as are sold the other way – is simply not possible.

The average Bangladeshi citizen, for example, is 32 times poorer than the average American.

In this case, the best Bangladeshi officials could do is promise Washington they will reduce some non-tariff barriers that are in place that make it hard for American companies to do business there.

For example, they could scrap quotas on imports, cut red tape or tackle corruption more effectively.

These small concessions – along with the assumption that American consumers won’t put up with rocketing prices – may lead to a softening or removal of Trump’s tariffs.

After all, if countries with large and cheap workforces can’t sell Americans affordable goods, then who will?

One other thing that developing countries will want to consider closely is the role of China in all of this.

If you’re a worker in a clothing factory in Bangladesh, a 37% US tax might seem a crippling blow to your livelihood – but it’s still better than the 125% tariff that Chinese manufacturers are facing.

As a Malaysian rubber glove manufacturer told me recently: “We’re not exactly jumping with joy, but this may well benefit us”.

Limiting dealings with China has been suggested as a way for developing countries to get a better trade deal with the White House. But that isn’t very realistic.

Beijing is by far and away the number one investor in the developing world. If you live in Africa, Asia or South America – it’s probably China building your railways, factories and power plants, not the United States.

The American consumer market is still the richest in the world and developing countries will want to fight tooth and nail to maintain access to it – but equally there is no way they can side with the US over China.

Chris in County Durham, UK, asks if Donald Trump is making millions of dollars on the US stock market by initiating a slump in share values, buying heavy, then reversing his policies to watch his share prices rocket up.

Critics are accusing President Trump of manipulating the stock market. White House officials have denied the allegations, with Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt calling it part of Trump’s “art of the deal”.

Here’s what we know so far:

On 9 April, Trump posted on Truth Social, in all caps: “THIS IS A GREAT TIME TO BUY! DJT.” Shortly after, he announced he was pausing the toughest tariffs for 90 days. In between, options traders placed big bets on a market rebound, which ended up being spot on.

This led to accusations of market manipulation and insider trading, with Democrats like Senator Adam Schiff calling for an investigation.

However, these cases are hard to prove – and even harder when you’re talking about the president. Legal experts say it would be a “high” bar to prove Trump did something illegal in this case. Plus he posted the information publicly.

Claims of insider trading might have some merit under the STOCK Act, which restricts public officials from profiting off non-public information. Although the White House could argue that the President can’t “gain” information about policy changes if he “created” them.

So, it’s still up in the air – but probably not something he needs to lose sleep over.

Jean-Claude asks if there any way within the US Constitution by which Congress could stop Trump’s tariffs and take away his freedom to issue Executive Orders at will.

Donald Trump has been pushing the boundaries of presidential authority with both his tariff declarations and more than 130 executive orders.

To do so, he has been asserting that Congress has given him the power to take these actions. To answer your question simply, then – any power that Congress gives, Congress can take back.

Traditionally, executive orders are a presidential interpretation of how laws should be implemented. Congress could step in and tell the White House that those interpretations are wrong.

Trump has been citing a 1977 law that grants him power to enact tariffs in cases of national emergency. Congress could amend that law or pass legislation that says no such emergency exists. There has already been a bipartisan proposal in the Senate to do exactly that.

The challenge for Trump’s opponents is finding a majority in the two chambers of Congress, both narrowly controlled by Republicans, to do so. The House of Representatives, in particular, is full of Republicans who are marching in lockstep with the president. The House recently adopted a provision that would make it much harder to rescind Trump’s proposed tariffs on Canada and Mexico, for instance.

Even if Congress was able to reach agreement on curtailing presidential power, Trump could decide to exercise his veto to block it from becoming law – something he’s already threated to do with the Senate tariff bill. And if he did that, it would take two-thirds of both chambers to override the president.

So Congress does have the ability to stop Trump, but perhaps not the interest or will to do so – at least not unless and until next year’s midterm elections shift the balance of power in the legislature toward the Democrats.

Rachel in Canada wonders if we can comment on what the real threat of annexation is for Canada with Trump in office. Should we be worried?

A lot depends on what the US president means when he talks about making Canada the 51st state.

It’s unlikely that both the US and Canada would agree to it through formal means – the bar is high.

It would need to be approved by both chambers in the US Congress, including at least 60 votes in support in the Senate, which has 100 seats.

It would also likely require amending the Canadian constitution, which would likely require unanimous provincial consent – no easy task – as well as Parliament’s approval.

It’s also highly unlikely that the US would invade Canada militarily.

Trump has spoken about forcing the issue through economic pressure – with Canada sending roughly 75% of its good south of the border, he does have some leverage.

Canada has already been hit with tariffs from the US, including the blanket tariffs on goods, though there is currently an exception for products covered by the USMCA trade deal. Those US tariffs are already being felt in some sectors.

However, Trump also appears willing to come to the negotiating table. He has said he is ready to start talks with Canada’s prime minister after the federal election.

Kevin in Stockport has two questions for James Lansdale, BBC News diplomatic correspondent: Not long ago President Trump said that if Russia didn’t agree to take serious steps towards ending the war he would apply massive sanctions. Russia has shown no desire to reach a peace settlement. So why is Trump not going to apply these threatened sanctions before considering ending the peace initiative?

Donald Trump is becoming increasingly frustrated at the refusal of Vladimir Putin to agree an immediate unconditional ceasefire. Recently, after his talks with President Zelensky at the Vatican, Mr Trump questioned whether Mr Putin really wanted peace and wondered if the Russian leader was leading him on. He also once again threatened “banking” or “secondary” sanctions.

The latter refers to sanctions on countries that are still trading with Moscow, especially those countries – like China and India – that are fuelling the Russian war machine by buying cheap Russian energy. But imposing those sanctions would be a big step with serious economic and geostrategic consequences. So for now, Mr Trump appears to want to threaten these sanctions rather than impose them.

What is the hold that Putin has over Trump?

Analysts say that Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin developed a genuinely warm personal relationship during his first term in the White House. They say Mr Trump sees in Mr Putin an equal on the world stage whom he respects.

The US president also made clear he wants a rapprochement between the US and Russia, one that will reset the relationship and boost trade. Strategists say the White House is also currying favour with the Kremlin because it wants to divide Moscow from Beijing, with many US policymakers seeing China as the greater threat. As to whether Mr Putin has some kind of “hold” over Mr Trump, there have been many allegations about the close business links the President had over the years with Russian figures who helped his investments.

There were also many claims of secret Kompromat about the President held in Kremlin archives. The FBI investigated. But there was always more speculation than hard fact. So Mr Trump’s relationship with Mr Putin remains something of a mystery.

Ray in the UK asks: As a convicted felon, Donald Trump isn’t allowed in the UK, so how can he address Parliament?

It is a bit more complicated than that.

Government guidance – which you can read here – spells out where it is mandatory that someone is refused entry and where it is discretionary.

In reality, the elected leader of an ally, in particular an ally as important as the United States, is always likely to be invited, because a government is likely to conclude that this is in the UK’s national interest.

That is the conclusion of Sir Keir Starmer – and hence the state visit being offered to President Trump.

The opportunity, or not, to address Parliament is a separate question and something some are arguing should be blocked.

One reader, Ray, asks our BBC Security correspondent Frank Gardner: Is Trump going to give Europe the time to step in, if he decides to ditch Ukraine?

The transatlantic alliance – the strategic partnership between Europe and North America based on shared values – is now under more strain than at any time since the Suez Crisis of 1956.

Within his first 100 days President Trump has completely upended the policy of the previous US administrations. For most of the time since taking office, he has appeared to favour relations with Moscow over those with Kyiv. He has also gone against the wishes of most of Europe by vowing to end Russia’s isolation and talked of lifting sanctions.

Whereas the prevailing attitude in Europe towards Ukraine is to keep supporting its war effort ‘for as long as it takes’, Trump has been in a hurry to end the war and normalise relations with President Putin.

Trump’s oft-repeated intent to ‘get’ Greenland and make it a part of the US has appalled Denmark, of which it is a self-governing part and it has rattled Scandinavian governments. Denmark lost 257 soldiers killed and wounded in the US-led campaign in Afghanistan. It had the highest per capita death toll of all America’s allies in that war.

Trump has, however, galvanised Europe into finally doing more for its own defence.

After the US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth told NATO in February that Europe should no longer take US strategic protection for granted, budgets are being revised and Germany has now lifted its longstanding restrictions on defence spending.

Listen to Laura read this article

If you say the name Donald Trump in the halls of wholesale markets and trade fairs in China, you’ll hear a faint chuckle.

The US president and his 145% tariffs have not instilled fear in many Chinese traders.

Instead, they have inspired an army of online Chinese nationalists to create mocking memes in a series of viral videos and reels – some of which include an AI-generated President Trump, Vice-President JD Vance and tech mogul Elon Musk toiling on footwear and iPhone assembly lines.

China is not behaving like a nation facing the prospect of economic pain and President Xi Jinping has made it clear that Beijing will not back down.

“For more than 70 years, China has always relied on self-reliance and hard work for development… it has never relied on anyone’s gifts and is unafraid of any unreasonable suppression,” he said this month.

His confidence may come in part because China is far less dependent than it was 10 years ago on exports to the US. But the truth is Trump’s brinkmanship and tariff hikes are pushing on pressure points that already exist within China’s own struggling economy. With a housing crisis, increasing job insecurity and an ageing population, Chinese people are simply not spending as much as their government would like.

Xi came to power in 2012 with a dream of a rejuvenated China. That is now being severely tested – and not just by US tariffs. Now, the question is whether or not Trump’s tariffs will dampen Xi’s economic dreams, or can he turn the obstacles that exist into opportunities?

With a population of 1.4 billion, China has, in theory, a huge domestic market. But there’s a problem. They don’t appear willing to spend money while the country’s economic outlook is uncertain.

This has not been prompted by the trade war – but by the collapse of the housing market. Many Chinese families invested their life savings in their homes, only to watch prices plummet in the last five years.

Housing developers continued to build even as the property market crumbled. It’s thought that China’s entire population would not fill all the empty apartments across the country.

The former deputy head of China’s statistics bureau, He Keng, admitted two years ago that the most “extreme estimate” is that there are now enough vacant homes for 3 billion people.

Travel round Chinese provinces and you see they are littered with empty projects – lines of towering concrete shells that have been labelled “ghost cities”. Others have been fitted out, the gardens have been landscaped, curtains frame the windows, and they appear filled with the promise of a new home. But only at night, when you see no lights, can you tell that the apartments are empty. There just aren’t enough buyers to match this level of construction.

The government acted five years ago to restrict the amount of money developers could borrow. But the damage to house prices and, in turn, consumer confidence in China, has been done and analysts have projected a 2.5% decline in home prices this year, according to a Reuters poll in February.

And it’s not just house prices that worry middle-class Chinese families.

They are concerned about whether the government can offer them a pension – over the next decade, about 300 million people, who are currently aged 50 to 60, are set to leave the Chinese workforce. According to a 2019 estimate by the state-run Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, the government pension fund could run out of money by 2035.

There are also fears about whether their sons, daughters and grandchildren can get a job as millions of college graduates are struggling to find work. More than one in five people between the ages of 16 and 24 in urban areas are jobless in China, according to official data published in August 2023. The government has not released youth unemployment figures since then.

The problem is that China cannot simply flip a switch and move from selling goods to the US to selling them to local buyers.

“Given the downward pressure on the economy, it is unlikely domestic spending can be significantly expanded in the short term,” says Prof Nie Huihua at Renmin University.

“Replacing exports with internal demand will take time.”

According to Prof Zhao Minghao, deputy director of the Center for American Studies at Fudan University, “China does not have high expectations for talks with the Trump administration… The real battleground is in the adjustment of China’s domestic policies, such as boosting domestic demand.”

To revive a slowing economy, the government has announced billions in childcare subsidies, increased wages and better paid leave. It has also introduced a $41bn programme offering discounts on items such as consumer electronics and electric vehicles (EVs) to encourage more people to spend. But Prof Zhang Jun, the Dean of Economics at Fudan University, believes this is not “sustainable”.

“We need a long-term mechanism,” he says. “We need to start increasing residents’ disposable income.”

This is urgent for Xi. The dream of prosperity he sold when he took power 13 years ago has not become reality.

Xi is also aware that China has a disheartened younger generation worried about their future. That could spell bigger trouble for the Communist Party: protests or unrest.

A report by Freedom House’s China Dissent Monitor claims that protests driven by financial grievances saw a steep increase in the last few months.

All protests are quickly subdued and censored on social media, so it is unlikely to pose a real threat to Xi for now.

“Only when the country does well and the nation does well can every person do well,” Xi said in 2012.

This promise was made when China’s economic rise looked unstoppable. It now looks uncertain.

Where the country has made huge strides over the past decade is in areas such as consumer electronics, batteries, EVs and artificial intelligence as part of a pivot to advanced manufacturing.

It has rivalled US tech dominance with the chatbot DeepSeek and BYD, which beat Tesla last year to become the world’s largest EV maker.

Yet Trump’s tariffs threaten to throw a spanner in the works.

The restrictions on the sale of key chips to China, including the most recent move tightening exports from US chip giant Nvidia, for instance, are aimed at curbing Xi’s ambitions for tech supremacy.

Despite that, Xi knows that Chinese manufacturers are at a decades-long advantage, so that US manufacturers are struggling to find the same scale of infrastructure and skilled labour elsewhere.

President Xi is also trying to use this crisis as a catalyst for further change and to find more new markets for China.

“In the short term, some Chinese exporters will be greatly impacted,” says Prof Zhang. “But Chinese companies will take the initiative to adjust the destination of exports to overcome difficulties. Exporters are waiting and looking for new customers.”

Donald Trump’s first term in office was China’s cue to look elsewhere for buyers. It has expanded its ties across South East Asia, Latin America and Africa – and a Belt and Road trade and infrastructure initiative shored up ties with the so-called Global South.

China is reaping the rewards from that diversification. More than 145 countries do more trade with China than they do with the US, according to the Lowy Institute.

In 2001, only 30 countries chose Beijing as their lead trade partner over Washington.

As Trump targets both friend and foe, some believe Xi can further upend the current US-led world order and portray his country as a stable, alternative global trade partner and leader.

The Chinese leader chose South East Asia for his first trip abroad after the tariff announcement, sensing his neighbours would be getting jittery about Trump’s tariffs.

Around a quarter of Chinese exports are now manufactured or shipped through a second country including Vietnam and Cambodia.

Recent US actions may also present a chance for Xi to positively shape China’s role in the world.

“Trump’s coercive tariff policy is an opportunity for Chinese diplomacy,” says Prof Zhang.

China will have to tread carefully. Some countries will be nervous that products being manufactured for the US could end up flooding into their markets.

Trump’s tariffs in 2016 sent a glut of cheap Chinese imports, originally intended for the US, into South East Asia, hurting many local manufacturers.

According to Prof Huihua, “about 20% of China’s exports go to the US – if these exports were to flood any regional market or country, it could lead to dumping and vicious competition, thereby triggering new trade frictions”.

There are barriers to Xi presenting himself as the arbiter of free trade in the world.

China has subjected other nations to trade restrictions in recent years.

In 2020, after the Australian government called for a global inquiry into the origins and early handling of the Covid pandemic, which Beijing argued was a political manoeuvre against them, China placed tariffs on Australian wine and barley and imposed biosecurity measures on some beef and timber and bans on coal, cotton and lobster. Some Australian exports of certain goods to China fell to nearly zero.

Australia’s Defence Minister Richard Marles said earlier this month that his nation will not be “holding China’s hand” as Washington escalated its trade war with Beijing.

China’s past actions may impede Xi’s current global outreach and many countries may be unwilling to choose between Beijing and Washington.

Even with all the various difficulties, Xi is betting that Beijing will be able to withstand any economic pain longer than Washington in this great power competition.

And it does appear that Trump has blinked first, last week hinting at a potential U-turn on tariffs, saying that the taxes he has so far imposed on Chinese imports would “come down substantially, but it won’t be zero”.

Meanwhile, Chinese social media is back in action.

“Trump has chickened out,” was one of the top trending search topics on the Chinese social media platform Weibo after the US president softened his approach to tariffs.

Even if or when talks do happen, China is playing a longer game.

The last trade war forced it to diversify its export market away from the US towards other markets – especially in the Global South.

This trade war has China looking in the mirror to see its own flaws – and whether it can fix them will be up to policies made in Beijing, not Washington.

As Mark Carney settles into the role of Canada’s prime minister, he will not only have to take on US President Donald Trump, but also wider divisions within his own country.

Among those is a generational divide, with young voters who are concerned about housing unaffordability, crime and the cost of living coalescing around the Conservatives.

It’s a reversal from 2015, when youth voted in record numbers, helping sweep Carney’s predecessor Justin Trudeau to power.

But this election, “baby boomers” – those over the age of 60 – “were an essential component to the Liberal success”, pollster David Coletto of Abacus Data told the BBC.

Meanwhile, younger Canadians, particularly young men, rallied behind the Conservatives.

One of them is Connor from Toronto. The 28-year-old told the BBC that he was drawn to the party because of its focus on housing and the cost of living.

“We’re getting stuck in a system right now that doesn’t seem to be working,” he said. “It worked for our parents, but not for us.”

He added that he has grown “tired of the same Liberal policies for the last 10 years”.

Another voter, AS, a 29-year-old woman from Montreal who like Connor did not want her full name used, said she has been disheartened by the lack of economic growth in Canada in recent years.

“I make six figures and I don’t see my dollar going nearly as far as it should be, and that is alarming to me,” she told the BBC.

Ahead of the election, support for the Conservatives outpaced the Liberals by 44% to 31.2% among 18 to 34 year olds, a Nanos poll on 25 April indicated.

The issues that resonated with Canadians depended on age, too. Carney campaigned heavily on standing up to Trump, while affordability and a broken “Canadian promise” were central to Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre’s message.

Abacus Data polling indicated about 18% of 18 to 29 year olds were worried about Trump. That jumped to 45% for voters over 60, suggesting a diversion on key issues between generations.

A big challenge for Carney and the Liberals will be how they can win back the confidence of those younger voters, Mr Coletto said, who “feel really let down and frustrated”.

In Monday’s election, the Liberals managed to gain more than a dozen seats in a historic comeback election.

But the rival Conservatives also made significant gains – enough to block the Liberals from forming a decisive majority government.

The Liberals won 169 seats, three shy of a majority, and captured 43% of the popular vote. The Conservatives won 144 seats – 25 more than the previous 2021 election – and 41% of the popular vote.

Smaller parties, namely the left-leaning New Democratic Party (NDP), suffered significant losses as voters migrated to the two larger parties.

Carney’s platform did feature proposals on how to tackle affordability, including a pledge to build 500,000 homes annually and a small income tax cut for some Canadians.

Laura Stephenson, chair of the political science department at Western University, noted the two platforms were not too different on cost of living issues.

“It is a question of differences in degree, rather than completely different approaches,” Prof Stephenson said.

In his victory speech, Carney preached a message of unity as he acknowledged the millions of Canadians who cast ballots for other parties.

“My message to every Canadian is this: no matter where you live, no matter what language you speak, no matter how you voted, I will always do my best to represent everyone who calls Canada home,” he said.

Carney will also face a restive western Canada, where there is a festering sense of alienation from the power centre in Ottawa.

Those tensions were on display quickly after the election. In a post congratulating Carney, Alberta Premier Danielle Smith said Poilievre’s vision “inspired millions”, while the Liberals had “demonized and demeaned” her oil-rich province.

She called on Carney to “reset the relationship between Ottawa and Alberta with meaningful action rather than hollow rhetoric”.

Without a majority, Carney will also have to work with other party leaders to get legislation passed. The Liberals could try to convince members of the NDP – and even the Conservatives – to cross the aisle, which could turn their strong minority to a majority.

Forming an effective government, as well binding regional and demographic fractures in Canada, is now one of the many items on Carney’s to-do list.

Nestled in the mountains of Iraqi Kurdistan sits the picturesque village of Sergele.

For generations villagers have made a living growing pomegranates, almonds and peaches and foraging in the surrounding forests for wild fruits and spices.

But Sergele, located 16km (10 miles) from the border with Turkey, has become increasingly surrounded by Turkish military bases, which are dotted across the slopes.

One, perched halfway up the western ridge, looms over the village, while another in the east is under construction.

At least seven have been built here over the past two years, including one by a small dam that regulates Sergele’s water supply, rendering it off limits to villagers.

“This is 100% a form of occupation of Kurdish [Iraqi Kurdistan] lands,” says farmer Sherwan Sherwan Sergeli, 50, who has lost access to some of his land.

“The Turks ruined it.”

Sergele is now in danger of being dragged into what’s known locally as the “Forbidden Zone” – a large strip of land in northern Iraq affected by Turkey’s war with the Kurdish militant group the PKK, which launched an insurgency in southern Turkey in 1984.

The Forbidden Zone spans almost the entire length of the Iraqi border with Turkey and is up to 40km (25 miles) deep in places.

Community Peacemaker Teams, a human rights group based in Iraqi Kurdistan, says that hundreds of civilians have been killed by drone and air strikes in and around the Forbidden Zone. According to a 2020 Kurdistan parliamentary report, thousands have been forced off their land and whole villages have been emptied out by the conflict.

Sergele is now effectively on the front line of Turkey’s war with the PKK.

When the BBC World Service Eye Investigations team visited the area, Turkish aircraft pummelled the mountains surrounding the village to root out PKK militants, who have long operated from caves and tunnels in northern Iraq.

Much of the land around Sergele had been burned by shelling.

“The more bases they put up, the worse it gets for us,” says Sherwan.

Turkey has been rapidly growing its military presence in the Forbidden Zone in recent years, but until now the scale of this expansion was not publicly known.

Using satellite imagery assessed by experts and corroborated with on-the-ground reporting and open-source content, the BBC found that as of December 2024, the Turkish military had built at least 136 fixed military installations across northern Iraq.

Through its vast network of military bases, Turkey now holds de-facto control of more than 2,000 sq km (772 square miles) of Iraqi land, the BBC’s analysis found.

Satellite images further reveal that the Turkish military has built at least 660km (410 miles) of roads connecting its facilities. These supply routes have resulted in deforestation and left a lasting imprint on the region’s mountains.

While a few of the bases date back to the 1990s, 89% have been constructed since 2018, after which Turkey began significantly expanding its military presence in Iraqi Kurdistan.

The Turkish government didn’t respond to the BBC’s requests for interviews, but has maintained that its military bases are necessary to push back the PKK, which is designated a terrorist organisation by Ankara and a number of Western nations, including the UK.

The sub-district capital of Kani Masi, which is only 4km (2.5 miles) from the Iraqi-Turkish border and parts of which are within the Forbidden Zone, may offer a glimpse into Sergele’s future.

Once famous for its apple production, few residents remain here now.

Farmer Salam Saeed, whose land is in the shadow of a large Turkish base, hasn’t been able to cultivate his vineyard for the past three years.

“The moment you get here, you will have a drone hover over you,” he tells the BBC.

“They will shoot you if you stay.”

The Turkish military first set up here in the 1990s and has been consolidating its presence since.

Its main military base, featuring concrete blast walls, watch and communication towers and space for armoured personnel carriers to move inside, is much more developed than the smaller outposts around Sergele.

Salam, like some other locals, believes Turkey ultimately wants to claim the territory as its own.

“All they want is for us to leave these areas,” he adds.

Near Kani Masi, the BBC saw first-hand how Turkish forces have effectively pushed back the Iraqi border guard, which is responsible for protecting Iraq’s international boundaries.

At several locations, the border guards were manning positions well inside Iraqi territory, directly opposite Turkish troops, unable to go right up to the border and potentially risk a clash.

“The posts that you see are Turkish posts,” says General Farhad Mahmoud, pointing to a ridge just across a valley, about 10km (6 miles) inside Iraqi territory.

But “we cannot reach the border to know the number of posts”, he adds.

Turkey’s military expansion in Iraqi Kurdistan – fuelled by its rise as a drone power and growing defence budget – is seen as part of a broader foreign policy shift towards greater interventionism in the region.

Similar to its operations in Iraq, Turkey has also sought to establish a buffer zone along its border with Syria to contain Syrian armed groups allied with the PKK.

In public, Iraq’s government has condemned Turkey’s military presence in the country. But behind closed doors it has accommodated some of Ankara’s demands.

In 2024, the two sides signed a memorandum of understanding to jointly fight the PKK.

But the document, obtained by the BBC, did not place any limitations on Turkish troops in Iraq.

Iraq depends on Turkey for trade, investment and water security, while its fractured internal politics have further undermined the government’s ability to take a strong stance.

Iraq’s national government did not respond to the BBC requests for comment.

People outside the UK can watch the documentary on YouTube

Meanwhile, the rulers of the semi-autonomous region of Iraqi Kurdistan have a close relationship with Ankara based on mutual interests and have often downplayed the civilian harm due to Turkey’s military action.

The Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP), an arch enemy of the PKK, dominates the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) and has officially been in charge since 2005, when Iraq’s constitution granted the region its semi-autonomous status.

The KDP’s close ties with Turkey have contributed to the region’s economic success and have strengthened its position, both against its regional political rivals and with the Iraqi government in Baghdad, with which it tussles for greater autonomy.

Hoshyar Zebari, a senior member of the KDP’s politburo, sought to blame the PKK for Turkey’s presence in Iraqi Kurdistan.

“They [the Turkish military] are not harming our people,” he told the BBC.

“They are not detaining them. They are not interfering in them going about their business. Their focus, their sole goal is the PKK.”

The conflict shows no signs of ending, despite the PKK’s long-jailed leader Abdulla Ocalan calling in February for his fighters to lay down arms and disband.

Turkey has continued to shell targets across Iraqi Kurdistan, while the PKK claimed responsibility for downing a Turkish drone last month.

And while violent incidents in Turkey have declined since 2016, according to a tally by the NGO Crisis Group, those in Iraq have spiked, with civilians living on the border region facing growing risk of death and displacement.

One of those killed was 24-year-old Alan Ismail, a stage-four cancer patient hit by an air strike in August 2023 while on a trip to the mountains with his cousin, Hashem Shaker.

The Turkish military has denied carrying out a strike that day, but a police report seen by the BBC attributes the incident to a Turkish drone.

When Hashem filed a complaint in a local court about the attack he was detained by Kurdish security forces and held for eight months on suspicion of supporting the PKK – an accusation he and his family deny.

“It has destroyed us. It’s like killing the whole family,” says Ismail Chichu, Alan’s father.

“They [the Turks] have no rights to kill people in their own country on their own land.”

Turkey’s Defence Ministry did not respond to the BBC’s requests for comment. It has previously told the media that the Turkish armed forces follow international law, and that in the planning and execution of their operations they only target terrorists, while taking care to prevent harm to civilians.

The BBC has seen documents suggesting Kurdish authorities may have acted to help Turkey evade accountability for civilian casualties.

Confidential papers seen by the BBC show a Kurdish court closed the investigation into Alan’s killing, saying the perpetrator was unknown.

And his death certificate – issued by Kurdish authorities and seen by the BBC – says he died because of “explosive fragments”.

Failing to mention when victims of air strikes have died as a result of violence, rather than an accident, makes it difficult for families to seek justice and compensation, to which they’re entitled under both Iraqi and Kurdish law.

“In most of the death certificates, they only wrote ‘infijar’, which means explosion,” says Kamaran Othman from Community Peacemaker Teams.

“It can be anything exploding.

“I think the Kurdish Regional Government doesn’t want to make Turkey responsible for what they are doing here.”

The KRG said it acknowledged the “tragic loss of civilians resulting from military confrontation between the PKK and Turkish army in the region”.

It added that “a number of casualties” had been documented as “civilian martyrs”, meaning they have been unjustly killed and entitling them to compensation.

Almost two years after Alan was killed, his family is still waiting, if not for compensation, at least for acknowledgement from the KRG.

“They could at least send their condolences – we don’t need their compensation,” says Ismail.

“When something is gone, it’s gone forever.”

The power is out and nothing is working. How am I supposed to get through the day?

That was the question faced by millions of people on Monday across Spain and Portugal during the worst electricity blackout in their history.

We ask people who spent the day without electricity about what helped them get on with life and what outage essentials they were missing.

Paying with phone and card has become the norm, but in cities across Spain and Portugal, queues formed at cash machines – at least the ones that were still working – as shops switched away from card payments.

“We managed to pay for our coffees with card when the outage first started, [but later] we didn’t have any cash so we couldn’t buy a thing,” Ed Rowe, 26, in Madrid told the BBC.

“All the restaurants that were open were cash only.”

Grace O’Leary, 32, who also lives in Spain’s capital, said she and her mum were counting coins to see if she had enough money to buy wine from a corner shop.

“Cash, apparently, is in fact, king.”

Jaime Gorgojo, 28, was lucky enough to have some cash on him, which allowed him to buy food and other essentials.

“In Madrid it was quite chaotic, there was no tube and you couldn’t take out any cash.

“I had cash, but my flatmate didn’t, so I had to lend him money to buy things.”

The power cut also led to an information blackout, as people spent the day without internet, WhatsApp, calls, and TV.

“The complete loss of communication was the most confusing and concerning thing… we were only left to speculate as to the cause and piece together news from people in the neighbourhood,” said Daniel Clegg from Barcelona.

The 42-year-old said the absence of information led him to looking at the sky to see if planes were still flying.

For Siegfried and Christine Buschschlüter, an old windup transistor radio helped tune in to local radio stations to find out what was happening after their phones stopped working and power went off at their rural home outside Spain’s capital.

Christine, 82, explained: “You had to keep on winding and winding.

“It was quite a strange situation. I was born in Berlin during the war and it reminded me of those days when my parents tried to get some news – it took me back.”

The couple reckon the outage will lead to a boom in demand for battery-operated radios.

And it is also on Daniel’s shopping list. “Essential kit for back to basics communication and staying informed that I completely neglected to remember.”

Microwaves, air fryers and some hobs and ovens all demand electricity.

But on Monday food that does not require electricity to heat or prepare it were in demand.

In supermarkets, shoppers formed long queues and panic-bought essentials – echoing scenes from the Covid-19 pandemic.

“We bought a lot of food that wasn’t going to go off, like tuna in cans, just in case,” says actor Jaime.

“The outage only lasted a day and now we have so much food, but most of it isn’t going to go bad, as it is easily preserved.”

Lesley Elder, in town Fortuna in south-eastern Spain, said: “Trying to find food you don’t need to heat up, that was more difficult than we thought.

“So we ended up having ham and cheese for dinner.”

She adds a little gas stove to heat up food in a pan would have been helpful.

Across the Iberian peninsula, people turned to candles to light up dark spaces.

Richard, who lives in the Spanish city of Alcalá de Henares, said not a single street light was on when night fell.

“People were finding their way around by torchlight. It was quite surreal seeing the view from my window totally black especially as I live next to a dual carriageway,” he said.

“In my spare time, I make candles and luckily I had a few going spare so I could see in the dark.”

Sarah Baxter, from Barcelona, said she even used a candle stovetop to heat up food.

“We could heat beans and rice, and bring water to a boil for instant potatoes,” she said.

“It was much safer than a propane camping stove inside the apartment.”

Although candles and naked flames can pose a fire risk.

With no power people relied on having battery in their devices.

In Madrid, people queued outside tech shops to get their hands on a power bank.

Luckily for Sarah she had a solar charger that kept her phone charged through ten hours of blackout, and helped her elderly neighbour do the same.

Lesley says her Kindle ran out of battery. “No TV, no Scrabble puzzle on my phone. So having a couple of books would have been helpful,” she said.

But for others, not having access to the internet and their devices was a relief.

“Everyone relies on technology so much that it’s quite a nice reminder you can be more independent,” said Ed.

“You don’t have to be connected with everyone all the time,” said his flatmate Hannah Steiner, 23. “I was having a good time with my flatmates.”

Sara Francisco, 24, from Leiria, in central Portugal, said: “I feel this thing that happened was important to make us be more aware and be more conscious about our habits.”

Singer Katy Perry has admitted feeling “battered and bruised” by the backlash following her recent space trip, but reassured fans she is OK and would “keep looking to the light”.

Writing two weeks after the much-derided Blue Origin voyage, which saw her take an 11-minute flight with five other women, the US star said the “online world” had tried to make her a “human Piñata”.

Her comments came after fans paid for a billboard in New York to show their support for her ahead of her world tour.

Responding to a fan account that posted a video of the billboard, Perry said she was “so grateful” for her fans, adding they were “in this beautiful and wild journey together”.

Perry has been one of pop’s most successful singers over the past two decades, but the narrative around her has become more negative in the past year.

A poorly received album was accompanied by a lead single, Woman’s World, which had a music video which many viewed as regressive.

She was then criticised for her part in Jeff Bezos’s all-female Blue Origin space flight, during which she sang Louis Armstrong’s What a Wonderful World to her fellow passengers, and held up the setlist for her new tour to an in-flight camera.

Some commentators said it was “tone deaf” for celebrities to be taking part in such a fleeting and expensive trip at a time of economic struggle.

However, singer Lily Allen apologised this week for “being mean” about Perry, saying that although she disagreed with the flight, there was no need to join the “pile on” against the singer.

Some fans showed their support for Perry by clubbing together to pay for a digital billboard message in New York’s Times Square for 24 hours.

A Brazillian fan account on Instagram explained fans had done it to “remind her that she is never alone; our love for her is boundless, unwavering, and eternal”.

“We’re so proud of you and your magical journey and we love you to the moon and back.

“Know that you are safe, seen and celebrated. We’ll see you around the world, this is just the beginning.”

Perry left a comment expressing her gratitude, telling fans: “I love you guys and have grown up together with you and am so excited to see you all over the world this year!

“Please know I am OK, I have done a lot [of] work around knowing who I am, what is real and what is important to me.”

She said she is “not perfect”, but rather on a “human journey playing the game of life with an audience of many and sometimes I fall”.

“But I get back up and go on and continue to play the game and somehow through my battered and bruised adventure I keep looking to the light and in that light a new level unlocks.”

She added: “When the ‘online’ world tries to make me a human Piñata, I take it with grace and send them love, cause I know so many people are hurting in so many ways and the internet is very much so a dumping ground for unhinged and unhealed.”

The singer, whose hits include Roar, Firework and I Kissed A Girl, has just started a world tour, which will run until December and visit the US, Canada, South America, Canada, Europe and the United Arab Emirates.

Perry said she was looking forward to “seeing your faces every night, singing in unison, reading your notes, feeling your warmth”.

On the journey into Yarrabah, there is nothing to suggest a national election is just days away.

Posters for candidates, inescapable in other parts of Australia, are conspicuously absent as you drive past fields of sugar cane and down a gently winding coastal road.

After entering this small Indigenous community near Cairns in far north Queensland, with fishing nets sitting on palm-lined shores, the only thing fighting for attention is a truck selling ice cream – urgently dinging a bell as it avoids the wild horses and dogs that wander the streets.

“It’s weird,” says Suzanne Andrews, chief executive of the town’s Gurriny Yealamucka Health Services. “We don’t see any placards. No-one’s visiting us.”

Watching the leaders of Australia’s two major parties debate each other on television, the Jaru Bunuba Bardi woman was dismayed that “they didn’t talk about any Aboriginal issues or concerns”.

“So,” she asks “what the hell’s going on?”

Indigenous Australians, who represent about 3.8% of the nation’s 26 million population, are by most socio-economic measures the most disadvantaged people in the country – something successive leaders have for years called a “national shame”.

Yet in this election campaign, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Opposition leader Peter Dutton have had little to say on First Nations issues.

One glaring exception occurred this week, when during the final leader’s debate Dutton said Indigenous “welcome to country” ceremonies – where a local Aboriginal person acknowledges and give consent to events taking place on their traditional lands – were “overdone” and should not take place so frequently.

The comments represent one of the only times on the campaign trail that Dutton has publicly addressed issues specifically relating to First Nations people – and not to discuss disadvantage, but within the context of a culture war.

Part of the reason politicians try to steer clear of First Nations issues, according to experts and advocates, is that many believe they are too divisive and therefore electorally risky – especially after the failure of the Voice to Parliament referendum in 2023.

That referendum, which was loudly supported by Albanese in the most polarising moment of his leadership, saw 60% of voters reject a proposal to recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in Australia’s constitution and give them greater political say through a Voice to Parliament.

Those opposing it said the idea was divisive, would create special “classes” of citizens where some have more rights than others, and the new advisory body would slow government decision-making.

Ahead of the vote, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people on both sides of the debate told the BBC they hoped the unprecedented level of interest in their lives would build momentum for more policies to improve them.

Ms Andrews was one of them. But now she looks back at the result with sadness, believing it has now led political parties to “play it safe” and avoid “the hot Aboriginal issues”.

Others, including those who loudly opposed the Voice proposal, agree.

On referendum night, prominent anti-Voice campaigner Warren Mundine told the BBC “now the hard work starts”.

Some 18 months on, he says the reality is that people on both sides of the political aisle promptly disengaged with Indigenous issues after the referendum.

“This is one of the sad things about this election campaign here: whether the Voice got up or didn’t get up, we still had work to do,” he said.

“What’s happened now is that this is probably the first election that I’ve been in where there is no conversation about an Aboriginal policy. It’s just gone silent.”

Lidia Thorpe, an independent senator in Victoria, told the BBC that “Albanese particularly is too scared to mention us [Indigenous Australians] because of his failed referendum that we should never have had in the first place”.

Thorpe spearheaded an Indigenous-run Blak Sovereign movement opposing the Voice, calling instead for priority to be given to a legally binding treaty between First Nations peoples and the Australian government.

“In previous elections, even though we may have been an afterthought and tacked on the end of the sentences, like we always are, at least we were mentioned. Now it’s complete silence,” she said.

“This election could have been a real opportunity for both leaders to unite the nation and tell some truth about the plight of our people. They need to tell the truth that these injustices continue, and they need to tell the truth that they are in a position to change that, to turn that around.”

Since 2008, the Australian government’s Closing the Gap strategy has sought to reduce levels of Indigenous disadvantage through the annual tracking of 18 key measures in areas such as health and education.

The latest review, however, found only four were on track to be met, while four were worsening – including the annual rates of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander incarceration, which was up 12% in a year.

Despite these trends, Professor Rodney Smith of the University of Sydney says the defeat of the Voice – including in many Labor strongholds – makes it “electorally foolish” to talk too much about First Nations issues this election.

He points to Coalition adverts that tie money “wasted” on the referendum – which is estimated to have cost more than $A400m – into the discussion about cost of living and a struggling economy.

Prof Smith also argues, however, that the 2025 election is not unprecedented in its lack of focus on Indigenous affairs, but rather a return to the norm after several years of the issues receiving more attention than usual.

“I’m not saying people shouldn’t care about this,” he says. “I’m just saying that generally speaking, the electorate doesn’t particularly care about it.”

Recent data from Australian National University (ANU) seems to back that up. A long-term study of voter attitudes found that between January 2024 and January 2025 there was a sharp decline in the number of people believing it was the government’s responsibility to reduce the gap in living standards between First Nations Australians and the rest of the population.

“This lack of policy focus (by Labor and the Coalition) reflects a low prioritisation amongst the Australian population” ANU’s Professor Nicholas Biddle said.

Independent MP Bob Katter puts it more bluntly.

A former minister of Aboriginal Affairs when a Queensland state MP in the 1980s, Mr Katter says he thinks about the struggles of many Indigenous Australians “every night before I go to bed”.

He told the BBC he believes in more self-governance and has campaigned to give greater access to farmable land and fishing rights.

He also admits he doesn’t talk about those issues on the campaign trail, though.

“As a politician that’s got to win votes in the election, I wouldn’t be game,” he told the BBC.

That’s hard for many Indigenous people to swallow given the toll the referendum took – on those on both sides of the debate.

A report published by Sydney’s University of Technology last month found that the Voice referendum led to an increase in hostile levels of racism towards First Nations People, recording 453 “validated” incidents of racism roughly six months either side of the vote.

About a fifth of all complaints contained mention of the failed referendum.

“While there was significant thought and debate given to the ideas of nation building and the righting of wrongs, the undercurrent of racism was ever present,” said the report’s guest author Professor Lindon Coombes in his introduction.

“This is its insidiousness.”

In Yarrabah, Ms Andrews becomes suddenly tearful, telling how her two daughters, studying at university in Brisbane, were intimidated and got “so many racist remarks” after the vote.

“To do this to young people, who have left community to better their life and to be something, is so wrong,” she said.

It was not just increased racism that caused harm, but the tone and intensity of the debate leading up to the vote, many say.

Mr Mundine says his participation in the toxic and polarised national discussion meant he felt alienated from many in his community.

“I got kicked off boards. I lost jobs… [I] was ostracised.”

“Being the topic of every discussion for such a long period of time was overwhelming and extremely damaging to people’s social and emotional well-being,” says Clinton Schultz, a Gamilaroi/Gomeroi man, psychologist and Director of First Nations Strategy at the Black Dog Institute.

“The aftermath of that has left a lot of people not willing to engage in in the debates moving forward.”

Millima May, a Kulumbirigin Danggalaba Tiwi woman from the Northern Territory, in 2023 told the BBC all First Nations people wanted was “a seat at the table” where decisions about their lives were made. But now there’s been a “tactical” decision by some in the community to “lie low”.

“I think a lot of Aboriginal people have really chosen to opt out of the political space and of so -called democracy in Australia,” she says.

“If you could trust our political leaders and candidates to have nuanced and informed conversations, then you would be able to have debates and conversations in a respectful and safe way.

“But that is not how Australian politics is operating at the moment.”

Pakistan’s information minister says that the country has “credible intelligence” that India intends to launch a military strike within the next 24 to 36 hours.

Attaullah Tarar’s comments come after India accused Pakistan of supporting militants behind an attack in Indian-administered Kashmir that killed 26 tourists last week. Islamabad rejects the allegations.

Tarar said that India intends to use the attack as a “false pretext” for a strike and that “any such military adventurism by India would be responded to assuredly and decisively”.

The BBC has contacted the Indian foreign ministry for comment.

The attack near the tourist town of Pahalgam was the deadliest attack on civilians in two decades in the disputed territory. Both India and Pakistan claim the region and have fought two wars over it.

Troops from both sides have traded intermittent small-arms fire across the border in recent days.

There has been speculation over whether India will respond with military strikes against Pakistan, as it did after deadly militant attacks in 2019 and 2016.

Authorities said last week they had conducted extensive searches in Indian-administered Kashmir, detaining more than 1,500 people for questioning. More people have been detained since then, although the numbers are unclear.

Authorities have demolished the houses of at least 10 alleged militants. At least one was reportedly linked to a suspect named in the shootings.

Kashmir, which India and Pakistan claim in full but administer only in part, has been a flashpoint between the two nuclear-armed countries since they were partitioned in 1947.

Indian-administered Kashmir has seen an armed insurgency against Indian rule since 1989, with militants targeting security forces and civilians alike.

India has not named any group it suspects carried out the attack in Pahalgam and it remains unclear who did it. A little-known group called the Resistance Front, which was initially reported to have claimed it carried out the shootings, issued a statement denying involvement. The front is reportedly affiliated with Lashkar-e-Taiba, a Pakistan-based militant group.

Indian police have named three of four suspected attackers. They said two were Pakistani nationals and one a local man from Indian-administered Kashmir. There is no information on the fourth man.

Many survivors said the gunmen specifically targeted Hindu men.

The attack has sparked widespread anger in India, with Prime Minister Narendra Modi publicly saying the country will hunt the suspects “till the ends of the earth” and that those who planned and carried it out “will be punished beyond their imagination”.

Two cookbook authors have accused TikTok influencer Brooke Bellamy of copying their recipes.

Nagi Maehashi, the Australian founder of popular food website RecipeTin Eats, said Ms Bellamy’s cookbook contains recipes with “word-for-word similarities to mine”.

Ms Bellamy, who owns the popular Brooki Bakehouse, has rejected her allegations, saying her book contains “100 recipes I have created over many years”. One of those in question was created before Ms Maehashi published hers, she claims.

Hours after Ms Maehashi’s raised her allegations, US author Sally McKenney also accused Ms Bellamy of plagiarising her vanilla cake recipe.

Ms Maehashi said that a reader pointed out what she described as “remarkable similarities” between her caramel slice recipe and the one in Ms Bellamy’s best-selling cookbook Bake with Brooki.

She said she later also discovered similarities between her baklava recipe and Ms Bellamy’s, offering a side-by-side comparison in a statement on RecipeTin Eats.

Ms Maehashi is the author of two cookbooks and her website, which she started in 2014, attracts a monthly readership of 45 million page views.

Ms Bellamy is the owner of three Brooki Bakehouse branches, all in Queensland, which were set up in 2022. She is also a popular baker on TikTok with two million followers.

Ms Maehashi said she had contacted Ms Bellamy’s publisher, Penguin Random House Australia, adding that they “brought in lawyers and resorted to what felt to me legal intimidation”.

“It feels like a blatant exploitation of my work. To see them plagiarised and used in a book for profit, without permission, and without credit, doesn’t just feel unfair,” she added.

Ms Maehashi has retained her own legal counsel and has written to both Ms Bellamy and Penguin.

Bake with Brooki was published in October 2024 and has since sold A$4.6m (£2.1m; $2.9) worth of copies.

Penguin and Ms Bellamy have both strenuously denied the accusations, with the publisher issuing a response to Ms Maehashi confirming “the recipes in the BWB Book were written by Brooke Bellamy”.

Despite maintaining no wrongdoing, Ms Bellamy said she offered to take down the recipes from future reprints “to prevent further aggravation”, and that this was communicated “swiftly” to Ms Maehashi.

She added that she had “great respect for Nagi”, but has stood by her recipes in a series of Instagram stories.

“Recipe development in today’s world is enveloped in inspiration from other cooks, cookbook authors, food bloggers and content creators,” she said, adding that the “willingness to share receipes” is what she loves about baking.

Both Ms Maehashi’s and Ms Bellamy’s cookbooks have been shortlisted for this year’s Australian Book Industry Awards.

Ms McKenney, who authors the website Sally’s Baking Addiction, accused Ms Bellamy of copying her vanilla cake recipe, which is included in Ms Bellamy’s cookbook and YouTube channel.

“Original receipe creators who put in the work to develop and test recipes deserve credit – especially in a best-selling cookbook,” Ms McKenny wrote on Instagram.

Three more Kneecap concerts have been cancelled in Germany.

It comes after news that footage of a band member calling for MPs to be killed is being assessed by counter-terrorism police.

A ticket site for the gigs in Hamburg, Berlin and Cologne states that the summer shows are no longer going ahead.

A number of politicians have called for the Irish rap band to be uninvited from some UK gigs, with Tory MP Mark Francois saying the group should not be allowed to play Glastonbury in light of the ongoing police investigation.

The largest body representing Jews in the UK have called for Glastonbury to cancel the group’s planned performance.

In a statement, the Board of Deputies of British Jews said the rap trio’s remarks had “caused great concern both within the UK Jewish community and wider society”.

Speaking on RTÉ’s Prime Time on Tuesday, the band’s manager said “moral hysteria” had taken hold and that the band are being held to a higher moral standard than politicians.

Daniel Lambert claimed a “concerted campaign” against the group is “solely about de-platforming artists”.

“It’s about telling the next young band, both through the music industry and through the political class, that you cannot speak about Palestine,” he said.

A number of other artists have signed a joint statement in support of Kneecap.

Fontaines DC, Annie Mac, Bicep, Massive Attack and Christy Moore are among the artists who signed the open letter by Kneecap’s record label, Heavenly Recordings.

The statement said there had been a “clear, concerted attempt to censor and ultimately deplatform” the band.

It accused “senior political figures” in Westminster and the UK media of being “openly engaged in a campaign to remove Kneecap from the public eye”.

“As artists, we feel the need to register our opposition to any political repression of artistic freedom,” the statement added.

“In a democracy, no political figures or political parties should have the right to dictate who does and does not play at music festivals or gigs that will be enjoyed by thousands of people.”

On having gigs cancelled, the band’s manager said: “It’s not for us to worry, it’s for us to have the strength of conviction that we did the right thing.”

He added that going to Coachella was the right thing to do, and “all of this has emerged from that”.

TV personality Sharon Osbourne called for the band’s US work visas to be revoked after their performance at the Coachella music festival in California earlier this month, where they described Israel’s military action in Gaza as a US-funded genocide.

Scheduled appearances at Hurricane and Southside festivals, also in Germany, were cancelled last week.

A gig at the Eden Project in Cornwall has also been cancelled.

On Tuesday, an Eden Sessions Limited spokesperson said: “Ticket purchasers will be contacted directly and will be fully refunded.”

The band are set to support Fontaines DC at Boucher Playing Fields, Belfast, in August.

Speaking to BBC Radio Ulster’s The Nolan Show, Belfast city councillor Jim Rodgers of the Ulster Unionist Party said “serious consideration should be given” on whether the concert should go ahead.

“I’ve already spoken to some of the council officers and I’m hoping that the necessary action will be taken. We have to lead by example,” he said.

“We would be sending out the wrong message if we were to allow this group to go ahead with their event.”

The Democratic Unionist Party has called for an emergency city council meeting.

“Citing concerns over ‘dangerous rhetoric,’ glorification of terrorism, and incitement to violence, we insist such acts should not be platformed on Council-owned land,” the party said.

A Belfast City Council spokesperson said: “Use of the venue for these events is managed via a legal agreement between the council and the promoter. Events programming remains a matter for the organisers.

“Any matter that an elected member wishes to raise would be considered by the relevant committee and full council.”

Kneecap are an Irish-speaking rap trio who have courted controversy with their provocative lyrics and merchandise.

The group was formed in 2017 by three friends who go by the stage names of Mo Chara, Móglaí Bap and DJ Próvaí.

Their rise to fame inspired a semi-fictionalised film starring Oscar-nominated actor Michael Fassbender.

The film won a British Academy of Film Award (Bafta) in February 2025.

Last week, a video emerged of the west Belfast trio at a November 2023 gig appearing to show one person from the band saying: “The only good Tory is a dead Tory. Kill your local MP.”

The daughter of the Conservative MP David Amess whose father was stabbed to death at a constituency surgery called for Kneecap to apologise.

In a statement on X, the band said that “an extract of footage, deliberately taken out of all context, is now being exploited and weaponised, as if it were a call to action”.

They also called some of the backlash a “smear campaign” and said it was “a transparent effort to derail the real conversation” away from their messages of “love” and support for Palestine.

They added: “To the Amess and Cox families, we send our heartfelt apologies, we never intended to cause you hurt.”

On Tuesday, the husband of murdered MP Jo Cox called on Kneecap to give a “real apology”.

Brendan Cox, whose wife was killed in June 2016, said this was “only half an apology”.

None of the members of Kneecap have been charged with any offences.

Mali’s military leader Gen Assimi Goïta has won the backing of key political allies to be declared president for the next five years.

The 41-year-old, who has seized power twice, was named transitional president after his last coup in 2021.

At the time he promised to hold elections the following year – but has since reneged, in a blow to efforts to restore multi-party rule in the West African state.

A national conference organised by the regime – but boycotted by leading opposition parties – has now recommended naming Gen Goïta president until 2030.

He has not yet commented on the recommendation, but the conference was seen as an attempt to legitimise his bid to remain in power.

Over the weekend, an opposition leader, Mohamed Salia Touré, told the AFP news agency that suppressing the multi-party system would be a “historic error”.

On Wednesday, Amnesty International said it denounced what it described as a “proposal to dissolve all political parties in Mali”.

The rights group’s Sahel researcher, Ousmane Diallo, said he was “alarmed by the proposition” and that such a move “would be a flagrant attack on the rights to freedom of expression and association”.

It is unclear if the conference proposes to dissolve all political parties, or only those that fail to comply with certain requirements.

The conference also recommended suspending anything to do with elections until there was peace in the country, according to a document seen by AFP.

The military government has been trying to quell jihadist violence unleashed by groups linked with the Islamic State (IS) and al-Qaeda.

Since taking power, the junta leader has formed an alliance with coup leaders in neighbouring Burkina Faso and Niger, pivoting the region towards Russia after drastically reducing ties with former colonial power France.

Gen Goïta has also withdrawn Mali from the regional grouping Ecowas over its demands to restore democratic rule. Burkina Faso and Niger have also left the grouping.

He first staged a coup in August 2020 overthrowing then-President Ibrahim Boubacar Keïta after huge anti-government protests over his rule and his handling of the jihadist insurgency.

Gen Goïta handed power to an interim government that was to oversee the transition to elections within 18 months.

He had sought to lead that government, but Ecowas insisted on a civilian leader.

Unhappy with the performance of the civilian transitional arrangement, he seized power again in May 2021.

He was a colonel at the time, but became a five-star general last year.

• The region with more ‘terror deaths’ than rest of world combined
• Three military-run states leave West African bloc – what will change?
• Why young Africans are celebrating military takeovers

Gerry Adams has described a BBC TV programme on the murder of an informer as an “attempted hatchet job” on him.

The former Sinn Féin president was giving evidence in his libel case against the BBC at the High Court in Dublin.

He claims the programme, and an accompanying online story, defamed him by alleging he sanctioned the killing of the former Sinn Féin official Denis Donaldson.

Mr Donaldson, who had worked for Sinn Féin, was shot dead in Donegal in 2006, months after admitting his role as a police and MI5 agent for 20 years.

Mr Adams denies any involvement.

In 2009, the Real IRA admitted killing Mr Donaldson.

The case is being heard by a jury at the High Court in Dublin and could last four weeks.

On Wednesday, the hour-long BBC NI Spotlight TV documentary was shown to the jury.

Under questioning by his own barrister, Mr Adams said he watched the programme at the time it was first broadcast in 2016, and recalled being “astonished” by its “poor journalism”.

He said to suggest the Provisional IRA was involved in the murder of Mr Donaldson was “wholly contrary” to the instructions the paramilitary organisation had publicly given its members in 2005 to stand down because there was “a peaceful alternative to armed struggle”.

Mr Adams also alleges he was defamed in a BBC online article based on the broadcast, which contained claims made by an anonymous source.

He held up a printed copy of the online article and said there “there was an arrogance involved” in the BBC’s response to requests from his legal representatives for it to be taken off the website.

He said the BBC had “given no reason” why the article was still available online nine years later.

During pre-trial hearings, the BBC argued the broadcast and publication were put out in good faith and concerned a matter of public interest.

It stated the reports constituted responsible journalism as a result of careful investigation.

Earlier on Wednesday, Mr Adams told the libel jury he was “shocked” when told Mr Donaldson had been shot dead at a remote cottage in Donegal.

He said he learned of the killing in a phone call from the then Northern Ireland Secretary Peter Hain.

“The Sunday World carried the story a few weeks before and there was a photograph outside cottage,” Mr Adams said.

“I presumed he had moved and hadn’t left himself vulnerable, but unfortunately he didn’t.

“I think Denis Donaldson was a victim of the conflict.

“The fact his family is still struggling to get the truth, even an inquest, is deeply troubling.”

Mr Adams also spoke about the outset of the Northern Ireland Troubles, when “the entire situation moved from a civil rights struggle to a conflict situation”.

He spoke about his internment without trial in the 1970s and the 1981 Republican hunger strikes, by which time he was Sinn Féin vice-president.

One of those who died on hunger strike was Bobby Sands, who was elected an MP months earlier.

“A number of us were trying to revamp Sinn Féin,” Mr Adams said.

“What Bobby’s [Sands] election did was accelerated that process.

“That was the commencement of the Sinn Féin electoral strategy, but also the notion you could go forward peacefully.”

Mr Adams then talked about the development of the peace process.

“The IRA was legitimate response to [British] occupation. That’s not to say everything they did was legitimate, it wasn’t.”

He said he told a priest, Fr Alec Reid: “If we want the IRA to stop, we have to produce an alternative.

“That became my mantra.”

Mr Adams said he was “shocked” at how long things took.

“It was too long and all the time there were people being killed – there were atrocities, including on the republican side,” he said.

Mr Adams is due to continue giving evidence when proceedings resume on Thursday morning.

The case continues.

Mr Adams was the president of republican party Sinn Féin from 1983 until 2018.

He served as MP for Belfast West from 1983 to 1992 and again from 1997 until 2011 before sitting as a TD (Teachta Dála) in the Dáil (lower house of Irish parliament) between 2011 and 2020.

Mr Adams led the Sinn Féin delegation during peace talks that eventually brought an end to the worst violence of the Troubles with the signing of the Good Friday Agreement in 1998.

He was detained in the early 1970s when the government in Northern Ireland introduced internment without trial for those suspected of paramilitary involvement.

Mr Adams has consistently denied being a member of the IRA.

Mr Donaldson was once a key figure in Sinn Féin’s rise as a political force in Northern Ireland but he was found murdered in 2006 after it emerged he had been an informer.

He was interned without trial for periods in the 1970s.

After the signing of the Good Friday Agreement, Sinn Féin appointed Mr Donaldson as its key administrator in the party’s Stormont offices.

In 2005 he confessed that he was a spy for British intelligence for two decades, before disappearing from Belfast.

OpenAI has pulled a ChatGPT update after users pointed out the chatbot was showering them with praise regardless of what they said.

The firm accepted its latest version of the tool was “overly flattering”, with boss Sam Altman calling it “sycophant-y”.

Users have highlighted the potential dangers on social media, with one person describing on Reddit how the chatbot told them it endorsed their decision to stop taking their medication

“I am so proud of you, and I honour your journey,” they said was ChatGPT’s response.

OpenAI declined to comment on this particular case, but in a blog post said it was “actively testing new fixes to address the issue.”

Mr Altman said the update had been pulled entirely for free users of ChatGPT, and they were working on removing it from people who pay for the tool as well.

It said ChatGPT was used by 500 million people every week.

“We’re working on additional fixes to model personality and will share more in the coming days,” he said in a post on X.

The firm said in its blog post it had put too much emphasis on “short-term feedback” in the update.

“As a result, GPT‑4o skewed towards responses that were overly supportive but disingenuous,” it said.

“Sycophantic interactions can be uncomfortable, unsettling, and cause distress.

“We fell short and are working on getting it right.”

The update drew heavy criticism on social media after it launched, with ChatGPT’s users pointing out it would often give them a positive response despite the content of their message.

Screenshots shared online include claims the chatbot praised them for being angry at someone who asked them for directions, and unique version of the trolley problem.

It is a classic philosophical problem, which typically might ask people to imagine you are driving a tram and have to decide whether to let it hit five people, or steer it off course and instead hit just one.

But this user instead suggested they steered a trolley off course to save a toaster, at the expense of several animals.

They claim ChatGPT praised their decision-making, for prioritising “what mattered most to you in the moment”.

“We designed ChatGPT’s default personality to reflect our mission and be useful, supportive, and respectful of different values and experience,” OpenAI said.

“However, each of these desirable qualities like attempting to be useful or supportive can have unintended side effects.”

It said it would build more guardrails to increase transparency, and refine the system itself “to explicitly steer the model away from sycophancy”.

“We also believe users should have more control over how ChatGPT behaves and, to the extent that it is safe and feasible, make adjustments if they don’t agree with the default behavior,” it said.

Sign up for our Tech Decoded newsletter to follow the world’s top tech stories and trends. Outside the UK? Sign up here.

Pakistan’s army chief, General Asim Munir, is not known for seeking the spotlight.

Yet in recent weeks, it has found him – not only in Pakistan, but across the border in India and in diplomatic capitals far beyond.

His remarks on Kashmir – made just days before a militant attack in Indian-administered Kashmir which killed 26 people – have reignited a debate over Pakistan’s military stance and its role in rising regional tensions.

Kashmir, which India and Pakistan claim in full but administer only in part, has been a flashpoint between the countries since they were partitioned in 1947.

Though not directly linked to the violence, Gen Munir’s words have been dissected and interpreted as a shift towards a more confrontational tone, both from him and the institution he leads.

He is viewed as the most powerful man in Pakistan, where the military has long been blamed for interfering in politics, installing and removing governments. As tensions with India rise again, he is being watched as the central figure in a volatile nuclear-armed rivalry.

So who is Gen Munir? And what drives him?

Gen Munir, who is in his late 50s, is the son of a school principal and religious scholar. He joined the army through the Officers Training School in Mangla in 1986, earning the prestigious Sword of Honour given to the best-performing cadet. He was then commissioned into the 23 Frontier Force Regiment.

Over nearly four decades, Gen Munir has commanded troops along Pakistan’s sensitive northern borders near Kashmir, led its intelligence services and served in Saudi Arabia to bolster defence ties.

He holds a masters degree in public policy and strategic security management from the National Defence University in Islamabad and is also an alumnus of military institutions in Japan and Malaysia.

I first saw Gen Munir in Islamabad in 2023, at a packed hotel hall filled with ministers, diplomats, generals and journalists. Dressed in civilian clothes, he moved with calm authority, scanning the room as he approached the podium.

He opened his speech with a recitation from the Quran, reflecting his rare status as a hafiz – someone who has memorised Islam’s holy book in its entirety – among Pakistan’s military elite.

In person, Gen Munir seemed soft-spoken and polite. On stage, he was stern, with the sharp gaze of a former spymaster. A man trained to watch, listen and wait. Now, his words are echoing beyond Pakistan.

Gen Munir became Pakistan’s chief of army staff in November 2022, stepping into the role amid a perfect storm of political upheaval, an economic crisis and public disillusionment with the military’s role in governance.

His appointment followed months of speculation, largely because of his fallout with the then-prime minister Imran Khan.

Gen Munir had served just eight months as the chief of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) spy agency before being removed by Khan in what many believe was a deeply personal and political move – though both sides deny this. That moment remains a turning point in their relationship.

Today, Khan is serving a sentence in jail and Gen Munir is the most powerful man in the country.

Gen Munir is regarded by many commentators as differing in temperament and approach from his immediate predecessor, Qamar Javed Bajwa.

Gen Bajwa was more public-facing, supported backchannel diplomacy with India and handled a major escalation of tensions between the countries in 2019 with caution.

Under what came to be known as the “Bajwa Doctrine”, he increasingly emphasised regional stability and geo-economics alongside traditional security priorities.

After a suicide bomb attack on troops in Indian-administered Kashmir at Pulwama in 2019, Gen Bajwa oversaw Pakistan’s military response to Indian air raids but refrained from escalation, returning Indian pilot Abhinandan Varthaman and helping avert a full-blown war.

“Bajwa was clear,” says Abdul Basit, senior fellow at Singapore’s S Rajaratnam School of International Studies.

“He had diplomatic channels open and was managing multiple fronts like Kashmir, Afghanistan and the US withdrawal from Afghanistan with pragmatism,” he said, adding that Gen Munir “is under immediate, intense pressure to act”.

“He has come in with unfinished business to stabilise the country’s security situation internally… The problems he faces (rising terrorism, political instability, an economic crisis, regional tensions) are urgent and worsening. He cannot afford long, drawn-out strategies like his predecessor Bajwa could. He needs quicker, firmer responses – both at home and abroad.”

The dispute over Kashmir is an issue that no Pakistani military leader can appear weak on, observers say.

“Kashmir is Pakistan’s national security interest – every child in Pakistani schools is taught this,” political and defence analyst Amir Zia told the BBC, adding: “It’s a basic understanding here that we cannot give India any leverage.”

Last week’s attack was the deadliest on civilians in Indian-administered Kashmir in two decades and led to India accusing Pakistan of supporting the attackers, charges Islamabad denies. There are fears India will respond with military action.

Since he took over, Gen Munir has mostly not spoken in public, but one pivotal speech has gained widespread attention.

On 17 April, he told a meeting of expatriates in Islamabad “we are different from Hindus” in every possible way.

He doubled down on Kashmir, calling it Pakistan’s “jugular vein”, and vowed Pakistan would “never abandon Kashmiris in their heroic struggle against Indian occupation“.

The speech might have remained one of many ideological statements made by Pakistani leaders over the years except for what happened next.

Just five days later, on 22 April, militants opened fire on tourists in Pahalgam in Indian-administered Kashmir.

“This was not standard rhetoric,” says Joshua T White, a South Asia expert at Johns Hopkins University.

“While the substance aligns with Pakistan’s ideological narrative, the tone – especially its direct invocation of Hindu-Muslim differences – made it particularly inflammatory.”

“Coming just before the Pahalgam attack, it has badly complicated any effort by Pakistan to claim restraint or pursue backchannel diplomacy,” he adds.

Mr Basit agrees the optics were damaging: “He [Munir] may have been caught up in the moment. He said things that, in a private setting, may not have raised eyebrows but on that public platform, as army chief, they came across as overtly confrontational.”

“Some saw it as a power move,” says Mr Basit.

“It felt like his arrival moment. A declaration that he’s now firmly in control, that Pakistan’s direction is once again in the army’s hands,” he adds.

Gen Munir made another speech earlier in the year, which some think may signal he is adopting a harder line than his predecessor. Speaking in Muzaffarabad on Kashmir Solidarity Day on 5 February, he declared: “Pakistan has already fought three wars for Kashmir, and if 10 more wars are required, Pakistan will fight them.”

But given the timing, it’s his latest speech that has fuelled speculation after the Pahalgam attack, with Indian officials hinting at a link. Though no evidence has been presented so far, the rhetoric has deepened mistrust.

At home, Gen Munir’s actions are being seen by many as those of a leader who is calculated, uncompromising and determined to reassert military authority.

After the 9 May 2023 riots sparked by Khan’s arrest, Gen Munir launched an unprecedented crackdown on his supporters.

Civilians were tried under military laws, a top general was forced into early retirement, and former ISI chief Lt Gen Faiz Hameed (retired), once close to Khan, was arrested.

Critics called it a purge of Khan loyalists; supporters saw it as restoring discipline to Pakistan’s powerful military whose authority – and that of Bajwa and Munir – had been challenged. The two men were being heavily criticised in public.

Gen Munir is just over two years into his five-year term, but the contours of his legacy are already taking shape.

Whether the simmering crisis with India escalates into a larger military stand-off or is tackled through diplomacy, the future of Pakistan’s relationship with its neighbour may well hinge on which direction Gen Munir steers it in.

Mr Basit warns the next few weeks “will determine how things unfold”.

“How Gen Munir navigates this crisis will define him as a soldier, as a power broker, and what kind of regional actor Pakistan wants to be. And right now, that choice sits largely with him.”

“We don’t care about sales to the United States,” says Hu Tianqiang as one of his toy fighter jets flies past our heads.

It’s hard to hear him above the buzzing toy planes and miniature drones, an almost rhythmic backdrop to the cacophony of toys that surround him, all clamouring for the attention of buyers.

Hu’s stall, Zhongxiang Toys, sits inside the world’s biggest wholesale market in the small Chinese city of Yiwu.

It’s a huge showroom of more than 75,000 shops where buyers come seeking just about everything, from twinkling Christmas lights and kitchenware to umbrellas and massage guns. It can take most of the day just to get around one department given each of them has an airport hangar’s worth of goods on show.

Yiwu is in the province of Zhejiang, along China’s eastern coast. The manufacturing and export hub, home to more than 30 ports, accounted for 17% of all Chinese sales to the US last year.

That puts Yiwu, and this region, at the frontline of the US-China trade war.

Mr Hu, too, is on the frontline. He sits among rows of snazzy toy jets, squeaking dogs, fluffy stuffed animals, barbies and motorcycle-riding spidermen – a sliver of the $34bn (£25bn) worth of toys China exported in 2024.

About $10bn of it went to the US. But now, these Chinese exports to America face up to 245% tariffs. And US President Donald Trump has made it clear that he blames Beijing in particular for cornering too much of the global market.

But things have changed here since Trump’s first trade war against China, which kicked off in 2018. It taught Yiwu a lesson, summed up by Mr Hu: “Other countries have money too!”

That defiance has become a familiar theme in the world’s second-biggest economy, which is bracing itself for another turbulent Trump presidency.

Beijing, which has been repeatedly telling the world that the US was bullying countries into trade negotiations, has not backed down yet from the trade war.

The propaganda online has ratcheted up, applauding Chinese innovation and diplomacy in contrast to the uncertainty unleashed by Trump. On the country’s highly controlled social media, there are plenty of posts echoing the leadership’s promise that China will keep fighting.

And in factories and markets, businessmen and exporters now say they have other alternatives, beyond Trump’s America. Mr Hu, for instance, says around 20%-30% of his business came from US buyers. But not anymore.

“We don’t care about that 20-30%,” Mr Hu says. “We now sell mostly to South America and the Middle East. We are not lacking money, we are rich.”

When we ask about Trump, his colleague Chen Lang jumps in, rolling his eyes: “He’s cracking international jokes like no other. One day, one joke. Adding tariffs for him is like cracking a joke.”

Nearby, one of the thousands of buyers that flock to this market every day is negotiating a price to buy more than 100 robots that turn into cars in a series of beeps and buzzes. After tapping various numbers into a calculator, the final price is written in chalk on the floor.

The buyer, we are told, is from Dubai. The BBC met many others from across Africa and South America.

Lin Xiupeng says he has noticed the shift away from American buyers in his last 10 years in the toy business.

“A few days ago, the shop next to us had an order from a US client. It’s worth more than one million yuan. But because of tariffs, the shop owner decided to cancel it,” he says, offering us cups of tea.

“They must need China,” he says, adding that the country supplies most of America’s toys.

“I think there are a lot of businesses in the US protesting these days.”

Mr Lin is correct. Some toy shop owners in the US have written to the White House describing the tariffs as “disastrous” for their business.

“The tariffs are taking a hatchet to small businesses across America,” Jonathan Cathey, who owns a toy company in Los Angeles, told the BBC over the phone.

He invested his last $500 in his company, Loyal Subjects, in 2009, which he ran from his two-bedroom bungalow in West Hollywood. He says it’s now a multi-million-dollar business, but the tariffs could derail his plans.

“The entire toy industry could go under. We are looking at the total implosion of the supply chain. It’s going to get really ugly,” he warns.

He says swapping suppliers is a huge task: “You need a lot of resources on the ground to produce a toy and many of these Chinese businesses have spent 40 years perfecting their craft.”

China has been a big part of Donald Trump’s first 100 days in office, with his administration going head-to-head with Beijing.

“He seems to be launching a crusade against the whole world,” says former Senior Colonel Zhou Bo, who served in the People’s Liberation Army. “But of course he’s trying to bash China the hardest.”

Trump accused China of operating the Panama Canal, which is run by a Hong Kong-based firm, and vowed to take it back. He has been on the hunt for ways to mine rare earth minerals, which China effectively has a monopoly over, making this a key part of any deal with Ukraine. His threats to take Greenland are also likely aimed at curbing China’s ambitions in the Arctic.

And, of course, he initiated another trade war, which takes special aim at China’s neighbours, such as Vietnam and Cambodia, that have been crucial to its evolving supply chain.

In the last week, he suggested the levies on Chinese goods could be halved and spoke of “a fair deal with China” that his administration was “actively” negotiating.

But China’s Commerce Ministry rebuffed this as “groundless with no factual basis”. The headlines in state media haven’t spared him either: “Trump is probably the worst president in American history,” read one on state TV.

It seems the US president is waiting for his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping to pick up the phone.

“We in China say – we have to let the bullet fly for a moment,” Col Zhou says. “That means in the fog of war, we do not know what will come next. I believe this kind of tit-for-tat would last for maybe one or two months – hopefully not more than three months.”

It cannot go on, he adds, because that would not be good.

It’s certainly not good for China. Trump’s tariffs are not even the biggest challenge facing the country, which is also grappling with domestic economic pain, from low consumption to a housing crisis that has dented people’s savings and confidence in the future.

The terrible timing aside, the tariffs are biting Chinese businesses.

Goldman Sachs has forecast that China’s economy will grow by 4.5% this year, short of the government’s target: 5%.

The BBC reported from the trading hub of Guangzhou in mid-April that US-China trade was grinding to a halt, with exports to American households piling up on factory floors. That is borne out by this month’s economic data, which show that activity in factories has sharply slowed.

When the BBC rang suppliers to see if shipments to the US had resumed, what emerged was a messy picture. One supplier said he had half-a-million pieces of clothing waiting to ship to Walmart, and a few others echoed his uncertainty. But two exporters we spoke to said some shipments from US retailers had indeed restarted.

The range and complexity of the trade between the two economies, which includes cargo cranes, umbrellas and everything in between, means that it’s often down to different businesses and supply chains as to how they deal with the tariffs.

Whatever the business, there is no doubt the American consumer will feel the absence, or potentially higher prices, of Chinese goods.

The US still relies heavily on Chinese manufacturing to meet its own domestic demand – think phones, computers, semiconductors, furniture, clothes and, of course, toys. Electronics and machinery alone account for more than 50% of US imports.

Walmart and Target reportedly told Mr Trump in a meeting last week that shoppers are likely to see empty shelves and higher prices from next month. They also warned that supply shocks could carry on until Christmas.

Some 90% of all Christmas decorations hung around American homes come from Yiwu in China, where sellers, surrounded by signs wishing the world “Feliz Navidad” told us they’re now trying to focus on sales to South America.

And that effort is very evident in Yiwu.

In the early morning, before the shutters even open, the cavernous lobby of the wholesale market echoes with voices reciting key phrases.

“Shukran,” says the teacher in Arabic. The students repeat it several times to perfect the pronunciation before learning that it means “thank you”. “Aafwan” comes the reply, or “you’re welcome”.

These are free lessons offered by a local government association. Most of the students are women, dressed in their best to also impress their customers.

“These women are the backbone of trade across China,” says one stall holder, who is originally from Iran and is giving private lessons to an eager student.

“They’re doing these lessons to stay ahead of one another, to stay in competition.”

Most of the traders can already speak a few words of English. Now they say they need to greet their new buyers in Spanish and Arabic – a small but crucial sign of China’s shifting trade relationships.

Oscar, a Columbian who would only give us his first name, was wandering the halls of the market with bags filled with fluffy bunnies and bears.

He says the US-China trade war offers “many opportunities” for traders from other parts of the world.

“Doing business with China is very important,” he insists. “[Doing business with] the US these days, less so.”

Meta warned on Wednesday that European users could face a “materially worse” experience following a key regulatory decision by the European Commission.

Meta recently introduced a “consent or pay” model which leaves users to choose between paying for a monthly subscription or letting Meta combine data it has collected on Facebook and Instagram.

Last week, the European Commision – the EU’s executive – announced it had decided that the model does not comply with the Digital Markets Act (DMA) and fined Meta €200m (£171m).

“Based on feedback from the EC in connection with the DMA, we expect we will need to make some modifications to our model,” Meta said in its quarterly earnings statement.

Meta said it expected those modifications “could result in a materially worse user experience for European users and a significant impact” to its European business and revenue.

The company said those impacts could kick in as soon as the third quarter of this year, and may be in effect while it appeals the decision.

Eric Seufert, analyst at Mobile Dev Memo, said Meta may be trying to strategically turn European users into “vocal cheerleaders” for its products amid a regulatory clampdown.

“What they ultimately want to do is turn public opinion against this regulatory regime which will demonstrably degrade the product offerings that are available to EU residents,” Seufert told the BBC in a phone interview after the announcement.

Meta, formerly known as Facebook, includes the social media network in addition to the photo sharing app Instagram and the messaging service WhatsApp.

The Commission has said that Meta’s consent-or-pay model does not allow users to freely consent to how their data is used.

The body is currently assessing another option Meta introduced last year, which the company says uses less personal data to display advertisements.

Meta was given 60 days to comply with the DMA’s recent decision, or risk further fines.

Apple was also issued a €500m (£428m) fine over its App Store practices last week.

Meta’s announcement comes as it released quarterly earnings that beat Wall Street expectations.

The results showed Meta continues to bring in significant advertising revenue.

The company touted its AI tools on Wednesday.

“We’re making good progress on AI glasses and Meta AI, which now has almost 1 billion monthly actives,” Meta founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg said in a statement.

“Our community continues to grow and our business is performing very well,” he said.

Matt Britzman, senior equity analyst at Hargreaves Lansdown said the results showed that Meta has gone “full throttle on investments in AI” and notes

Britzman also noted the 6% jump in daily active users.

“There had been some concerns that we might see a slowdown in new users this year, but this was a very strong start and a signal to investors that Meta’s family of apps has a grip on users that’s hard to displace,” Britzman said.

The EC fine comes amid what Meta called “an active regulatory landscape” in its earnings report.

The company is currently defending itself at trial in a case brought by the US Federal Trade Commission which alleges that Meta runs a social media monopoly.

The FTC, the top antitrust watchdog in the US, says Meta cemented its monopoly by purchasing Instagram in 2012 and WhatsApp in 2014.

Police in South Africa are searching for answers after the bodies of three police officers – who had been missing for six days – were found in a river.

Boipelo Senoge, aged 20, Cebekhulu Linda, 24, and 30-year-old Keamogetswe Buys were last seen leaving a petrol station near Johannesburg last Wednesday.

Their bodies were discovered by divers around 70km (43 miles) away in Hennops river, along with the remains of two other unnamed persons.

The police initially said they were investigating a case of “possible hijacking and kidnapping” but on Tuesday said they could not speculate whether or not the deaths were accidental.

The three police officers – all constables – were travelling in a white VW Polo when they went missing, a police statement said.

Their vehicle tracking device and mobile phones have been off since then.

A search team subsequently “spent sleepless nights combing the length and breadth” of the Gauteng, Free State and Limpopo provinces, eventually finding parts of a vehicle “believed to be” a VW Polo, said national police commissioner Fannie Masemola.

A Renault Kangoo van was then found nearby on the banks of Hennops River, in the area of Centurion.

The three officers were travelling from Free State to Limpopo, when they went missing.

Divers searched that part of the river and recovered five bodies between Monday and Tuesday.

Along with the three constables, the divers found the remains of a police admin clerk, who has not been named. The clerk had been driving the Renault van, said Gen Masemola.

He added that the fifth body was decomposed and had not yet been identified.

The police are still looking for the VW Polo that the officers were travelling in.

The search for the missing police officers has been followed closely by the South African public and prayers for the three constables had been circulating across social media.

After the bodies were found, devastated loved ones gathered along the banks of the Hennops river, holding candles.

In an address on Tuesday, Gen Masemola said: “We don’t want to speculate at this stage what led to the discovery of these bodies in this river, whether it was an accident or not, our investigation will reveal those aspects once we find their vehicle.”

This marks a significant change in tone from Sunday, when the commissioner said: “We cannot have criminals undermine the authority of the state by kidnapping three police officers. This is just a stern warning to those behind this incident, either you hand yourselves over, or we will fetch you ourselves.”

• Racially charged row between Musk and South Africa over Starlink
• Is it checkmate for South Africa after Trump threats?
• What’s really driving Trump’s fury with South Africa?
• Trapped underground with decaying bodies, miners faced a dark reality

When Donald Trump arrived in Michigan on Tuesday for a visit that would end with a political rally commemorating his first 100 days, there was an unexpected member of the welcoming party. Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, a Democrat, was first in line to meet the president on the tarmac.

During last year’s presidential campaign, Whitmer had been a sharp critic of Trump. In a high-profile speech at the Democratic National Convention in August, she accused the candidate – whom she called “that man from Mar-a-Lago” – of being out of touch with American voters.

As Trump came down the stairs in Michigan, Whitmer tentatively reached out for a handshake. Trump, however, leaned in for a hug – one which Whitmer awkwardly reciprocated with a few pats on the back.

It was a delicate moment for a prominent Democrat with 2028 presidential aspirations. Many on the political left have been calling for their party to do more to resist and obstruct Trump’s agenda, viewing the first 100 days of his presidency as an across-the-board assault on individual freedoms, government and the rule of law.

On Sunday Illinois Governor JB Pritzker, another possible Democratic candidate, told Democrats in New Hampshire – a state that historically holds particular influence in the presidential nominating process – that his party needed to “fight everywhere all at once” and that Republicans “cannot know a moment of peace”.

Whitmer’s hug – and her later appearance on stage with Trump – are likely to be used against the governor by more liberal candidates if she launches a presidential bid and begins to gain traction with voters.

Such a turn wouldn’t be without precedent. In 2012, New Jersey Republican Governor Chris Christie embraced Democrat Barack Obama on an airport runway when the then-president came to his state to review the massive damage from Hurricane Sandy. For many in Christie’s party, it was an apostasy – one that haunted the governor during his ill-fated bids for president in 2016 and again in 2024.

Whitmer, however, has made the calculation that it’s better for her – and her state – if she finds a way to work with this president. She had been lobbying the Trump administration to expand Selfridge Air National Guard Base, located north of Detroit, which was in danger of being shuttered by the Department of Defence. Earlier this month, Whitmer visited Trump in the White House to make the case, although at that time she made a concerted effort to avoid the cameras.

Trump’s Tuesday visit to Selfridge, which was preceded by a White House announcement approving the requested investment, was the culmination of Whitmer’s efforts – which she noted during her brief, impromptu remarks after Trump spoke to gathered US soldiers in a nearby aircraft hangar.

“I am really damn happy we’re here to celebrate this recapitalisation at Selfridge,” she said. “I’m so, so grateful that this announcement was made today, and I appreciate all the work.”

She did not mention, or thank, Trump by name. But she didn’t have to. Pictures, as they say, are worth more than words – and there is no small risk for Whitmer that the cost of Tuesday’s pictures will be high.

At least three people have died in Spain in an incident linked to a massive power cut that shut the country down on Monday, the Civil Guard has told the BBC.

They died in the north-west municipality of Taboadela and were from the same family, according to Spanish media.

Police are reportedly investigating whether carbon monoxide from a faulty electricity generator played a role in their deaths, but the Civil Guard could not provide more details.

Officials are still working to confirm what caused the power cut that triggered chaos across Spain and Portugal on Monday.

The trio who died in Taboadela were a married couple and their adult son, according to the Madrid-based newspaper El Pais.

Their bodies were discovered in their beds by a care worker on Tuesday, El Pais reported.

Other deaths are under investigation, including a woman in Madrid who died in a fire that may have been caused by a candle being used during the blackout, local media reported.

The woman, in her fifties, was found dead on Monday night after a fire broke out in a building in the city’s Carabanchel district.

Thirteen people were treated for smoke inhalation, including five who were taken to hospital, according to the city’s emergency information office.

Elsewhere, a woman in her forties is reported to have died in Valencia, though there is no clear consensus in Spanish media on the cause of her death.

Local police have suggested the woman, who suffered from a lung condition, died after the ventilator she was using lost power during the outage, according to media reports.

However, El Pais cited regional health sources who said the woman suffered from a number of health conditions and that she died of natural causes.

The blackout caused huge disruption across Spain and Portugal. Andorra and parts of France were also affected.

In Spain and Portugal, traffic lights stopped working, metro systems ground to a halt, and businesses were unable to accept card payments – triggering huge queues at the few cash machines that were still working.

Initially, mobile phone networks also went down, leaving many scrambling for information.

North Korea has said the development of its first road bridge to Russia is a “significant” milestone in relations between the two countries, according to the country’s state media KCNA.

Construction of the bridge – set to span the Tumen river in the country’s northeast – began on Wednesday. It will be situated near the only other land connection between Russia and North Korea – a Soviet era rail bridge called the ‘Friendship Bridge’.

The bridge is set for completion by mid-2026, according to Russia’s Kommersant newspaper.

It comes shortly after North Korea confirmed for the first time that it had sent troops to support Russia in its war against Ukraine.

The new bridge is the latest sign of deepening ties between the two heavily-sanctioned countries, which have drawn closer since Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022.

Plans for the new bridge were decided during Russian president Vladimir Putin’s visit to Pyongyang last year, where he signed an agreement on “comprehensive strategic partnership” with North Korea – the highest level of bilateral ties for Moscow.

At a ceremony marking the start of the bridge’s construction, Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin said the bridge was “far beyond just an engineering task”.

“It symbolises our common desire to strengthen friendly, good-neighbourly relations and increase inter-regional cooperation,” he added.

Construction of the bridge began on the same day South Korean lawmakers said more than 600 North Korean troops had been killed fighting for Russia in its war against Ukraine, citing their intelligence officials.

In return for military support, Moscow appeared to have provided Pyongyang with technical assistance on spy satellites, drones and anti-air missiles, they added.

Earlier this week, North Korea said its soldiers had helped “completely liberate” Russia’s Kursk border region, eight months after Ukraine’s surprise incursion.

Ukraine says some of its forces are still in the Russian region.

The US has signed a deal with Ukraine on the joint exploitation of its energy and mineral resources, after months of tense negotiations.

The two countries have agreed to establish a reconstruction investment fund to spur Ukraine’s economic recovery from its war with Russia.

US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said it showed both sides were committed to lasting peace and prosperity in Ukraine. For Kyiv, the deal is seen as essential to accessing US military aid.

Ukraine is believed to have vast reserves of critical minerals like graphite, titanium and lithium. They are highly sought after because of their use in renewable energy, military applications and industrial infrastructure.

The agreement comes amid a US trade war with China, where 90% of the world’s current rare-earth stocks are sourced.

According to the statement from the US Treasury on Wednesday afternoon, the newly created US-Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund recognises the “significant financial and material support” the US has given Ukraine since Russia invaded in February 2022.

The US treasury secretary said in a video statement that the deal would help “unlock Ukraine’s growth assets”.

The language of the announcement shows much more solidarity with Ukraine than is usual for the Trump administration.

It refers to “Russia’s full scale invasion” and adds that “no state or person who financed or supplied the Russian war machine will be allowed to benefit from the reconstruction of Ukraine”.

Ukraine’s Deputy Prime Minister Yulia Svyrydenko – who flew to Washington to ink the deal on Wednesday – said in a post on X that the new fund would “attract global investment into our country”.

Listing the deal’s provisions, she said it would involve projects in minerals, oil and gas, although the resources would remain the property of Ukraine.

The partnership will be equal, on a 50:50 basis, she added, and must be ratified by lawmakers in Kyiv.

Under the deal the US would contribute new assistance to Kyiv, she added, including, for example, air defence systems.

President Donald Trump has repeatedly pushed for the agreement as a prerequisite to offering any future security guarantees to Kyiv.

Crucially, the draft of the deal indicates Ukraine will be giving Washington access to some of its natural resources in return for future US security assistance.

But that is significantly less than what Trump had wanted, which was to get paid back for all US military assistance given since the start of the war in 2022.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has managed to eke out some concessions from Washington.

The deal was delayed after US authorities said Ukraine was trying to make last-minute changes.

On Wednesday afternoon, a US source familiar with the talks criticised Kyiv for seeking to reopen some terms that had apparently been finalised over the weekend.

The source said sticking points had included governance of the fund, issues with transparency, and steps to ensure that all funds would be fully traceable.

Technical documents were signed last week by representatives of both countries.

The initial agreement was due to be signed in February, but fell apart following a heated exchange at the White House when Trump accused Zelensky of “gambling with World War Three”.

The breakthrough comes days after Trump and Zelensky held a face-to-face meeting on the sidelines of Pope Francis’ funeral, and as talks between Moscow and Washington over a possible ceasefire in Ukraine grind on.

Phoning into the NewsNation network on Wednesday evening, Trump said he had pressed Zelensky at Vatican City to seal the deal.

“I was telling him that it’s a very good thing if we can produce a deal that you sign it,” he said, “because Russia is much bigger and much stronger. Russia is just chugging forward.”

The US president said the deal would recuperate the multi-billion dollar US assistance to Ukraine since the war began and “much more in theory”.

“So I went to them and said, ‘Look, we got to get rare earth.’ They have great rare earth, meaning certain minerals, materials,” said Trump.

“They have things that a lot of places don’t have. It’s a big asset that they have.”

Listen to Laura read this article

If you say the name Donald Trump in the halls of wholesale markets and trade fairs in China, you’ll hear a faint chuckle.

The US president and his 145% tariffs have not instilled fear in many Chinese traders.

Instead, they have inspired an army of online Chinese nationalists to create mocking memes in a series of viral videos and reels – some of which include an AI-generated President Trump, Vice-President JD Vance and tech mogul Elon Musk toiling on footwear and iPhone assembly lines.

China is not behaving like a nation facing the prospect of economic pain and President Xi Jinping has made it clear that Beijing will not back down.

“For more than 70 years, China has always relied on self-reliance and hard work for development… it has never relied on anyone’s gifts and is unafraid of any unreasonable suppression,” he said this month.

His confidence may come in part because China is far less dependent than it was 10 years ago on exports to the US. But the truth is Trump’s brinkmanship and tariff hikes are pushing on pressure points that already exist within China’s own struggling economy. With a housing crisis, increasing job insecurity and an ageing population, Chinese people are simply not spending as much as their government would like.

Xi came to power in 2012 with a dream of a rejuvenated China. That is now being severely tested – and not just by US tariffs. Now, the question is whether or not Trump’s tariffs will dampen Xi’s economic dreams, or can he turn the obstacles that exist into opportunities?

With a population of 1.4 billion, China has, in theory, a huge domestic market. But there’s a problem. They don’t appear willing to spend money while the country’s economic outlook is uncertain.

This has not been prompted by the trade war – but by the collapse of the housing market. Many Chinese families invested their life savings in their homes, only to watch prices plummet in the last five years.

Housing developers continued to build even as the property market crumbled. It’s thought that China’s entire population would not fill all the empty apartments across the country.

The former deputy head of China’s statistics bureau, He Keng, admitted two years ago that the most “extreme estimate” is that there are now enough vacant homes for 3 billion people.

Travel round Chinese provinces and you see they are littered with empty projects – lines of towering concrete shells that have been labelled “ghost cities”. Others have been fitted out, the gardens have been landscaped, curtains frame the windows, and they appear filled with the promise of a new home. But only at night, when you see no lights, can you tell that the apartments are empty. There just aren’t enough buyers to match this level of construction.

The government acted five years ago to restrict the amount of money developers could borrow. But the damage to house prices and, in turn, consumer confidence in China, has been done and analysts have projected a 2.5% decline in home prices this year, according to a Reuters poll in February.

And it’s not just house prices that worry middle-class Chinese families.

They are concerned about whether the government can offer them a pension – over the next decade, about 300 million people, who are currently aged 50 to 60, are set to leave the Chinese workforce. According to a 2019 estimate by the state-run Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, the government pension fund could run out of money by 2035.

There are also fears about whether their sons, daughters and grandchildren can get a job as millions of college graduates are struggling to find work. More than one in five people between the ages of 16 and 24 in urban areas are jobless in China, according to official data published in August 2023. The government has not released youth unemployment figures since then.

The problem is that China cannot simply flip a switch and move from selling goods to the US to selling them to local buyers.

“Given the downward pressure on the economy, it is unlikely domestic spending can be significantly expanded in the short term,” says Prof Nie Huihua at Renmin University.

“Replacing exports with internal demand will take time.”

According to Prof Zhao Minghao, deputy director of the Center for American Studies at Fudan University, “China does not have high expectations for talks with the Trump administration… The real battleground is in the adjustment of China’s domestic policies, such as boosting domestic demand.”

To revive a slowing economy, the government has announced billions in childcare subsidies, increased wages and better paid leave. It has also introduced a $41bn programme offering discounts on items such as consumer electronics and electric vehicles (EVs) to encourage more people to spend. But Prof Zhang Jun, the Dean of Economics at Fudan University, believes this is not “sustainable”.

“We need a long-term mechanism,” he says. “We need to start increasing residents’ disposable income.”

This is urgent for Xi. The dream of prosperity he sold when he took power 13 years ago has not become reality.

Xi is also aware that China has a disheartened younger generation worried about their future. That could spell bigger trouble for the Communist Party: protests or unrest.

A report by Freedom House’s China Dissent Monitor claims that protests driven by financial grievances saw a steep increase in the last few months.

All protests are quickly subdued and censored on social media, so it is unlikely to pose a real threat to Xi for now.

“Only when the country does well and the nation does well can every person do well,” Xi said in 2012.

This promise was made when China’s economic rise looked unstoppable. It now looks uncertain.

Where the country has made huge strides over the past decade is in areas such as consumer electronics, batteries, EVs and artificial intelligence as part of a pivot to advanced manufacturing.

It has rivalled US tech dominance with the chatbot DeepSeek and BYD, which beat Tesla last year to become the world’s largest EV maker.

Yet Trump’s tariffs threaten to throw a spanner in the works.

The restrictions on the sale of key chips to China, including the most recent move tightening exports from US chip giant Nvidia, for instance, are aimed at curbing Xi’s ambitions for tech supremacy.

Despite that, Xi knows that Chinese manufacturers are at a decades-long advantage, so that US manufacturers are struggling to find the same scale of infrastructure and skilled labour elsewhere.

President Xi is also trying to use this crisis as a catalyst for further change and to find more new markets for China.

“In the short term, some Chinese exporters will be greatly impacted,” says Prof Zhang. “But Chinese companies will take the initiative to adjust the destination of exports to overcome difficulties. Exporters are waiting and looking for new customers.”

Donald Trump’s first term in office was China’s cue to look elsewhere for buyers. It has expanded its ties across South East Asia, Latin America and Africa – and a Belt and Road trade and infrastructure initiative shored up ties with the so-called Global South.

China is reaping the rewards from that diversification. More than 145 countries do more trade with China than they do with the US, according to the Lowy Institute.

In 2001, only 30 countries chose Beijing as their lead trade partner over Washington.

As Trump targets both friend and foe, some believe Xi can further upend the current US-led world order and portray his country as a stable, alternative global trade partner and leader.

The Chinese leader chose South East Asia for his first trip abroad after the tariff announcement, sensing his neighbours would be getting jittery about Trump’s tariffs.

Around a quarter of Chinese exports are now manufactured or shipped through a second country including Vietnam and Cambodia.

Recent US actions may also present a chance for Xi to positively shape China’s role in the world.

“Trump’s coercive tariff policy is an opportunity for Chinese diplomacy,” says Prof Zhang.

China will have to tread carefully. Some countries will be nervous that products being manufactured for the US could end up flooding into their markets.

Trump’s tariffs in 2016 sent a glut of cheap Chinese imports, originally intended for the US, into South East Asia, hurting many local manufacturers.

According to Prof Huihua, “about 20% of China’s exports go to the US – if these exports were to flood any regional market or country, it could lead to dumping and vicious competition, thereby triggering new trade frictions”.

There are barriers to Xi presenting himself as the arbiter of free trade in the world.

China has subjected other nations to trade restrictions in recent years.

In 2020, after the Australian government called for a global inquiry into the origins and early handling of the Covid pandemic, which Beijing argued was a political manoeuvre against them, China placed tariffs on Australian wine and barley and imposed biosecurity measures on some beef and timber and bans on coal, cotton and lobster. Some Australian exports of certain goods to China fell to nearly zero.

Australia’s Defence Minister Richard Marles said earlier this month that his nation will not be “holding China’s hand” as Washington escalated its trade war with Beijing.

China’s past actions may impede Xi’s current global outreach and many countries may be unwilling to choose between Beijing and Washington.

Even with all the various difficulties, Xi is betting that Beijing will be able to withstand any economic pain longer than Washington in this great power competition.

And it does appear that Trump has blinked first, last week hinting at a potential U-turn on tariffs, saying that the taxes he has so far imposed on Chinese imports would “come down substantially, but it won’t be zero”.

Meanwhile, Chinese social media is back in action.

“Trump has chickened out,” was one of the top trending search topics on the Chinese social media platform Weibo after the US president softened his approach to tariffs.

Even if or when talks do happen, China is playing a longer game.

The last trade war forced it to diversify its export market away from the US towards other markets – especially in the Global South.

This trade war has China looking in the mirror to see its own flaws – and whether it can fix them will be up to policies made in Beijing, not Washington.

An Australian woman accused of cooking a fatal mushroom meal admits to picking wild funghi, lying to police and disposing of evidence, a court has heard, but will argue the “tragedy” was a “terrible accident”.

The Supreme Court trial of Erin Patterson, 50, began in the small Victorian town of Morwell on Wednesday and is expected to last six weeks.

She is charged with the murder of three relatives and the attempted murder of another, with the case centring on a beef wellington lunch at her house in July 2023.

Ms Patterson has pleaded not guilty and her defence team says she “panicked” after unintentionally serving poison to family members she loved.

Three people died in hospital in the days after the meal, including Ms Patterson’s former in-laws, Don Patterson, 70, and Gail Patterson, 70, as well as Gail’s sister, Heather Wilkinson, 66.

A single lunch guest survived – local pastor Ian Wilkinson – after weeks of treatment in hospital.

The fact that the lunch of beef wellington, mash potatoes and green beans contained death cap mushrooms and caused the guests’ illnesses is not in contention, the court heard.

“The overarching issue is whether she intended to kill or cause very serious injury,” Justice Christopher Beale said.

Opening the trial on Wednesday, prosecutor Nanette Rogers SC said this case was “originally thought to be a mass food poisoning event”.

But she alleges Ms Patterson “deliberately poisoned” her guests “with murderous intent”, after inviting them for lunch “on the pretence she’d been diagnosed with cancer”.

Dr Rogers said the jury would hear evidence that Ms Patterson had travelled to a location, near her home in Leongatha, where death cap mushroom sightings had been logged on a naturalist website.

And in the days after the lunch, she took a number of steps to “conceal” what she had done, the prosecution alleged.

There’d be evidence that she lied to investigators about the source of the mushrooms in the dish – saying some had come from Asian grocery in Melbourne and she’d never foraged wild ones. And she made a trip to a local dump to dispose of a food dehydrator prosecutors say she used to prepare the toxic meal.

“You might be wondering, ‘What is the motive?'” Dr Rogers said to the jury, “You might still be wondering this at the end of this trial.”

The prosecution will not be suggesting a specific motive, she explained.

“You do not have to be satisfied what the motive was, or even that there was one.”

What the jury could expect to hear, she said, was testimony from a range of witnesses, including: Mr Wilkinson, Ms Patterson’s estranged husband Simon Patterson, medical staff who treated the lunch guests, and police who investigated.

However the defence, in opening their case, reminded the jury they had not heard any actual evidence yet and needed to keep an open mind.

Barrister Colin Mandy says while the prosecution will try to cast Ms Patterson’s behaviour after the lunch as “incriminating”, jurors should consider how someone might react in that situation.

“Might people say or do things that are not well thought out, and might make them look bad?”

“The defence case is that she panicked because she was overwhelmed by the fact that these four people had become so ill because of the food she had served them. Three people died.”

He said Ms Patterson did not deliberately serve poisoned food to her guests.

“She didn’t intend to cause anyone any harm on that day… what happened was a tragedy, a terrible accident.”

The prosecution also detailed allegations of what took place in the lead up to the lunch, and at the table, in open court for the first time.

The trial heard that, in 2023, the accused had been amicably separated from her husband Simon Patterson for years.

“Simon remained hopeful for some time that he and the accused would someday reunite,” Dr Rogers told the jury.

He was also planning to attend the gathering but pulled out at the last minute because he had noticed a recent “change in his relationship” with Ms Patterson and felt “uncomfortable”, the prosecutor said. This was something that “disappointed” Ms Patterson who “emphasised the effort she had put into preparing the lunch”.

The jury was told it would hear testimony that Ms Patterson served her guests on large grey plates, but ate off a different, tan orange dish – prompting one of the guests to later ask if she had “a shortage of crockery”.

They said grace, dug in, and exchanged “banter” about how much they had eaten, before discussing how Ms Patterson should share her cancer diagnosis – which the defence admits was fake – with her children.

The lunch party broke up in the early afternoon, and by that night, all of the guests were feeling ill, Dr Rogers says. Within a day, the four had gone to hospital with severe symptoms. Donald Patterson – who had eaten his portion of lunch and about half his wife’s – told a doctor he’d vomited 30 times in the space of a few hours.

The prosecutor said the Wilkinsons had asked whether Ms Patterson was also in hospital, as she’d eaten the same meal as them.

She had gone to the hospital, reporting feeling ill, but repeatedly declined to be admitted, the court heard. A doctor who had treated the other lunch guests was so concerned for her welfare he called police to ask for help.

Likewise, the jury was told Ms Patterson kept refusing to seek treatment for her children, who she said had eaten the beef wellington leftovers – albeit with the mushrooms scraped off as they didn’t like them.

“Lots of people might have opinions or theories, but they aren’t based on the evidence,” the defence warned the jury at the end of the day.

“None of that should have any bearing on your decision.”