The top court in the US has ruled judges in lower courts have limited ability to block presidential orders, giving President Donald Trump what he called a “giant win”.

The case surrounded whether Trump’s attempt to use an executive order to end birthright citizenship for non-citizens and undocumented migrants was allowed.

In a 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court’s conservative justices sided with Trump and said they were not addressing Trump’s attempt to end birthright citizenship. Rather their ruling addressed presidential actions broadly.

Experts said the ruling will change how executive actions are challenged in the future and noted legal challenges to the Friday ruling are likely to come.

Immigrant rights groups and 22 states sued the Trump administration over an executive order the president signed on his first day back in office. That order was aimed at ending birthright citizenship which gives people born on US territory automatic citizenship rights.

• What to know about the Supreme Court’s birthright citizenship case

The lawsuits, filed in Maryland, Massachusetts, Washington state and elsewhere, were aimed at blocking the order from taking effect and temporarily did just that.

But the Justice Department disagreed and appealed the case to the Supreme Court, arguing those injunctions were not constitutional.

On Friday, the court agreed with the Trump’s administration and introduced limits on how universal injunctions are issued by federal courts.

Trump hailed the ruling as a victory at a surprise press conference on Friday and said the decision was a “monumental victory for the constitution, the separation of powers and the rule of law”.

He said “radical left judges” have tried to overrule his powers as president and that nationwide injunctions are a “grave threat to democracy”.

Upon returning to the White House in January, Trump immediately began using executive actions as a means to accomplish his agenda.

Attorney General Pam Bondi, who also spoke at the press conference, said the decision meant judges will not be able to stop Trump’s policies.

She said she expects the Supreme Court to take up the question of birthright citizenship itself, in October when the next session of court begins.

While the Friday ruling said courts will still be able to halt presidential actions they deem unconstitutional or illegal, it will happen further along in the judicial process which will give presidents more space to act.

Because of the ruling to limit injunctions, Trump’s birthright citizenship order will be able to take effect, 30 days after the court’s opinion was filed, the court said.

However, the ruling is likely to see further legal challenges.

Samuel Bray, a Notre Dame Law School professor and expert on nationwide injunctions, said the ruling “has fundamentally reset the relationship between the federal courts and the executive branch”.

The Supreme Court’s ruling will mean universal injunctions “will no longer be the default remedy in challenges to executive action”.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who authored the majority opinion, said federal courts do not “exercise general oversight of the Executive Branch” and instead they “resolve cases and controversies consistent with the authority Congress has given them”.

“When a court concludes that the Executive Branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too,” she wrote.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who wrote a concurring opinion, said that the Supreme Court, not the district courts or courts of appeals, “will often still be the ultimate decisionmaker as to the interim legal status of major new federal statutes and executive actions”.

Justice Sonya Sotomayor penned the dissent for the liberal justices and called the Trump administration’s request of the court “gamesmanship” and said the court “plays along”.

“The Court’s decision is nothing less than an open invitation for the Government to bypass the Constitution,” she wrote.

“The rule of law is not a given in this Nation, nor any other. It is a precept of our democracy that will endure only if those brave enough in every branch fight for its survival. Today, the Court abdicates its vital role in that effort. With the stroke of a pen, the President has made a ‘solemn mockery’ of our Constitution.”

The Supreme Court on Friday handed a significant victory to Donald Trump – and future American presidents – when curbing lower courts’ power to block executive orders.

President Trump was beaming as he addressed reporters at the White House briefing room podium, calling it a “big, amazing decision” which the administration is “very happy about”.

He said it was a “monumental victory for the constitution, the separation of powers and the rule of law”.

The court’s decision not only impacts Trump’s birthright citizenship order, but also emboldens him to enact many of his other policy actions that have been temporarily thwarted by similar injunctions.

The Supreme Court has opened the door for the Trump administration to no longer grant automatic citizenship to everyone born on American soil – at least for the moment. Now the White House will have to implement its plan, which will be no easy task.

On Friday, the nation’s highest court allowed Donald Trump’s executive order to end birthright citizenship to go into effect in a month’s time, while leaving room for lower courts to curb the impact on those who have standing to sue.

States traditionally handle processing birth certificates, and many do not record the citizenship of the parents. Democratic-run state governments will be in no rush to do so, no matter what the Trump administration may desire.

And Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the majority, left the door open for states to make the case that a more broad block on Trump’s birthright citizenship action is necessary.

That sets up big legal battles to come.

“As the States see it, their harms — financial injuries and the administrative burdens flowing from citizen-dependent benefits programs — cannot be remedied without a blanket ban on the enforcement of the Executive Order,” Barrett wrote.

“The lower courts should determine whether a narrower injunction is appropriate, so we leave it to them to consider these and any related arguments.”

President Trump described the court’s decision on Friday as a “giant win”.

He added that the “birthright citizenship hoax” has been “indirectly, hit hard” and that the decision would prevent “scamming of our immigration process”.

Trump’s Attorney General Pam Bondi said on Friday that the Supreme Court will decide whether the US will end birthright citizenship in October during its next session.

The court’s decision to limit the power of lower court federal judges to issue nationwide injunctions will have immediate, wide-ranging consequences.

Both Democratic and Republican presidents have often criticised what they say are ideological jurists in federal district courts who have been able to singlehandedly block executive actions and even legislation passed by Congress.

While doing away automatic citizenship for the children of undocumented migrants born on US soil is at the centre of this high profile case, there are a number of other actions taken by Trump in recent months that have also been held up by lower-level judges.

From Trump’s inauguration to April 29, the Congressional Research Service counts 25 such instances.

Following the court’s decision on Friday, Trump told journalists, “We can now properly file to proceed with policies that have been wrongly enjoined.”

Lower courts have blocked the president’s cuts to foreign assistance, diversity programmes and other government agencies, limited his ability to terminate government employees, put other immigration reforms on hold and suspended White House issued changes to election processes.

With the Supreme Court’s decision in this case, the administration is in a much stronger position to ask courts to allow it to push forward on many of these efforts.

During the Biden presidency, conservative judges prevented Democrats from enacting new environmental regulations, offering student loan forgiveness, modifying immigration rules. Courts blocked changes to normalised immigration status for some undocumented migrants during Barack Obama’s presidency, as well, and prevented him from making more white collar employees eligible for overtime pay.

In all these types of cases, courts will ultimately be able to step in and halt presidential actions that they deem illegal or unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court in its opinion said, ” The lower courts shall move expeditiously to ensure that, with respect to each plaintiff, the injunctions comport with this rule and otherwise comply with principles of equity.”

But that will come further along in the judicial process, at the appellate and Supreme Court level. In the meantime, presidents – Donald Trump and his successors, whether they are Republicans or Democrats – will have more time and space to act.

Dame Anna Wintour had just sent off her first edition of US Vogue in October 1988 when the magazine received a phone call from the printers. They had seen the issue’s front cover, and had one question: “Has there been a mistake?”

The cover, Dame Anna’s first as editor-in-chief, featured a lesser-known model, Michaela Bercu, smiling at the camera in a stylish Christian Lacroix couture jacket.

But two things were notably different from usual: the model was standing outside, in the street, and wearing a pair of jeans. The printers half-assumed there had been some kind of error.

“I couldn’t blame them,” Dame Anna later recalled. “It was so unlike the studied and elegant close-ups that were typical of Vogue’s covers back then, with tons of makeup and major jewellery. This one broke all the rules.”

The jeans had, in fact, been a last-minute addition, after the skirt which Bercu was supposed to wear didn’t fit properly. But the intended message was clear: the cover star was a regular, everyday girl – and this was a new era for Vogue.

Dame Anna’s arrival, and desire to defy convention, “signalled a revolution” at the magazine, according to CNN Style’s Oscar Holland, who praised her debut issue as “warm and easygoing”.

After two years in charge of British Vogue, Dame Anna had been hired for the US edition precisely to shake things up. She was tasked with making sure the magazine didn’t lose its edge as it headed towards the 1990s.

In the decades since, Dame Anna has “steered the title from glossy print editions featuring first supermodels then grunge, via Noughties celebrity culture and reality TV stars, into an online era of social media and digital publishing,” noted the Times’ fashion editor Harriet Walker.

But this week, Dame Anna announced she would be stepping back as Vogue’s editor-in-chief after 37 years.

She will remain publisher Condé Nast’s chief content officer, a role she was appointed to in 2020, which means she will still oversee Vogue’s content, along with the company’s other titles such as GQ, Wired and Tatler.

But while she may be staying with the company, her departure as editor-in-chief marks the end of an extraordinary era for the magazine, which helped to define pop culture.

Dame Anna will be remembered for “the greater sense of informality that she brought to her early Vogue covers” and the tone they set, says Dr Kate Strasdin, senior lecturer at the Falmouth University’s Fashion and Textile Institute.

“She also pioneered the celebrity cover image, positioning popular culture beneath the famous Vogue banner.”

In her first year as editor-in-chief, Dame Anna put Madonna on the cover, the first celebrity to have featured, as part of her wider mission to merge the words of fashion and entertainment.

“She was the first to make fashion a global, cultural industry,” Marian Kwei, a stylist and contributor to Vogue, told BBC Radio 4’s Today. But, she adds, Dame Anna “also showed that fashion could be more approachable”.

“She took away the elitism that was in fashion, and brought a democratisation, and made fashion this party that everybody else was invited to.”

It hasn’t always been smooth sailing, however. In 1993, animal rights group Peta occupied her office in protest over Dame Anna’s decision to wear fur, something she no longer does.

There were arguably occasional cultural missteps, too. The LeBron James and Gisele Bundchen cover in April 2008 sparked a debate, Dr Strasdin recalls, about whether it reinforced old stereotypes of race and power.

More recently, Dame Anna faced a much more existential challenge – how to move Vogue into the digital age with hugely increased competition.

In 2018, designer Philip Plein compared the number of Vogue’s readers with the number of Instagram followers Kim Kardashian had.

“So what is more important nowadays for a brand?” he asked. “This is an interesting question.”

In a fast-moving media landscape, some industry watchers may wonder whether Dame Anna was quietly asked to step down by Conde Nast to make way for fresh blood.

But Alexandra Shulman, former editor of British Vogue, said she doubted this, telling BBC News: “I don’t think there’s any view that a new vision is needed.

“Anna’s made it perfectly clear that she’s remaining in control at American Vogue… so I think she will still have the final say.”

Shulman added that it was likely Dame Anna herself would choose her successor at Vogue.

Dame Anna is as known for her own image as much as the aesthetic she has created in her magazines. Her trademark sunglasses and bobbed haircut are partly what helped her become such an instantly recognisable figure.

She told the BBC’s Katie Razzall last year, somewhat cryptically, that her sunglasses “help me see and they help me not see… they help me be seen and not be seen”.

The editor has always been something of an enigma, and will be well aware that the conversation and speculation that surrounds her just fuels the interest further.

But she played down the focus on her image, saying: “I don’t really think about it. What I’m really interested in is the creative aspect of my job.”

Her reputation as an editor has, of course, been widely debated, Dr Strasdin notes.

“The fashion industry has traditionally been a space where egos and creativity can clash spectacularly,” she says, adding that documentaries such as The September Issue and First Monday in May “offer some insight into the strangeness of that world”.

Over time, Dame Anna gradually became a significant figure not just in fashion, but western culture. She is regularly referenced in hip-hop lyrics, with Nicki Minaj, Jay-Z and Ye (formerly Kanye West) among the artists who have name-checked her.

“I believe what she has done,” reflected Kwei, “is carved a space in fashion, culture, time, history that we will never be able to outdo”.

Dame Anna was the loose inspiration for Miranda Priestly, the demon magazine editor in The Devil Wears Prada, portrayed on screen by Meryl Streep.

The editor has appeared to enjoy occasionally leaning in to the comparison, and last year attended the gala night for the stage adaptation.

But asked if she thought people were frightened of her in real life, Dame Anna replied: “I hope not.”

Dame Anna’s impact can be seen in all kinds of ways, including, for example, at Amazon founder Jeff Bezos wedding to Lauren Sánchez in Venice this weekend.

“She created that moment, and almost created that brand,” the former Sun editor David Yelland told the BBC. “It was when she put Lauren Sancehz on the front of Vogue in 2023, that the Bezos/Sanchez brand started.

“She did the same with Kim Kardashian and she did the same with the Trumps. When she put Ivana on the front in 1990 it was incredibly controversial, people called it tacky, but that was the beginning of the Trump brand in the higher end of global society. So she’s not just an editor, she’s the high priestess of our time.”

The question of Dame Anna’s successor is complicated. “This is a challenging era for print media,” explains Dr Strasdin. “Vogue’s social media platforms are frequently under fire for the seemingly relentless celebrity content which critics decry as diluting the mission of Vogue.

“But a strong digital presence is vital. Eva Chen, as director of fashion partnerships for Instagram, brings that expertise. She has long been a Met Gala regular and has to be on the longlist I should think.”

“Chioma Nnadi must also be in the running,” she continues. “She hails from London, and has spent the last two years heading up editorial content at British Vogue. She is Wintour’s protege and it does feel as if she has been waiting in the wings.”

Other possible candidates, according to the Daily Mail’s fashion editor Margaret Abrams, include former head of Teen Vogue Amy Astley, who still works for Condé Nast editing another magazine.

Vogue’s senior editor Chloe Schama, her namesake Chloe Malle, editor of Vogue’s website, or even Dame Anna’s own daughter, film producer Bee Shaffer Carrozzini, could also be in the frame.

“As ever fashion is regarded as both superficial and economically valuable,” says Dr Strasdin.

“Anna Wintour has had to tread the tightrope of maintaining relevance as far as style is concerned at the very same time that fashion has had to undergo re-evaluation in relation to sustainability, plagiarism and labour conditions.

“I think these are the very real concerns that her successor will have to navigate.”

US President Donald Trump has said he is cutting off trade talks with Canada “immediately” as the country looks to start enforcing a tax policy targeting big tech companies.

The latest move, which he announced on social media, comes as the neighbouring nations had been working to agree a trade deal by mid-July.

Both countries have imposed tariffs on each other’s goods after Trump sparked a trade war earlier this year and threatened to annex Canada using “economic force”.

On Friday, the US president said he was ending talks due to what he called an “egregious tax” on tech companies and added he would announce new tariffs on goods crossing the border within the next week.

“We are hereby terminating ALL discussions on Trade with Canada, effective immediately,” he wrote on social media.

“We will let Canada know the Tariff that they will be paying to do business with the United States of America within the next seven day period.”

In brief comments to reporters, Prime Minister Mark Carney suggested that talks would continue.

“We will continue to conduct these complex negotiations in the best interest of Canadians,” he said.

Canada’s 3% digital services tax has been a sticking point in its relationship with the US since the law was enacted last year. The first payments are due on Monday.

Business groups estimate it will cost American companies more than $2bn a year.

Canadian officials had said they expected to address the issue as part of trade talks with the US.

There were hopes that the relatively warm relationship that newly-elected Carney has forged with Trump might help those negotiations.

The president’s latest move casts doubt on a future deal, though Trump has often used social media threats to try to gain leverage in talks or speed up negotiations he sees as stalling.

Last month, for example, he threatened to ramp up tariffs on goods arriving to US shores from the European Union, only to climb down a few days later.

Candace Laing, chief executive of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce which has been critical of the digital services tax, said that “last-minute surprises should be expected” as the deadline for a deal approaches.

“The tone and tenor of talks has improved in recent months, and we hope to see progress continue,” she added.

The US is Canada’s top trade partner, buying more than $400bn in goods last year under a longstanding free trade agreement.

But Trump hit that trade with a new 25% tariff earlier this year, citing concerns about drug trafficking at the border.

New US tariffs on cars, steel and aluminium have also scrambled relations. Car parts, for example, cross US, Mexican and Canadian borders multiple times before a vehicle is completely assembled and such import taxes threaten supply chains.

Trump later carved out exemptions for some goods in the face of widespread alarm from businesses in both the US and Canada, which has hit back with tariffs of its own on some US products.

Shares in the US fell on Friday after Trump said he was cutting off talks, but later bounced back with the S&P 500 closing at a record high.

The son of Norway’s crown princess is suspected of three rapes and 23 other offences, police said on Friday.

Marius Borg Høiby, who is the stepson of Norway’s future king, was arrested three separate times last year, in August, September and November.

After a 10-month investigation, Norwegian police have now handed the case over to prosecutors who will decide whether to press charges, police attorney Andreas Kruszewski said.

Høiby’s lawyer Petar Sekulic said his client was “taking the accusations very seriously, but doesn’t acknowledge any wrongdoing in most of the cases – especially the cases regarding sexual abuse and violence”.

The 28-year-old, who does not have a royal title or official duties, had been under investigation since his arrest on 4 August 2024 on suspicion of assault.

In a statement, Oslo Police District said they carried out a “thorough investigation”, with a “large number of witness interviews, several searches and a review of extensive digital material”.

Høiby was questioned several times during the autumn of 2024 and spring of 2025 and “cooperated with the police”, the statement said.

Amongst the offences police said Høiby was suspected of were four counts of sexually offensive behaviour, one count of abuse in a close relationship and two counts of bodily harm.

Police confirmed that some cases involving sexual offences had been dismissed due to “statute of limitations and evidentiary reasons”.

“I cannot go into further detail about the number of victims in the case beyond confirming that it is a double-digit number,” Mr Kruszewski said.

The Royal House of Norway noted in a statement that the case was proceeding through the legal system and had nothing further to add.

US President Donald Trump has said he would “absolutely” consider bombing Iran again.

Responding to a question from the BBC’s Nomia Iqbal at a White House press briefing, he said he would “without question” attack the country if intelligence concluded Iran could enrich uranium to concerning levels.

The US became directly involved in the conflict between Israel and Iran last weekend, striking key nuclear sites with “bunker buster” bombs before Trump rapidly sought a ceasefire.

In a speech on Thursday, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said the strikes had achieved nothing significant, but on Friday Trump repeated his claim that the country’s nuclear sites had been “obliterated”.

• Iranian foreign minister admits serious damage to nuclear sites
• How a volatile 24 hours edged Iran and Israel to a ceasefire
• US gained nothing from strikes, Iran’s supreme leader says

Posting on his social media platform Truth Social later on Friday, Trump said he knew “EXACTLY” where the ayatollah had been sheltering and that he had personally stopped Israeli and US armed forces from targeting him.

It is understood the Iranian leader was forced into hiding during his country’s two-week war with Israel.

All parties in the conflict have claimed victory, with the ayatollah telling Iranians that Israel and Iran had failed to disrupt the country’s nuclear programme.

However, the country’s foreign minister Abbas Araghchi later admitted “excessive and serious” damage was done to the country’s nuclear sites by the recent US and Israeli bombings.

Reacting to the ayatollah’s comments, Trump repeated his assertions that Iran was “decimated”.

“Why would the so-called ‘Supreme Leader’ Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, of the war-torn country of Iran, say so blatantly and foolishly that he won the war with Israel, when he knows his statement is a lie,” Trump added.

Trump claimed he had been “working on the possible removal of sanctions” against Iran, but had decided to “immediately” drop all work on sanction relief after the ayatollah released his statement of “anger, hatred and disgust”.

Iran has always insisted its nuclear programme is only intended for civilian purposes.

The latest conflict between Israel and Iran started when Israel launched attacks on Iranian nuclear sites and military infrastructure, with a number of nuclear scientists and military commanders killed.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that “if not stopped, Iran could produce a nuclear weapon in a very short time”.

CBS News, the BBC’s US partner, reported the White House had been considering a range of options to entice Iran back to the negotiating table, including facilitating funding for a civilian, non-enrichment, nuclear programme.

But Iran has denied it is set to resume nuclear talks with the US, after Trump said at a Nato summit in the Hague on Wednesday that negotiations were set to begin again next week.

Iran’s health ministry said 610 people were killed during the 12 days of air attacks, while Israeli authorities said 28 were killed in Israel.

MI6 has cast distance between its new chief and her grandfather, who was this week revealed to have been a Nazi spy known as “the butcher”.

Blaise Metreweli was announced as the incoming head of the Secret Intelligence Service earlier this month. She will be its first female “C” in its 116-year history.

With little known about her wider backstory, documents show that her grandfather was Constantine Dobrowolski, who defected from Soviet Russia’s Red Army to become the Nazis’ chief informant in Chernihiv, Ukraine.

However, the Foreign Office, which speaks on behalf of MI6, said Ms Metreweli “neither knew nor met her paternal grandfather”.

A spokesperson added: “Blaise’s ancestry is characterised by conflict and division and, as is the case for many with eastern European heritage, only partially understood.

“It is precisely this complex heritage which has contributed to her commitment to prevent conflict and protect the British public from modern threats from today’s hostile states, as the next chief of MI6.”

The Daily Mail, which first revealed the family link, reports that it found hundreds of pages of documents in an archive in Freiburg, Germany, which showed Mr Dobrowolski was known as “The Butcher” or “Agent No 30” by Wehrmacht commanders.

He reportedly signed off letters to his Nazi superiors with “Heil Hitler” and said he “personally” took part in “the extermination of the Jews”.

The archive documents are said to suggest Mr Dobrowolski looted the bodies of Holocaust victims, was involved in the murdering of local Jews, and laughed while watching the sexual assault of female prisoners.

BBC News has seen evidence to suggest that Mr Dobrowolski was on a most wanted list drawn up by the KGB, the Soviet Union’s spy agency, in 1969, which appears to detail his earlier work and suggests he may have still been alive by the 1960s.

The document, labelled “top secret” and sourced from a researcher, is a 460-page alphabetical list of “foreign intelligence agents, traitors to the motherland, members of anti-Soviet organisations, punishers and other criminals subject to wanting”.

An entry that appears to be for Mr Dobrowolski says he “participated in the executions of Soviet citizens”.

“At the same time, he was a resident of German intelligence,” the document seen by the BBC says. “In September 1943, he escaped with the Germans”.

After the war, Mr Dobrowolski’s wife, Barbara, and two-month-old son Constantine Jr fled to Britain – and she married David Metreweli in 1947. Constantine Jr later took his stepfather’s name of Metreweli, but the BBC has seen existence of a naturalisation certificate, dated July 1966, still held in the National Archives today, where his surname was still Dobrowolski, with Metreweli listed as an “alias”.

Constantine Jr would go on to be a radiologist and UK armed forces veteran, and his daughter, Ms Metreweli, was born in 1977 before joining MI6 22 years later.

She has not responded to the recent reports herself.

Having risen through the ranks, she is currently responsible for technology and innovation at MI6, which gathers intelligence overseas. She will be the agency’s 18th head when she takes over later this year from Sir Richard Moore, a senior civil servant.

Upon her appointment, she said in a statement that she was “proud and honoured” to have been asked to lead.

Ms Metreweli is a Cambridge graduate, a rower and has previously had operational roles in the Middle East and Europe.

Georgian opposition leader Nika Melia has become the latest opposition figure to be sent to jail this week in a crackdown described by observers as an unprecedented attack on the country’s democracy.

The South Caucausus state has seen months of political turmoil since the government halted its path to join the EU in the wake of disputed elections.

Six prominent politicians have been given jail terms, and another two are in pre-trial detention, so that most of the leaders of the pro-Western opposition are now behind bars.

On Friday, Nika Melia, one of the leaders of Coalition for Change, was jailed for eight months by a court in Tbilisi and former opposition MP Givi Targamadze was given seven months.

The scale and speed of the crackdown has come as a shock, and Nika Melia accused the government of trying to break the courage of Georgians.

All of the jailed politicians have been convicted of refusing to testify before a parliamentary commission and barred from holding public office for two years.

In what it called “the most severe democratic collapse in Georgia’s post-Soviet history”, anti-corruption watchdog Transparency International said the governing Georgian Dream party, led by billionaire founder Bidzina Ivanishvili, had launched “a full-scale authoritarian offensive”.

In a matter of days, jail terms have also been handed down to four other opposition leaders: Giorgi Vashadze and Zurab Japaridze, as well as Badri Japaridze and Mamuka Khazaradze, two former bank executives. Another prominent opposition leader, Nika Gvaramia, is in pre-trial detention as well as a former defence minister.

“The Soviet Union has returned to our present and wants our minds to cling to the past,” Nika Melia wrote on Facebook. Georgia regained its independence when the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991.

Norway said this week that the arrest of opposition leaders was an “unprecedented attack on Georgia’s democracy” and it called for an end to “repressive actions”.

After last October’s elections, the opposition accused Ivanishvili’s party of stealing the vote.

Opposition parties then boycotted parliament and, when the European Parliament denounced the election as neither free nor fair, the ruling party halted Georgia’s bid to join the European Union.

Georgians have since protested in central Tbilisi every night for more than 200 nights, demanding new elections and the release of all prisoners arrested during pro-EU rallies.

The government then set up an investigative parliamentary commission into the “alleged crimes” of the previous government before Georgian Dream came to power in 2012, specifically the period covering Georgia’s war with Russia in 2008.

Failing to comply with a “lawful request” by a parliamentary commission is a criminal offence under Georgia’s criminal code. Opposition politicians have refused to testify, partly because of their boycott of parliament, but also because they reject it as a politically motivated attack on government critics.

Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze told parliament on Friday that the commission was doing very important work exposing a previous government that was “entirely built on crime”.

“Everyone must understand once and for all that there is no place for criminals in Georgian politics.”

Human rights groups say 500 people have been arrested during the recent street protests and that 300 of them were subjected to torture. As many as 60 people are being held as political prisoners, they say.

Respected journalist Mzia Amaglobeli remains imprisoned, and independent TV stations face censorship and financial ruin.

Earlier this week 40 civil society groups said that Bidzina Ivanishvili had “chosen to maintain power through dictatorship, and fundamental human rights are violated every day”.

Ivanishvili, who is under US sanctions, accumulated his wealth in Russia during the 1990s. He formally retired from politics but is widely believed to have control over all branches of government.

Last month, a former confidant of Ivanishvili who went on the run said he was “kidnapped from abroad” and flown back to Georgia by force as a political prisoner.

Giorgi Bachiashvili had been on trial in Georgia accused of misappropriating millions of dollars in a case he said was politically motivated.

Georgian authorities say Bachiashvili, 39, was convicted of a crime while in absentia and will serve his jail sentence.

His lawyer, Robert Amsterdam, told the BBC he was deeply concerned for his safety: “Too many people see him as a highly competent political figure.”

Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo have signed a peace deal in Washington aimed at ending decades of devastating conflict between the two neighbours, and potentially granting the US lucrative mineral access.

The deal demands the “disengagement, disarmament and conditional integration” of armed groups fighting in eastern DR Congo.

Further details are scant and previous peace deals in the region have failed – yet that has not deterred the US and Congolese presidents from framing this as a generational victory.

“Today, the violence and destruction comes to an end, and the entire region begins a new chapter of hope and opportunity,” US President Donald Trump said on Friday.

Flanked by Vice-President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and delegates from DR Congo and Rwanda in the Oval Office, Trump called the peace treaty “a glorious triumph”.

“This is a tremendous breakthrough,” Trump said, shortly before adding his signature to the peace treaty signed earlier by the respective African delegates.

The deal was signed by the Congolese and Rwandan foreign ministers at the US State Department.

“Another diplomatic success for President Félix Tshisekedi – certainly the most important in over 30 years,” said the Congolese president’s office ahead of Friday’s signing.

There has been talk of Tshisekedi and Rwanda’s President Paul Kagame going to Washington to meet Trump together, though no date has been fixed.

• What’s the fighting in DR Congo all about?
• The evidence that shows Rwanda is backing rebels in DR Congo
• Your phone, a rare metal and the war in DR Congo

Decades of conflict escalated earlier this year when M23 rebels seized control of large parts of eastern DR Congo including the regional capital, Goma, the city of Bukavu and two airports.

Thousands of people have been killed and hundreds of thousands of civilians forced from their homes following the recent rebel offensive.

After the loss of territory, the government in Kinshasa turned to the US for help, reportedly offering access to critical minerals in exchange for security guarantees. Eastern DR Congo is rich in coltan and other resources vital to the global electronics industries.

Rwanda denies supporting the M23 despite overwhelming evidence, and insists its military presence in the region is a defensive measure against threats posed by armed groups like the FDLR – a rebel militia composed largely of ethnic Hutus linked to the 1994 Rwandan genocide.

Rwanda in turn accuses the Congolese government of backing the FDLR, which is denied by DR Congo. Their presence is of utmost concern to Kigali.

When some information about the deal was released last week, a statement spoke of “provisions on respect for territorial integrity and a prohibition of hostilities”, but there were no specifics.

It also talked about the “facilitation of the return of refugees and internally displaced persons”.

According to a Reuters news agency report, Congolese negotiators had pushed for an immediate withdrawal of Rwandan soldiers, but Rwanda – which has at least 7,000 troops on Congolese soil – refused.

In an angry statement a day before the deal was signed, Rwanda’s Foreign Minister Olivier Nduhungirehe condemned “the leak of a draft peace agreement” saying Rwanda had “demanded the other parties to respect the confidentiality of the discussions”.

The calls for the total withdrawal of Rwandan troops from DR Congo is major point of contention.

But Nduhungirehe said “the words ‘Rwanda Defense Force’, ‘Rwandan troops’ or ‘withdrawal’ are nowhere to be seen in the document”.

Just hours before the signing ceremony, Tshisekedi’s office said the agreement “does indeed provide for the withdrawal of Rwandan troops… [but] preferred the term disengagement to withdrawal simply because ‘disengagement’ is more comprehensive”.

Unless and until full details of the signed deal are made public, several crucial questions remain unanswered:

• Will the M23 rebel group withdraw from areas they have occupied?

• Does “respect for territorial integrity” mean Rwanda admits having troops in eastern DR Congo and will withdraw them?

• Would the agreed “return of refugees” allow thousands of Congolese back from Rwanda?

• Does “disarmament” mean that the M23 will now lay down their weapons?

• Who will disarm the FDLR, after the failure of several previous attempts?

• Would the agreed humanitarian access allow the reopening of the rebel-held airports for aid supply?

Prior to Friday’s signing, Rwandan government spokeswoman Yolande Makolo told Reuters news agency that the “lifting of defensive measures in our border area” would be contingent upon the FDLR’s “neutralisation”.

One of the main actors in today’s conflict – the M23 rebels – were spawned by a previous peace deal 16 years ago that failed to ensure demobilisation.

Last year, Rwandan and Congolese experts reached an agreement twice under Angolan mediation on the withdrawal of Rwandan troops and joint operations against the FDLR – but ministers from both countries failed to endorse the deal. Angola eventually stepped down as a mediator in March.

• Congolese rebels want peaceful solution to crisis, UN says
• Ex-DR Congo president returns from self-imposed exile, party says
• DR Congo conflict tests China’s diplomatic balancing act
• How DR Congo’s Tutsis become foreigners in their own country
• ‘They took all the women here’: Rape survivors recall horror of DR Congo jailbreak

The US Supreme Court has sided with parents in the state of Maryland who wanted to opt their children out of reading books with LGBTQ themes.

The justices voted 6-3 in support of the group of parents who said a curriculum adopted in 2022 by the Montgomery County Public Schools for elementary age children violated their religious rights.

The court’s majority said the parents who brought the case are entitled to a preliminary injunction while it proceeds.

The introduction of the books “along with its decision to withhold opt-outs, places an unconstitutional burden on the parents’ rights to the free exercise of their religion”, Justice Samuel Alito wrote.

The ruling allowed the preliminary relief, arguing the parents showed their case is likely to succeed on its merits, they are likely to suffer irreparable harm in its absence and that an injunction would be in the public interest.

The three liberal justices dissented.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in her dissenting opinion that the result of the case will be “chaos for this nation’s public schools”.

“Given the great diversity of religious beliefs in this country, countless interactions that occur every day in public schools might expose children to messages that conflict with a parents’ beliefs,” she added.

The parents involved represent several different faiths, but all oppose their children being introduced to LGBTQ themes.

The US Constitution’s First Amendment protects the right to freely exercise one’s religious beliefs, which the parents argued includes the right to pull their children out of lessons they find offensive.

They also pointed to school rules that allow parents to opt older children out of sex education.

The books include Uncle Bobby’s Wedding, which tells the story of a girl being told about her uncle’s planned gay wedding, and Born Ready: The True Story of a Boy Named Penelope, about a transgender boy.

The parents argued they have no objection to the books being on the shelf or available in the library.

Montgomery County Public Schools, Maryland’s largest school system, added the books in an effort to provide greater diversity in the stories children read. In 2023, it removed the opt-out option because it caused classroom disruption and could expose LGBTQ students to social stigma and isolation.

In a statement on Friday, Kelley Robinson, president of the Human Rights Campaign, said the “ruling not only tells LGBTQ+ students that they don’t belong, but that their experiences and existence are less worthy of respect”.

Eric Baxter, the attorney representing the group of parents, said the court’s ruling was “a win-win situation for parents everywhere”.

At a hearing for the case earlier this year, the justices appeared split along ideological lines. The court’s conservative majority expressed sympathy for the group’s argument.

Reality stars, actors, royals and a whole host of A-listers have travelled to Venice for the lavish wedding between Amazon founder Jeff Bezos and Lauren Sanchez.

Oprah Winfrey, Orlando Bloom, Kylie Jenner and Ivanka Trump were just some of the celebrities seen on the boats and streets of the Italian city on Thursday and Friday.

The festivities are expected to last three days, ending with a large party for the married couple and their hundreds of guests on Saturday.

The event has attracted protests from a variety of groups in Venice, including locals fighting over-tourism to climate change activists.

At his 1,200-person cleaning business in Maryland, chief executive Victor Moran carefully screens new recruits to make sure they are authorised to work in the US.

Even so, President Donald Trump’s crackdown on immigrants is starting to chip away at his workforce.

About 15 people have left his company, Total Quality, since Trump won a fight to strip immigrants from Venezuela and Nicaragua from temporary protections shielding them from deportation, he says.

If the White House expands its efforts, it could cost him hundreds more of his workers, who rely on similar work permits and would be difficult to replace.

Similar kinds of concerns are reverberating at businesses across the US, as Trump’s deportation drive appears to pick up pace, threatening to choke off a supply of workers that is increasingly critical to the US economy.

Nearly one in five workers in the US was an immigrant last year, according to census data. That marked a record high in data going back decades, up from less than 10% in 1994.

Trump has said he is targeting people in the US illegally, who account for an estimated 4% of the US workforce. His pledge to conduct mass deportations was a centrepiece of his campaign and an issue on which he drew widespread support, including many Hispanic voters.

His administration has resumed raids at workplaces, a tactic that had been suspended under Biden.

But White House efforts have been much broader in scope, taking aim at people in the US on student visas; suspending admissions of refugees; and moving to revoke temporary work permits and other protections that had been granted to immigrants by previous presidents.

The actions threaten disruption to millions of people, many of whom have lived and worked in the US for years.

“We are terrified,” says Justino Gomez, who is originally from El Salvador and has lived in the US for three decades.

The 73-year-old is authorised to work under a programme known as TPS, which grants temporary work permits and protection from deportation, based on conditions in immigrants’ home countries.

His employment, first as a dishwasher and line cook in a restaurant and now as a cleaner, helped him send an adopted daughter in El Salvador to school to become a teacher.

But Trump has already taken steps to end the programme for people from Haiti and Venezuela. Mr Gomez, who lives in Maryland, fears El Salvador could be next.

“Every time I leave home, I have this stress on my mind,” he tells the BBC, through a translator provided by his labour union, 32BJ SEIU. “Even when I go to the metro, I’m afraid that ICE will be there waiting to abduct us.”

Many of Trump’s actions have been subject to legal challenge, including a lawsuit over TPS brought by the SEIU.

But even if the White House does not successfully ramp up arrests and deportations, analysts say his crackdown could weigh on the economy in the near term, as it scares people like Mr Gomez into hiding and slows arrivals.

Growth in the workforce, which has been powered by immigrants, has already flattened since January, when Trump took office.

As firms have a harder time finding workers, it will limit their ability to grow, slowing the economy, warns economist Giovanni Peri of University of California, Davis.

A smaller workforce could also feed inflation, by forcing firms to pay more to recruit staff.

If the policies are sustained, they could have far-reaching economic consequences, Prof Peri adds. He points to the example of Japan, which has seen its economy shrink as it keeps a lid on immigration and the population ages.

“The undocumented raids are a piece of a policy that really wants to transform the United States from one of the places where immigrants come, are integrated and part of the success of society to a closed country,” he says.

“Instead of an engine of growth, it will become a more stagnant and slow growing and less dynamic economy.”

Many firms say it is already hard to find people to fill the jobs available.

Adam Lampert, the chief executive of Texas-based Cambridge Caregivers and Manchester Care Homes, which provides assisted living and in-home care, says about 80% of his 350 staff are foreign-born.

“I don’t go out and place ads for non-citizens to fill our roles,” he says. “It is the immigrants who are answering the call.”

Like Mr Moran, he said Trump’s moves had already cost him some workers, who had been authorised to work on temporary permits.

He said he was also worried about the ripple effects of Trump’s crackdown on his business, which in some ways competes with undocumented workers employed directly by families to provide care.

He said if those workers are forced out, it will drive up demand for his own staff – forcing him to pay more, and ultimately raise his rates.

“We’re going to have incredible inflation if you scrape all these people out of the economy,” he warned. “We can’t do without these people in the workforce.”

At Harris Health System, a major hospital network in Texas, Trump’s policy changes have already led to the loss of some workers, says chief executive Esmail Porsa.

He says training American workers to fill the jobs available in his sector would take years, given the rising needs.

“As the population is getting older and we are clamping down on one viable source of current and future workforce, this issue will come to a head,” he says.

Trump last week acknowledged the disruption his policies were creating for sectors that rely heavily on undocumented labour, such as hospitality and agriculture, even reportedly pausing workplace raids in some industries temporarily after receiving blowback from fellow Republicans.

But despite the concerns about the economic impact, Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin told the BBC that such raids remain a “cornerstone” of their efforts.

In the homebuilding industry, firms across the country are reporting seeing some work crews stop showing up for work, which will slow construction and raise costs in a sector where prices are already a concern, says Jim Tobin, president of the National Association of Homebuilders, which represents businesses in the sector.

The industry has called on Congress to reform immigration laws, including creating a special visa programme for construction workers.

But Mr Tobin says he was not expecting big changes to immigration policy anytime soon.

“I think it’s going to take a signal from the president about when it’s time to engage,” he says. “Right now it’s all about enforcement.”

The Supreme Court gave President Donald Trump a major win on Friday, ruling that a single judge cannot block a presidential order from taking effect nationwide.

The case stemmed from President Donald Trump’s bid to end birthright citizenship for some children, which has been frozen by multiple lower courts. With Friday’s decision, that order can now begin to go ahead.

The six conservative members of the Supreme Court sided with the president, finding that injunctions can only apply to those who have sued.

Trump appointed three of the justices in his first term.

The liberal justices, meanwhile, said the ruling went too far in lessening courts’ powers and strengthening the president’s.

Today’s ruling was about these courts’ uses of injunctions – not Trump’s birthright citizenship order itself – meaning it could apply to several other cases involving nationwide injunctions as well.

LIVE: Follow BBC’s coverage of the Supreme Court decision

On his first day back in office, Trump signed an executive order aimed at ending automatic citizenship rights for nearly anyone born on US territory – commonly known as “birthright citizenship”.

The move was instantly met by a series of lawsuits filed by five pregnant women, 22 states, two cities, the Maryland immigrant advocacy group CASA and the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project.

They are arguing the order goes against the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution, which established that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside”.

However, the Trump administration’s says the clause “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means the amendment excludes children of people not in the country permanently or lawfully.

Judges in district courts in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington state issued nationwide injunctions that blocked the order from taking effect.

In Washington, US District Court Judge John Coughenour called Trump’s executive order “blatantly unconstitutional”.

Trump’s Department of Justice responded by saying the case did not warrant the “extraordinary measure” of a temporary restraining order and appealed the case to the Supreme Court.

Injunctions have served as a check on Trump during his second term, amid a flurry of executive orders signed by the president.

Roughly 40 different court injunctions have been filed this year. This includes two lower courts that blocked the Trump administration from banning most transgender people from the military, although the Supreme Court eventually intervened and allowed the policy to be enforced.

The most junior conservative justice, Amy Coney Barrett, wrote the opinion, saying that lower courts were taking too much power in freezing Trump’s orders. Under the constitution, the executive (president), judicial (courts) and legislative (Congress) branches of government are supposed to be equal.

“Federal courts do not exercise general oversight of the Executive Branch; they resolve cases and controversies consistent with the authority Congress has given them,” Justice Barrett wrote. “When a court concludes that the Executive Branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too.”

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in a concurring opinion that if lower courts do not apply “historical equitable limits” in issuing injunctions the Supreme Court will continue to intervene.

The Supreme Court did not do away with injunctions entirely. Judges can block the orders from taking effect for the people who sue against them while their lawsuits proceed. Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote that people challenging an order can band together “statewide, region-wide or even nationwide” in a class action lawsuit.

The issue of nationwide injunctions had long troubled Supreme Court justices across the ideological spectrum.

Liberal Justice Elena Kagan said in remarks in 2022: “It can’t be right that one district judge can stop a nationwide policy in its tracks and leave it stopped for the years that it takes to go through the normal process.”

Nationwide injunctions have also been criticised for enabling what is known as forum shopping – the practice of filing a lawsuit in a jurisdiction where a more favourable ruling is likely.

Another critique of injunctions is the speed at which they are delivered versus their far-reaching impact.

The Trump administration had argued that judges were making high stakes decisions with little time to consider the case and “low information”.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the court’s most senior liberal, wrote a passionate dissent from the ruling, which she read from the bench.

She wrote the ruling took too much power from the courts so that the three branches of government were no longer equal, while arguing that the government had played games in asking the court to make a decision on injunctions instead of on birthright citizenship. She also wrote extensively about birthright citizenship itself.

“By stripping all federal courts, including itself, of that power, the Court kneecaps the Judiciary’s authority to stop the Executive from enforcing even the most unconstitutional policies,” Justice Sotomayor wrote.

Liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson had said earlier that the Trump administration’s argument advocated for a “catch me if you can” justice system.

“Your argument says ‘we get to keep on doing it until everyone who is potentially harmed by it figures out how to file a lawsuit, hire a lawyer, etc,'” Jackson had said.

On Friday she wrote that the decision “to permit the Executive to violate the Constitution with respect to anyone who has not yet sued is an existential threat to the rule of law”.

In general, the liberal justices, along with those arguing against the Trump administration, were concerned about consistency, saying there would be “chaos” in the absence of a nationwide injunction, creating a patchwork system of citizenship.

The order will go into effect for anyone not a party to the lawsuit in 30 days.

The injunctions will only remain in place for “each plaintiff with standing to sue”, according to the opinion.

When the state itself is a plaintiff, the lower court could still decide a nationwide injunction is warranted, said University of Michigan legal scholar Margo Schlanger. But that interpretation would likely also be appealed by the federal government, she noted.

“It narrowed the path for an injunction, but it didn’t cut it off completely,” she told the BBC.

The Supreme Court is expected to rule on the merits of the birthright citizenship order itself at some date in the future.

Most legal scholars believe it would likely be found unconstitutional.

Justice Sotomayor wrote in her dissent that birthright citizenship is the “law of the land” and the order is “patently unconstitutional”.

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Friday, though, the administration expects the Supreme Court to agree with it and uphold the order in October.

In the heart of the Iranian capital, the Boof cafe serves up refreshing cold drinks on a hot summer’s day.

They must be the most distinctive iced Americano coffees in this city – the cafe sits in a leafy corner of the long-shuttered US embassy.

Its high cement walls have been plastered with anti-American murals ever since Washington severed relations with Tehran in the wake of the 1979 Iranian revolution and the hostage crisis – which still cast a long shadow over this tortuous relationship.

Inside the charming Boof cafe, Amir the barista says he’d like relations to improve between America and Iran.

“US sanctions hurt our businesses and make it hard for us to travel around the world,” he reflects as he pours another iced coffee behind a jaunty wooden sign – “Keep calm and drink coffee.”

Only two tables are occupied – one by a woman covered up in a long black veil, another by a woman in blue jeans with long flowing hair, flouting the rules on what women should wear as she cuddles with her boyfriend.

It’s a small snapshot of this capital as it confronts its deeply uncertain future.

A short drive away, at the complex of Iran’s state TV station IRIB, a recorded speech by the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was broadcast to the nation on Thursday.

“The Americans have been opposing the Islamic Republic of Iran from the very beginning” he declared.

• Iran carries out wave of arrests and executions in wake of Israel conflict
• ‘We are exhausted’ – how Iranians are feeling after fragile ceasefire

“At its core, it has always been about one thing: they want us to surrender,” went on the 86-year Ayatollah, said to have taken shelter in a bunker aer Israel unleashed its unprecedented wave of strikes targeting Iran’s nuclear and missile sites and assassinating senior commanders and scientists.

We watched his speech, his first since President Donald Trump suddenly announced a ceasefire on Tuesday, on a small TV in the only office still intact in a vast section of the IRIB compound. All that’s le is a charred skeleton of steel.

When an Israeli bomb slammed into this complex on 16 June, a raging fire swept through the main studio which would have aired the supreme leader’s address. Now it’s just ash.

You can still taste its acrid smell; all the TV equipment – cameras, lights, tripods – are tangles of twisted metal. A crunching glass carpet covers the ground.

Israel said it targeted the propaganda arm of the Islamic Republic, accusing it of concealing a military operation within – a charge its journalists rejected.

Its gaping shell seems to symbolise this darkest of times for Iran.

You can also see it in the city’s hospitals, which are still treating Iranians injured in Israel’s 12-day war.

“I am scared they might attack again, ” Ashraf Barghi tells me when we meet in the emergency department of the Taleghani General hospital where she works as head nurse.

“We don’t trust this war has ended” she says, in a remark reflecting the palpable worry we’ve heard from so many people in this city.

When Israel bombed the threshold of the nearby Evin prison on 23 June, the casualties, both soldiers and civilians, were rushed into Nurse Barghi’s emergency ward.

• What we know about the Iran-Israel ceasefire

“The injuries were the worst I’ve treated in my 32 years as nurse,” she recounts, still visibly distressed.

The strike on the notorious prison where Iran detains most of its political prisoners was described by Israel as “symbolic”.

It seemed to reinforce Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s repeated message to Iranians to “stand up for their freedom”.

“Israel says it only hit military and nuclear prison but it’s all lies,” insists Morteza from his hospital bed. He had been at work in the prison’s transport department when the missile slammed into the building. He shows us his injuries in both arms and his backside.

In the ward next door, soldiers are being cared for, but we’re not allowed to enter there.

Across this sprawling metropolis, Iranians are counting the cost of this confrontation. In its latest tally, the government’s health ministry recorded 627 people killed and nearly 5,000 injured.

Tehran is slowly returning to life and resuming its old rhythms, at least on the surface. Its infamous traffic is starting to fill its soaring highways and pretty tree-lined side streets.

Shops in its beautiful bazaars are opening again as people return to a city they fled to escape the bombs. Israel’s intense 12-day military operation, coupled with the US’s attacks on Iran’s main nuclear sites, has le so many shaken.

“They weren’t good days, ” says Mina, a young woman who immediately breaks down as she tries to explain her sadness. “It’s so heart-breaking, ” she tells me through her tears. “We tried so hard to have a better life but we can’t see any future these days.”

We met on the grounds of the soaring white marble Azadi tower, one of Tehran’s most iconic landmarks. A large crowd milling on a warm summer’s evening swayed to the strains of much-loved patriotic songs in an open air concert of the Tehran Symphony Orchestra. It was meant to bring some calm to a city still on edge.

Supporters and critics of Iran’s clerical rulers mingled, drawn together by shared worry about their country’s future.

“They have to hear what people say,” insists Ali Reza when I ask him what advice he would give to his government. “We want greater freedoms, that’s all I will say.”

There’s defiance too. “Attacking our nuclear bases to show off that ‘you have to do as we say’ goes against diplomacy,” says Hamed, an 18-year-old university student.

Despite rules and restrictions which have long governed their lives, Iranians do speak their minds as they wait for the next steps by their rulers, and leaders in Washington and beyond, which carry such consequences for their lives.

By the time polls closed at 10pm on 4 July 2024, the Labour Party knew they were likely to return to government – even if they could not quite bring themselves to believe it.

For Sir Keir Starmer, reminiscing 10 months later in an interview with me, it was an “incredible moment”. Instantly, he said, he was “conscious of the sense of responsibility”. And yes, he confessed, a little annoyed that his landslide victory was not quite as big as Sir Tony Blair’s had been in 1997.

“I’m hugely competitive,” the prime minister said. “Whether it’s on the football pitch, whether it is in politics or any other aspect of life.”

Sir Keir watched the exit poll with a small group of advisers as well as his wife, Victoria, and his two teenaged children. Even in that moment of unsurpassable accomplishment, this deeply private prime minister was caught between the jubilation of his aides and the more complex reaction of his children, who knew their lives were about to change forever.

Looking back, the prime minister said, he would tell himself: “Don’t watch it with your family – because it did have a big impact on my family, and I could see that in my children.”

It’s important to remember how sunny the mood in the Labour Party was at that moment – because the weather then turned stormy with remarkable speed.

As the prime minister marks a year in office next week – which he will spend grappling with crises at home and abroad – British politics finds itself at an inflection point, where none of the old rules can be taken for granted.

So, why exactly was Sir Keir’s political honeymoon so short-lived? And can he turn things around?

Many members of the new cabinet had never been to Downing Street until they walked up to the famous black door on 5 July to be appointed. Why would they have been? The 14 turbulent years of opposition for the Labour Party meant that few had any experience of government.

This was a deficiency of which Sir Keir and his team were acutely aware.

As the leader of the opposition, he had spent significant time in ‘Privy Council’ – that’s to say, confidential, meetings with civil servants to understand what was happening in Ukraine and the Middle East.

He also sought knowledge from the White House. Jake Sullivan, then US President Joe Biden’s National Security Adviser, told me that he spoke to the future prime minister “every couple of months” to help him “make sense of what was happening”.

“I shared with him our perspective on events in the Middle East, as well as in Ukraine and in other parts of the world,” says Sullivan. “I thought he asked trenchant, focused, sharp questions. I thought he was on point.

“I thought he got to the heart of the matter, the larger issue of where all of these things were going and what was driving them. I was impressed with him.”

Domestic preparations were not as smooth. For some, especially on the left of the Labour Party, this government’s difficulties began with an over-cautious election campaign.

Sharon Graham, the general secretary of the trade union Unite, told me that “everyday people [were] looking for change with a big C. They were not looking for managerialism”.

It’s a criticism with which Pat McFadden, a senior cabinet minister, having run the campaign, is wearily familiar. “We had tried other strategies to varying degrees in 2015, 2017, 2019, many other campaigns previously – and they’d lost.

“I had one job. To win.”

Having made his name as a prominent member of Jeremy Corbyn’s shadow cabinet, Sir Keir won the party leadership in 2020 offering Labour members a kind of Corbynism without Corbyn.

But before long he broke decisively with his predecessor.

In the campaign this meant not a long list of promises, but a careful approach. Reassurance was the order of the day: at the campaign’s heart, a focus on what Labour wouldn’t do: no increase in income tax, national insurance or VAT.

Yet a big part of preparing for government was not just the question of what this government would do, but how it would drive the government system.

For that, Sir Keir turned to Sue Gray.

Having led the Partygate investigation into Boris Johnson, Gray was already unusually high-profile for an impartial civil servant. Her close colleagues were stunned when in 2023 she agreed to take up a party political role as Sir Keir’s chief of staff.

“It was a source of enormous controversy within the civil service,” says Simon Case, who until a few months ago as cabinet secretary was head of the civil service.

Sue Gray’s task was to use her decades of experience of the Whitehall machine to bring order to Sir Keir’s longstanding team.

She started work in September 2023, and the grumblings about her work began to reach me weeks, or perhaps even days, later. Those in the team she joined had expected her to bring organisational clarity.

Tensions came when she involved herself in political questions too.

Gray also deliberately re-prioritised the voices of elected politicians in the shadow cabinet over unelected advisers.

Questions about what exactly her role should be were never quite resolved, in part because Rishi Sunak called the general election sooner than Labour had expected.

Gray spent the campaign in a separate office from the main team, working with a small group on plans for the early days in government. Yet those back in Labour HQ fretted that, from what little they gleaned, that work was inadequate.

A few days before the election those rumours reached me. I WhatsApped a confidant of Sir Keir to ask what they had heard of the preparation for government.

“Don’t ask,” came the reply. “I am too worried to discuss it.”

What is unquestionable is that any prime minister would have struggled with the backdrop Sir Keir inherited.

Simon Case described to me how, on 5 July just after Sir Keir had made his first speech on the steps of No 10, he had thwacked a sleepless new prime minister with “the heavy mallet of reality”.

“I don’t think there are many incoming prime ministers who’d faced such challenging circumstances,” he said, referring to both the country’s economic situation and wars around the world.

The King’s Speech on 17 July unveiled a substantial programme, making good on manifesto promises: rail nationalisation, planning reform, clean energy investment. But those hoping for a rabbit out of the hat, a defining surprise, were disappointed.

In so many crucial areas — social care, child poverty, industrial strategy — the government’s instinct was to launch reviews and consultations, rather than to declare a decisive direction.

As cabinet secretary, Case could see what was happening — or not happening — across the whole of government. “There were some elements where not enough thinking had been done,” he said.

“There were areas where, sitting in the centre of government, early in a new regime, the prime minister and his team, including me as his sort of core team, knew what we wanted to do, but we weren’t communicating that effectively across all of government.”

Not just communication within government: for us journalists there were days in that early period where it was utterly unclear what this new government wanted its story to be.

That made those early announcements, which did come, stand out even more: none more so than Chancellor Rachel Reeves’s announcement on 29 July that she would means-test the winter fuel payment.

It came in a speech primarily about the government’s parlous economic inheritance. That is not what it is remembered for.

Some in government admit that they expected a positive response to Reeves’s radical frankness about what the government could and could not afford to do. Yet it sat in isolation – a symbol of this new government’s economic priorities, with the Budget still three months away.

Louise Haigh, then the transport secretary, remembered: “It came so early and it hung on its own as such a defining policy for so long that in so many voters’ minds now, that is the first thing they think about when they think about this Labour government and what it wants to do and the kinds of decisions it wants to make.”

The policy lasted precisely one winter. Sir Keir and his chancellor have argued in recent weeks that they were able to change course because of a stabilising economy.

McFadden was more direct about the U-turn. “If I’m being honest, I think the reaction to it since the decision was announced was probably stronger than we thought,” he admits.

At the same time the chancellor stood up to announce the winter fuel cuts, news was unfolding of a horrific attack in Southport.

Misinformation about who had carried out the attack fuelled the first mass riots in this country since 2011, when Sir Keir had been the director of public prosecutions. Given the nature of the crisis, the prime minister was well placed to respond.

“As a first crisis, it was dealing with a bit of the machinery of government that he instinctively understood – policing, courts, prisons,” Case says.

Sir Keir’s response was practical and pragmatic — making the judicial system flow faster meant that by mid-August at least 200 rioters had already been sentenced, most jailed with an average term of two years.

But in a way that was not quite clear at the time, the riots spawned what has become one of the defining attacks on the prime minister from the right: that of ‘two-tier Keir’.

The idea that some rioters were treated more harshly than other kinds of protesters had been morphed over time into a broader accusation about who and what the prime minister stood for.

Sir Keir had cancelled his family holiday to deal with the riots. Exhausted, he ended the summer dealing with questions about his personal integrity in what became known as ‘freebiegate’.

Most of the gifts for which he was being criticised – clothing, glasses, concert tickets – had been accepted before the election but Sir Keir was prime minister now. Case told me there was a “naivety” about the greater scrutiny that came with leading the country.

Perhaps more than that, there was a naivety in No 10 about how Sir Keir was seen. Here was a man elected in large part because of a crisis of trust in politics. He had presented himself as different.

Telling voters that he had followed the rules was to miss the point — they thought the rules themselves were bust.

By the winter of 2024, the sense of a government failing to get a grip of itself or a handle on the public mood, had grown. A chorus of off-the-record criticism, much of it strikingly personal, threatened to overwhelm the government.

There were personal ambitions and tensions at play, but more and more insiders – some of them fans of Gray initially – were telling me that the way in which Sir Keir’s chief of staff was running government was structurally flawed, with the system simply not working properly.

Gray announced in early October that she had resigned because she risked becoming a “distraction”. In reality, Sir Keir had sacked her after some of his closest aides warned him he risked a mutiny if he did not.

Sue Gray was approached both for an interview and for her response to her critics but declined.

To the end she retained some supporters in the cabinet including Louise Haigh. “I felt desperately sorry for her,” she says.

“It was just a really, really cruel way to treat someone who’d already been so traduced by the Tories – and then [was] traduced by our side as well.”

Sir Keir appointed Gray. He empowered Gray. And he dispensed with Gray. This was the prime minister correcting his own mistakes – an episode which came at a high political price.

Yet on the world stage the prime minister continued to thrive, winning praise across political divides in the UK and abroad.

Jake Sullivan, Biden’s adviser, was impressed by Sir Keir’s handling of US President Donald Trump, describing the Oval Office meeting where the prime minister brandished an invitation from the King as “the best I’ve seen in terms of a leader in these early weeks going to sit down with the current president”.

It’s an irony that it is Sir Keir, who made his reputation trying to thwart Brexit, who has found for the UK its most defined diplomatic role of the post-Brexit era — close to the US, closer than before to Europe, at the fore of the pro-Ukraine alliance, striking trade deals with India and others.

And it has provided him with something more elusive too: a story — a narrative of a confident, pragmatic leader stepping up on the world stage, acting as a bridge between other countries in fraught times.

The risk, brought into sharp relief during the Israel-Iran conflict in recent days, is that Trump is too unpredictable for such a role to be a stable one.

The international arena has sharpened Sir Keir’s choices domestically as well. Even while making welfare cuts that have displeased so many in his party, the prime minister has a clearer and more joined-up argument about prioritising security in all its forms: through work, through economic prudence, through defence of the realm.

And yet, for plenty of voters Sir Keir has found definition to his government’s direction too late. Labour’s poor performance last month in the local elections plus defeat at the Runcorn and Helsby by-election were a blow to Sir Keir and his team.

It’s far from unheard of for a governing party to lose a by-election, but to lose it to Reform UK on the same night that Nigel Farage’s party hoovered up councils across England made this a distinctively new political moment.

Two days afterwards, Paul Ovenden, Sir Keir’s strategy director, circulated a memo to Downing Street aides, which I’ve obtained.

It called for a “relentless focus on the new centre ground in British politics”.

The crucial swing voters, Ovenden wrote, “are the middle-age, working class, economically squeezed voters that we persuaded in the 2024 election campaign. Many of them voted for us in 2024 thinking we would fix the cost of living, fix the NHS, and reduce migration… we need to become more ruthless in pursuing those outcomes”.

For more than 100 of Starmer’s own MPs, including many of those elected for the first time in that landslide a year ago, the main priority was ruthlessly dismantling the government’s welfare reforms – plunging the prime minister as he approaches his first anniversary into his gravest political crisis yet.

The stakes were beyond high. For the prime minister to have backed down to avoid defeat on this so soon after the winter fuel reversal raises questions about his ability to get his way on plenty else besides.

So, if this first year has done anything, it has clarified the stakes.

This is not just a prime minister and a Labour Party hoping to win a second term. They are trying to prove to a tetchy and volatile country that not only do they get their frustration with politics, but that they can fix it too. None of that will be possible when profound policy disagreements are on public display.

Sign up for our Politics Essential newsletter to read top political analysis, gain insight from across the UK and stay up to speed with the big moments. It’ll be delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

MrBeast has removed a YouTube thumbnail generator that used artificial intelligence (AI) after a backlash from creators.

The world’s most-subscribed YouTuber, real name Jimmy Donaldson, released the tool last week and said his intention had been “to help smaller creators make better thumbnails”.

But he admitted he had “missed the mark” after it was criticised by other high-profile YouTubers, including PointCrow and Jacksepticeye, who said the tool “steals” creators’ work.

In a post on X, MrBeast said he’d decided to remove the tool from his YouTube analytics platform Viewstats and would replace it with links to human artists available for commission.

When he launched the AI thumbnail tool last week, MrBeast said, he “thought people were going to be pretty excited about it”.

The small preview pictures are a key part of any YouTuber’s strategy, and are used to catch the eye of potential viewers as they scroll through a sea of content.

Mr Beast’s tool was advertised as “taking the guesswork out” of designing eye-catching images for an $80 (£58) per month subscription.

It gave users the option to insert themselves into existing thumbnails and recreate the work of other creators.

Generative AI – or GenAI – tools such as this are trained on mountains of exisiting data, which are then used to create outputs in response to user prompts.

There are several current court cases examining accusations of copyright theft against companies that make AI models.

PointCrow, real name Eric Morino, accused MrBeast of making “something that can steal… hard work without a thought” and alleged that the AI model was “clearly trained on all our thumbnails and uses them without any creator’s permission”.

While the US streamer said the intention of making content creation more accessible was a “great idea”, the tool “fundamentally hurts creators as a whole”.

MrBeast acknowledged the feedback and told his followers: “I care more than any of you could ever imagine about the YouTube community.

“Obviously I’m the biggest YouTuber in the world and I don’t take that responsibility lightly and so it deeply makes me sad when I do something that people in the community are upset by.”

He said his goal with Viewstats had been to build tools to help creators, “but if creators don’t want the tools, no worries”.

The US YouTuber has more than 385 million subscribers on the site and is thought to be its highest-paid creator.

He has a number of other business ventures and last year hosted Beast Games, an Amazon series which saw 1,000 people competing in a series of elimination challenges for a $5m (£3.9m) cash prize.

The series was named in a lawsuit where some contestants claimed they’d been “exploited” during filming – allegations MrBeast said had been “blown out of proportion”.

In May, the Mexican government accused him of “exploiting” the Mayan pyramids for a video and the month before he had to apologise after fans had a “horrible” experience at a Las Vegas event in his name.

Listen to Newsbeat live at 12:45 and 17:45 weekdays – or listen back here.

Iran’s foreign minister has admitted that “excessive and serious” damage was done to the country’s nuclear sites in the recent US and Israeli bombings.

Abbas Araghchi told a state broadcaster on Thursday evening that an assessment of the damage is being carried out by the Atomic Energy Organisation of Iran.

But, just hours earlier, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said the strikes did not disrupt the country’s nuclear programme. Khamenei was responding to US President Donald Trump’s assertion that the bombs had “totally obliterated” three nuclear sites.

Khamenei said the US attacks had failed to “accomplish anything significant”.

The supreme leader, who has been in hiding since the war with Israel began on 13 June, insisted that Trump had “exaggerated” the impact of the bombs, and declared victory over the US and Israel.

But Araghchi’s remarks create a different impression.

The foreign minister also said there were no plans to resume nuclear talks with the US. Iran cancelled a scheduled sixth round of talks when Israel began its attacks.

• When Iran’s supreme leader emerges from hiding he will find a very different nation

“I would like to state clearly that no agreement, arrangement or conversation has been made to start new negotiations,” he said.

He added that the government was examining what was in the “interest of the Iranian people”, saying its approach to diplomacy will take a “new form”.

He did not explain what he meant.

In an attempt to bring Iran back to the negotiating table, the Trump administration has discussed the possibility of helping Iran access $30bn to build a civilian-energy-producing nuclear programme, easing sanctions and freeing up billions of dollars in restricted Iranian funds, CNN has reported.

But developments in Iran might obstruct such a move.

On Wednesday, Iran’s parliament approved a bill to stop co-operation with the global nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). If it is implemented, it would mean Iran is no longer committed to allowing nuclear inspectors into its sites.

Israel has said its offensive against Iran was necessary to thwart what it claims are Iranian plans to develop nuclear weapons.

Iran has always insisted its nuclear programme is only intended for civilian purposes.

The US became directly involved in the conflict last weekend, striking facilities in Fordo, Natanz and Isfahan, before Trump sought to rapidly mediate a ceasefire between Israel and Iran.

US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth said intelligence gathered by the US and Israel indicated the strikes “significantly damaged the nuclear programme, setting it back by years”.

A leaked preliminary Pentagon assessment downplayed the significance of the damage and said the US strikes only set Iran’s nuclear programme back by a few months. The leak has been dismissed by the administration.

Iran’s health ministry said 610 people were killed during the 12 days of Israel air strikes, while Israeli authorities said 28 were killed in Israel.

Two men have been sentenced to life imprisonment for murdering an Aboriginal schoolboy, in a case that shocked Australia.

Cassius Turvey died of head injuries after a brutal assault on the outskirts of Perth in October 2022. The 15-year-old’s killing prompted nationwide protests and vigils, also sparking debate on pervasive racism in the country.

The killers, Jack Brearley and Brodie Palmer, were “callous and lacking in empathy” as they chased Turvey down and savagely beat the Noongar Yamatji boy with a metal pole, Justice Peter Quinlan told a packed courtroom on Friday.

Mitchell Forth, who was convicted of manslaughter, was sentenced to 12 years in jail.

The gallery cheered as Justice Quinlan handed down the sentences, while Cassius’ mother Mechelle Turvey burst into tears, local media reported.

Prosecutors had told the trial the attack on Cassius was the culmination of a complex series of tit-for-tat events that had nothing to do with him.

The vigilante gang responsible for his death had been “hunting for kids” because somebody had damaged Brearley’s car windows.

Brearley, 24, and Palmer, 30, had each blamed the other for Cassius’ death, with Brearley also alleging that he acted in self-defence as Cassius was armed with a knife.

Justice Quinlan rejected that as a “complete fabrication”, and found that it was Brearley who had delivered the fatal blows.

“Cassius Turvey was completely and utterly innocent of any wrongdoing whatsoever. The only reason that he was the person killed… was that he was the person you happened to catch,” Justice Quinlan said.

Brearley had shown “no remorse whatsoever”, the judge added.

“You cannot make amends when you don’t acknowledge the pain that you have caused.

“You cannot be remorseful when in an effort to avoid responsibility… You seek to frame an innocent man and when that does not work you give false evidence that your co-accused was in fact the killer,” the chief justice said in a scathing rebuke reported by ABC News.

Palmer did not physically strike Cassius, but Justice Quinlan ruled that he was “equally responsible but not equally culpable”.

The group had also assaulted other Aboriginal teenagers in what the judge described as “so-called vigilante justice [that] was completely misdirected”.

A fourth offender, Ethan MacKenzie, was handed a two-and-a-half years jail term for his part in some of the other assaults.

In one case, a 13-year-old boy’s own crutches were used to beat him, causing bruising to his face.

Justice Quinlan condemned Brearley, Palmer and Forth for their “celebration” after the assaults, calling it a “grotesque display of your complete disregard of the lives of the children you had attacked”.

In her victim impact statement on Thursday, Cassius’ mother Mechelle Turvey said the actions of the three men were racially motivated.

“Cassius was not just part of my life, he was my future,” Ms Turvey said. “There are no words that can fully capture the devastation of losing someone you love to violence.”

While Justice Quinlan did not find the attack to be motivated by race, he said the attackers’ use of racial slurs “rippled” through the Aboriginal community and created “justifiable fear”.

“The fear is real and legitimate. You are responsible for that fear,” he said.

Palmer is eligible for parole in January 2041, while Brearly will be eligible from October 2044, the Australian Associated Press reported.

More than a third of Tuvalu citizens have entered the ballot for a world-first climate visa which would allow them to permanently migrate to Australia.

Opening for the first intake on 16 June, the influx of registrations could indicate that programme will be hugely oversubscribed, with only 280 visas awarded to Tuvalu citizens from the random ballot each year.

The visa programme has been pegged by the Australia’s foreign affairs department as a landmark response to the threat of climate-related displacement.

At just five metres (16ft) above sea level, the tiny Pacific archipelago is one of the most climate-threatened nations in the world.

There have been 1,124 applications submitted to the ballot as of 27 June, which accounts for 4,052 Tuvalu citizens with the inclusion of family members.

The island nation is home to 10,643 people, according to census figures collected in 2022.

If successful, holders of the Pacific Engagement visa will be granted indefinite permanent residency in Australia, with the ability to freely travel in and out of the country.

The visa will also provide for Australian supports on arrival in the country, such as access to the country’s Medicare system, childcare subsidies and the ability to study at schools, university and vocational facilities at the same subsidisation as Australian citizens.

Entry to the 2025 ballot costs A$25 (£11.93, $16.37), and will close 18 July.

The new class of visa was created as part of the Australia-Tuvalu Falepili Union, announced in August 2024, which includes a commitment by Canberra to defend the island in the face of natural disasters, public health emergencies and “military aggression”.

“For the first time there is a country that has committed legally to recognise the future statehood and sovereignty of Tuvalu despite the detrimental impact of climate changed-induced sea level rise,” said Prime Minister Feleti Teo in a statement last year.

Scientists at Nasa have predicted that the majority of land mass and critical infrastructure in Tuvalu will sit below the level of the current high tide by 2050.

Sign up for our Future Earth newsletter to keep up with the latest climate and environment stories with the BBC’s Justin Rowlatt. Outside the UK? Sign up to our international newsletter here.

Actor Brad Pitt’s home in Los Angeles has been ransacked by a trio of thieves.

Three suspects broke into the home in Los Feliz late on Wednesday through a front window and “ransacked the location,” according to the Los Angeles Police Department.

Police did not confirm the home belonged to the Oscar-winning actor, but the address matched that of a home Mr Pitt purchased in 2023.

Authorities said the suspects fled with stolen items, though it’s unclear what was taken. The actor was not home at the time of the burglary, US media reported.

Mr Pitt was in the UK earlier this week for the London premier of his new film F1, which is released on Friday. He was accompanied by fellow Hollywood star Tom Cruise and Lewis Hamilton, who has seven Formula One World Drivers’ Championship titles.

Authorities said the burglary happened around 22:30 local time on Wednesday.

LA police would not confirm the value of items stolen. The BBC also contacted representatives for the actor.

The large three-bedroom home sits just outside Griffith Park – which is home to the famous Hollywood Sign. It is surrounded by a large fence and greenery that shields the home from public view.

The burglary follows others reported in the city targeting other celebrities, including Nicole Kidman and Keith Urban.

Last month, a man was also arrested on stalking and vandalism charges after he allegedly rammed his vehicle into the gate of the home of Pitt’s ex-wife, Jennifer Aniston.

Get our flagship newsletter with all the headlines you need to start the day. Sign up here.

The Supreme Court on Friday handed a significant victory to Donald Trump – and future American presidents – when curbing lower courts’ power to block executive orders.

President Trump was beaming as he addressed reporters at the White House briefing room podium, calling it a “big, amazing decision” which the administration is “very happy about”.

He said it was a “monumental victory for the constitution, the separation of powers and the rule of law”.

The court’s decision not only impacts Trump’s birthright citizenship order, but also emboldens him to enact many of his other policy actions that have been temporarily thwarted by similar injunctions.

The Supreme Court has opened the door for the Trump administration to no longer grant automatic citizenship to everyone born on American soil – at least for the moment. Now the White House will have to implement its plan, which will be no easy task.

On Friday, the nation’s highest court allowed Donald Trump’s executive order to end birthright citizenship to go into effect in a month’s time, while leaving room for lower courts to curb the impact on those who have standing to sue.

States traditionally handle processing birth certificates, and many do not record the citizenship of the parents. Democratic-run state governments will be in no rush to do so, no matter what the Trump administration may desire.

And Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the majority, left the door open for states to make the case that a more broad block on Trump’s birthright citizenship action is necessary.

That sets up big legal battles to come.

“As the States see it, their harms — financial injuries and the administrative burdens flowing from citizen-dependent benefits programs — cannot be remedied without a blanket ban on the enforcement of the Executive Order,” Barrett wrote.

“The lower courts should determine whether a narrower injunction is appropriate, so we leave it to them to consider these and any related arguments.”

President Trump described the court’s decision on Friday as a “giant win”.

He added that the “birthright citizenship hoax” has been “indirectly, hit hard” and that the decision would prevent “scamming of our immigration process”.

Trump’s Attorney General Pam Bondi said on Friday that the Supreme Court will decide whether the US will end birthright citizenship in October during its next session.

The court’s decision to limit the power of lower court federal judges to issue nationwide injunctions will have immediate, wide-ranging consequences.

Both Democratic and Republican presidents have often criticised what they say are ideological jurists in federal district courts who have been able to singlehandedly block executive actions and even legislation passed by Congress.

While doing away automatic citizenship for the children of undocumented migrants born on US soil is at the centre of this high profile case, there are a number of other actions taken by Trump in recent months that have also been held up by lower-level judges.

From Trump’s inauguration to April 29, the Congressional Research Service counts 25 such instances.

Following the court’s decision on Friday, Trump told journalists, “We can now properly file to proceed with policies that have been wrongly enjoined.”

Lower courts have blocked the president’s cuts to foreign assistance, diversity programmes and other government agencies, limited his ability to terminate government employees, put other immigration reforms on hold and suspended White House issued changes to election processes.

With the Supreme Court’s decision in this case, the administration is in a much stronger position to ask courts to allow it to push forward on many of these efforts.

During the Biden presidency, conservative judges prevented Democrats from enacting new environmental regulations, offering student loan forgiveness, modifying immigration rules. Courts blocked changes to normalised immigration status for some undocumented migrants during Barack Obama’s presidency, as well, and prevented him from making more white collar employees eligible for overtime pay.

In all these types of cases, courts will ultimately be able to step in and halt presidential actions that they deem illegal or unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court in its opinion said, ” The lower courts shall move expeditiously to ensure that, with respect to each plaintiff, the injunctions comport with this rule and otherwise comply with principles of equity.”

But that will come further along in the judicial process, at the appellate and Supreme Court level. In the meantime, presidents – Donald Trump and his successors, whether they are Republicans or Democrats – will have more time and space to act.

US President Donald Trump has said he is cutting off trade talks with Canada “immediately” as the country looks to start enforcing a tax policy targeting big tech companies.

The latest move, which he announced on social media, comes as the neighbouring nations had been working to agree a trade deal by mid-July.

Both countries have imposed tariffs on each other’s goods after Trump sparked a trade war earlier this year and threatened to annex Canada using “economic force”.

On Friday, the US president said he was ending talks due to what he called an “egregious tax” on tech companies and added he would announce new tariffs on goods crossing the border within the next week.

“We are hereby terminating ALL discussions on Trade with Canada, effective immediately,” he wrote on social media.

“We will let Canada know the Tariff that they will be paying to do business with the United States of America within the next seven day period.”

In brief comments to reporters, Prime Minister Mark Carney suggested that talks would continue.

“We will continue to conduct these complex negotiations in the best interest of Canadians,” he said.

Canada’s 3% digital services tax has been a sticking point in its relationship with the US since the law was enacted last year. The first payments are due on Monday.

Business groups estimate it will cost American companies more than $2bn a year.

Canadian officials had said they expected to address the issue as part of trade talks with the US.

There were hopes that the relatively warm relationship that newly-elected Carney has forged with Trump might help those negotiations.

The president’s latest move casts doubt on a future deal, though Trump has often used social media threats to try to gain leverage in talks or speed up negotiations he sees as stalling.

Last month, for example, he threatened to ramp up tariffs on goods arriving to US shores from the European Union, only to climb down a few days later.

Candace Laing, chief executive of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce which has been critical of the digital services tax, said that “last-minute surprises should be expected” as the deadline for a deal approaches.

“The tone and tenor of talks has improved in recent months, and we hope to see progress continue,” she added.

The US is Canada’s top trade partner, buying more than $400bn in goods last year under a longstanding free trade agreement.

But Trump hit that trade with a new 25% tariff earlier this year, citing concerns about drug trafficking at the border.

New US tariffs on cars, steel and aluminium have also scrambled relations. Car parts, for example, cross US, Mexican and Canadian borders multiple times before a vehicle is completely assembled and such import taxes threaten supply chains.

Trump later carved out exemptions for some goods in the face of widespread alarm from businesses in both the US and Canada, which has hit back with tariffs of its own on some US products.

Shares in the US fell on Friday after Trump said he was cutting off talks, but later bounced back with the S&P 500 closing at a record high.

The son of Norway’s crown princess is suspected of three rapes and 23 other offences, police said on Friday.

Marius Borg Høiby, who is the stepson of Norway’s future king, was arrested three separate times last year, in August, September and November.

After a 10-month investigation, Norwegian police have now handed the case over to prosecutors who will decide whether to press charges, police attorney Andreas Kruszewski said.

Høiby’s lawyer Petar Sekulic said his client was “taking the accusations very seriously, but doesn’t acknowledge any wrongdoing in most of the cases – especially the cases regarding sexual abuse and violence”.

The 28-year-old, who does not have a royal title or official duties, had been under investigation since his arrest on 4 August 2024 on suspicion of assault.

In a statement, Oslo Police District said they carried out a “thorough investigation”, with a “large number of witness interviews, several searches and a review of extensive digital material”.

Høiby was questioned several times during the autumn of 2024 and spring of 2025 and “cooperated with the police”, the statement said.

Amongst the offences police said Høiby was suspected of were four counts of sexually offensive behaviour, one count of abuse in a close relationship and two counts of bodily harm.

Police confirmed that some cases involving sexual offences had been dismissed due to “statute of limitations and evidentiary reasons”.

“I cannot go into further detail about the number of victims in the case beyond confirming that it is a double-digit number,” Mr Kruszewski said.

The Royal House of Norway noted in a statement that the case was proceeding through the legal system and had nothing further to add.

MI6 has cast distance between its new chief and her grandfather, who was this week revealed to have been a Nazi spy known as “the butcher”.

Blaise Metreweli was announced as the incoming head of the Secret Intelligence Service earlier this month. She will be its first female “C” in its 116-year history.

With little known about her wider backstory, documents show that her grandfather was Constantine Dobrowolski, who defected from Soviet Russia’s Red Army to become the Nazis’ chief informant in Chernihiv, Ukraine.

However, the Foreign Office, which speaks on behalf of MI6, said Ms Metreweli “neither knew nor met her paternal grandfather”.

A spokesperson added: “Blaise’s ancestry is characterised by conflict and division and, as is the case for many with eastern European heritage, only partially understood.

“It is precisely this complex heritage which has contributed to her commitment to prevent conflict and protect the British public from modern threats from today’s hostile states, as the next chief of MI6.”

The Daily Mail, which first revealed the family link, reports that it found hundreds of pages of documents in an archive in Freiburg, Germany, which showed Mr Dobrowolski was known as “The Butcher” or “Agent No 30” by Wehrmacht commanders.

He reportedly signed off letters to his Nazi superiors with “Heil Hitler” and said he “personally” took part in “the extermination of the Jews”.

The archive documents are said to suggest Mr Dobrowolski looted the bodies of Holocaust victims, was involved in the murdering of local Jews, and laughed while watching the sexual assault of female prisoners.

BBC News has seen evidence to suggest that Mr Dobrowolski was on a most wanted list drawn up by the KGB, the Soviet Union’s spy agency, in 1969, which appears to detail his earlier work and suggests he may have still been alive by the 1960s.

The document, labelled “top secret” and sourced from a researcher, is a 460-page alphabetical list of “foreign intelligence agents, traitors to the motherland, members of anti-Soviet organisations, punishers and other criminals subject to wanting”.

An entry that appears to be for Mr Dobrowolski says he “participated in the executions of Soviet citizens”.

“At the same time, he was a resident of German intelligence,” the document seen by the BBC says. “In September 1943, he escaped with the Germans”.

After the war, Mr Dobrowolski’s wife, Barbara, and two-month-old son Constantine Jr fled to Britain – and she married David Metreweli in 1947. Constantine Jr later took his stepfather’s name of Metreweli, but the BBC has seen existence of a naturalisation certificate, dated July 1966, still held in the National Archives today, where his surname was still Dobrowolski, with Metreweli listed as an “alias”.

Constantine Jr would go on to be a radiologist and UK armed forces veteran, and his daughter, Ms Metreweli, was born in 1977 before joining MI6 22 years later.

She has not responded to the recent reports herself.

Having risen through the ranks, she is currently responsible for technology and innovation at MI6, which gathers intelligence overseas. She will be the agency’s 18th head when she takes over later this year from Sir Richard Moore, a senior civil servant.

Upon her appointment, she said in a statement that she was “proud and honoured” to have been asked to lead.

Ms Metreweli is a Cambridge graduate, a rower and has previously had operational roles in the Middle East and Europe.

In the heart of the Iranian capital, the Boof cafe serves up refreshing cold drinks on a hot summer’s day.

They must be the most distinctive iced Americano coffees in this city – the cafe sits in a leafy corner of the long-shuttered US embassy.

Its high cement walls have been plastered with anti-American murals ever since Washington severed relations with Tehran in the wake of the 1979 Iranian revolution and the hostage crisis – which still cast a long shadow over this tortuous relationship.

Inside the charming Boof cafe, Amir the barista says he’d like relations to improve between America and Iran.

“US sanctions hurt our businesses and make it hard for us to travel around the world,” he reflects as he pours another iced coffee behind a jaunty wooden sign – “Keep calm and drink coffee.”

Only two tables are occupied – one by a woman covered up in a long black veil, another by a woman in blue jeans with long flowing hair, flouting the rules on what women should wear as she cuddles with her boyfriend.

It’s a small snapshot of this capital as it confronts its deeply uncertain future.

A short drive away, at the complex of Iran’s state TV station IRIB, a recorded speech by the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was broadcast to the nation on Thursday.

“The Americans have been opposing the Islamic Republic of Iran from the very beginning” he declared.

• Iran carries out wave of arrests and executions in wake of Israel conflict
• ‘We are exhausted’ – how Iranians are feeling after fragile ceasefire

“At its core, it has always been about one thing: they want us to surrender,” went on the 86-year Ayatollah, said to have taken shelter in a bunker aer Israel unleashed its unprecedented wave of strikes targeting Iran’s nuclear and missile sites and assassinating senior commanders and scientists.

We watched his speech, his first since President Donald Trump suddenly announced a ceasefire on Tuesday, on a small TV in the only office still intact in a vast section of the IRIB compound. All that’s le is a charred skeleton of steel.

When an Israeli bomb slammed into this complex on 16 June, a raging fire swept through the main studio which would have aired the supreme leader’s address. Now it’s just ash.

You can still taste its acrid smell; all the TV equipment – cameras, lights, tripods – are tangles of twisted metal. A crunching glass carpet covers the ground.

Israel said it targeted the propaganda arm of the Islamic Republic, accusing it of concealing a military operation within – a charge its journalists rejected.

Its gaping shell seems to symbolise this darkest of times for Iran.

You can also see it in the city’s hospitals, which are still treating Iranians injured in Israel’s 12-day war.

“I am scared they might attack again, ” Ashraf Barghi tells me when we meet in the emergency department of the Taleghani General hospital where she works as head nurse.

“We don’t trust this war has ended” she says, in a remark reflecting the palpable worry we’ve heard from so many people in this city.

When Israel bombed the threshold of the nearby Evin prison on 23 June, the casualties, both soldiers and civilians, were rushed into Nurse Barghi’s emergency ward.

• What we know about the Iran-Israel ceasefire

“The injuries were the worst I’ve treated in my 32 years as nurse,” she recounts, still visibly distressed.

The strike on the notorious prison where Iran detains most of its political prisoners was described by Israel as “symbolic”.

It seemed to reinforce Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s repeated message to Iranians to “stand up for their freedom”.

“Israel says it only hit military and nuclear prison but it’s all lies,” insists Morteza from his hospital bed. He had been at work in the prison’s transport department when the missile slammed into the building. He shows us his injuries in both arms and his backside.

In the ward next door, soldiers are being cared for, but we’re not allowed to enter there.

Across this sprawling metropolis, Iranians are counting the cost of this confrontation. In its latest tally, the government’s health ministry recorded 627 people killed and nearly 5,000 injured.

Tehran is slowly returning to life and resuming its old rhythms, at least on the surface. Its infamous traffic is starting to fill its soaring highways and pretty tree-lined side streets.

Shops in its beautiful bazaars are opening again as people return to a city they fled to escape the bombs. Israel’s intense 12-day military operation, coupled with the US’s attacks on Iran’s main nuclear sites, has le so many shaken.

“They weren’t good days, ” says Mina, a young woman who immediately breaks down as she tries to explain her sadness. “It’s so heart-breaking, ” she tells me through her tears. “We tried so hard to have a better life but we can’t see any future these days.”

We met on the grounds of the soaring white marble Azadi tower, one of Tehran’s most iconic landmarks. A large crowd milling on a warm summer’s evening swayed to the strains of much-loved patriotic songs in an open air concert of the Tehran Symphony Orchestra. It was meant to bring some calm to a city still on edge.

Supporters and critics of Iran’s clerical rulers mingled, drawn together by shared worry about their country’s future.

“They have to hear what people say,” insists Ali Reza when I ask him what advice he would give to his government. “We want greater freedoms, that’s all I will say.”

There’s defiance too. “Attacking our nuclear bases to show off that ‘you have to do as we say’ goes against diplomacy,” says Hamed, an 18-year-old university student.

Despite rules and restrictions which have long governed their lives, Iranians do speak their minds as they wait for the next steps by their rulers, and leaders in Washington and beyond, which carry such consequences for their lives.

Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo have signed a peace deal in Washington aimed at ending decades of devastating conflict between the two neighbours, and potentially granting the US lucrative mineral access.

The deal demands the “disengagement, disarmament and conditional integration” of armed groups fighting in eastern DR Congo.

Further details are scant and previous peace deals in the region have failed – yet that has not deterred the US and Congolese presidents from framing this as a generational victory.

“Today, the violence and destruction comes to an end, and the entire region begins a new chapter of hope and opportunity,” US President Donald Trump said on Friday.

Flanked by Vice-President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and delegates from DR Congo and Rwanda in the Oval Office, Trump called the peace treaty “a glorious triumph”.

“This is a tremendous breakthrough,” Trump said, shortly before adding his signature to the peace treaty signed earlier by the respective African delegates.

The deal was signed by the Congolese and Rwandan foreign ministers at the US State Department.

“Another diplomatic success for President Félix Tshisekedi – certainly the most important in over 30 years,” said the Congolese president’s office ahead of Friday’s signing.

There has been talk of Tshisekedi and Rwanda’s President Paul Kagame going to Washington to meet Trump together, though no date has been fixed.

• What’s the fighting in DR Congo all about?
• The evidence that shows Rwanda is backing rebels in DR Congo
• Your phone, a rare metal and the war in DR Congo

Decades of conflict escalated earlier this year when M23 rebels seized control of large parts of eastern DR Congo including the regional capital, Goma, the city of Bukavu and two airports.

Thousands of people have been killed and hundreds of thousands of civilians forced from their homes following the recent rebel offensive.

After the loss of territory, the government in Kinshasa turned to the US for help, reportedly offering access to critical minerals in exchange for security guarantees. Eastern DR Congo is rich in coltan and other resources vital to the global electronics industries.

Rwanda denies supporting the M23 despite overwhelming evidence, and insists its military presence in the region is a defensive measure against threats posed by armed groups like the FDLR – a rebel militia composed largely of ethnic Hutus linked to the 1994 Rwandan genocide.

Rwanda in turn accuses the Congolese government of backing the FDLR, which is denied by DR Congo. Their presence is of utmost concern to Kigali.

When some information about the deal was released last week, a statement spoke of “provisions on respect for territorial integrity and a prohibition of hostilities”, but there were no specifics.

It also talked about the “facilitation of the return of refugees and internally displaced persons”.

According to a Reuters news agency report, Congolese negotiators had pushed for an immediate withdrawal of Rwandan soldiers, but Rwanda – which has at least 7,000 troops on Congolese soil – refused.

In an angry statement a day before the deal was signed, Rwanda’s Foreign Minister Olivier Nduhungirehe condemned “the leak of a draft peace agreement” saying Rwanda had “demanded the other parties to respect the confidentiality of the discussions”.

The calls for the total withdrawal of Rwandan troops from DR Congo is major point of contention.

But Nduhungirehe said “the words ‘Rwanda Defense Force’, ‘Rwandan troops’ or ‘withdrawal’ are nowhere to be seen in the document”.

Just hours before the signing ceremony, Tshisekedi’s office said the agreement “does indeed provide for the withdrawal of Rwandan troops… [but] preferred the term disengagement to withdrawal simply because ‘disengagement’ is more comprehensive”.

Unless and until full details of the signed deal are made public, several crucial questions remain unanswered:

• Will the M23 rebel group withdraw from areas they have occupied?

• Does “respect for territorial integrity” mean Rwanda admits having troops in eastern DR Congo and will withdraw them?

• Would the agreed “return of refugees” allow thousands of Congolese back from Rwanda?

• Does “disarmament” mean that the M23 will now lay down their weapons?

• Who will disarm the FDLR, after the failure of several previous attempts?

• Would the agreed humanitarian access allow the reopening of the rebel-held airports for aid supply?

Prior to Friday’s signing, Rwandan government spokeswoman Yolande Makolo told Reuters news agency that the “lifting of defensive measures in our border area” would be contingent upon the FDLR’s “neutralisation”.

One of the main actors in today’s conflict – the M23 rebels – were spawned by a previous peace deal 16 years ago that failed to ensure demobilisation.

Last year, Rwandan and Congolese experts reached an agreement twice under Angolan mediation on the withdrawal of Rwandan troops and joint operations against the FDLR – but ministers from both countries failed to endorse the deal. Angola eventually stepped down as a mediator in March.

• Congolese rebels want peaceful solution to crisis, UN says
• Ex-DR Congo president returns from self-imposed exile, party says
• DR Congo conflict tests China’s diplomatic balancing act
• How DR Congo’s Tutsis become foreigners in their own country
• ‘They took all the women here’: Rape survivors recall horror of DR Congo jailbreak

Heat health alerts have come into force across most of England as the country braces for a second summer heatwave.

An amber alert covers the East Midlands, south-east, south-west, east and London – meaning various health services and the whole population could be affected by the heat, according to the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA).

In Yorkshire and the Humber, as well as the West Midlands, less serious yellow alerts apply, meaning that the elderly and vulnerable could be affected.

Temperatures are forecast to rise into the 30s over the weekend, coniciding with Glastonbury Festival, before reaching a new high for the year on Monday, when the Wimbledon tennis championship begins.

Monday could be the hottest day of the year so far with a temperature of 34C, possibly 35C in London towards the Cambridgeshire area, according to BBC Weather. The Met Office says London could reach 34-35C.

That would make Monday the hottest ever start to Wimbledon, exceeding the previous opening-day record of 29.3C in 2001 – although players and spectators can expect more comfortable temperatures in the 20s by the middle of next week.

The hottest day during Wimbledon as a whole was on 1 July 2015 when 35.7C was recorded.

Temperatures will remain in the mid to high 20s for the 200,000 festival-goers descending on Glastonbury in Somerset this weekend, with a potential peak of 28C on Sunday.

Mark Savage, the BBC’s music correspondent at the festival, said shorts, sun hats, bikini tops and bottled water were the order of the day on Friday.

He observed no heat-related health issues – other than the occasional red nose and a few very sleepy children.

Although there was little shade at the Pyramid Stage and temperatures were set to soar higher over the weekend, there was plenty of free water and sun cream around the site.

Conditions are expected to remain dry with sunny spells – free of the mud baths of years past – but warm nights could make things for uncomfortable for campers.

Elsewhere in Britain, dry and sunny spells are forecast, with temperatures in the low to mid 20s this weekend. By Monday, Cardiff could match the 30C highs expected across large parts of England.

The sunny spell shows no sign of fading, with few places in Britain expected to see much, if any, rain by the middle of next week.

Large parts of England will officially enter a heatwave – classed as three consecutive days of a temperature above a threshold, which varies by region – around the same time. These heatwaves are expected to last four to six days, finishing on Wednesday.

Other European countries are seeing their own heatwaves too, with temperatures widely in the high 30s to low 40s. A scorching 44C is expected in Cordoba, southern Spain, on Sunday.

Several factors are contributing to this temperature increase, including hot air from a heatwave on the eastern side of the US and hot, humid air from the Azores, plus strong sunshine and building high pressure over England.

Parts of Suffolk are already in an official heatwave, with temperatures exceeding 27C at Santon Downham for three consecutive days. Many more locations will join them over the weekend.

Parts of England could see a “tropical night” on Sunday and Monday – a term used to describe a night when temperatures do not fall below 20C.

Monday’s heat will not be far away from the June record which stands at 35.6C, recorded in Southampton during summer 1976.

Large parts of England saw another heatwave last weekend, before temperatures cooled earlier this week.

Passengers were forced to evacuate trains in south London during the 30C heat after a fault on one train brought services to a standstill. There were also warnings of a surge in excess deaths and 999 calls.

While it is hard to link individual extreme weather events to climate change, heatwaves are becoming more common and more intense due to climate change.

Scientists at World Weather Attribution analyse the influence of climate change on extreme weather events.

They say June heatwaves with three consecutive days above 28C are about 10 times more likely to occur now compared to the pre-industrial climate, before humans started burning fossil fuels.

The heat health alert system has been used since 2023 by the UKHSA and the Met Office to prepare health and social care professionals for the impacts of hot weather.

There are four levels of warning – green, yellow, amber and red. Among examples given by UKHSA are difficulties managing medicines, the ability of the workforce to deliver services and internal temperatures in care settings exceeding the recommended thresholds.

North Korea is opening a beach resort that its leader Kim Jong Un hopes will boost tourism in the secretive communist regime, state media reports.

Wonsan Kalma on the east coast will open to domestic tourists on 1 July, six years after it was due to be completed. It is unclear when it will welcome foreigners.

Kim grew up in luxury in Wonsan, where many of the country’s elite have private villas, and has been trying to transform the town, which once hosted a missile testing site.

State media KCNA claims the resort can accomodate up to 20,000 visitors, occupying a 4km (2.5 mile) stretch of beach, with hotels, restaurants, shopping malls and a water park – none of which can be verified.

Heavily sanctioned for decades for its nuclear weapons programme, North Korea is among the poorest countries in the world. It pours most of its resources into its military, monuments and landmarks – often in Pyongyang – that embellish the image and cult of the Kim family that has run the country since 1948.

Some observers say this is an easy way for Pyongyang to earn money. While foreign tourists are allowed in, tour groups largely tend to come from China and Russia, countries with whom Pyongyang has long maintained friendly relations.

“I was hoping this might signal a broader reopening to international tourism, but unfortunately, that doesn’t seem to be the case for now,” Rowan Beard, co-founder of Young Pioneer Tours, tells the BBC.

Tourism from overseas took a hit during the Covid pandemic, though, with the country closing its borders in early 2020. It did not scale back restrictions until the middle of 2023 and welcomed Russian visitors a year later.

It opened to more Western visitors in February, when tourists from the UK, France, Germany and Australia drove across the border from China. It abruptly halted tourism weeks later without saying why.

Some tour agencies are sceptical of Wonsan’s appeal to foreigners. It is “unlikely to be a major draw for most Western tourists”, Mr Beard says.

“Key sites like Pyongyang, the DMZ, and other brutalist or communist landmarks will continue to be the main highlights for international visitors once broader tourism resumes.”

However, Elliott Davies, director of Uri Tours, says North Korea holds a “niche appeal” for travellers drawn to unconventional destinations.

“It’s intriguing to experience something as familiar as a beach resort that’s been shaped within the unique cultural context of North Korea.”

KCNA described the Wonsan development as a “great, auspicious event of the whole country” and called it a “prelude to the new era” in tourism.

It was initially scheduled to open in October 2019, but ran into construction delays before the pandemic struck.

Kim attended a ceremony to celebrate its completion on 24 June, accompanied by his daughter, Kim Ju Ae, and wife Ri Sol Ju. It marked Ri’s first public appearance since a New Year’s Day event in 2024.

Russian ambassador Alexander Matsegora and embassy staff also attended.

Some tour operators expect the resort to be opened to Russian tourists, who are currently the only foreign nationals allowed into some parts of the country.

The resort’s opening comes as North Korea and Russia strengthened their partnership in the face of sanctions from the West.

North Korea has sent troops to fight for Russia in its invasion of Ukraine.

On Thursday, the two countries also reopened a direct passenger train route between their capitals after a five-year suspension because of the pandemic.

Lewis Capaldi has made a surprise – albeit heavily rumoured – return at the Glastonbury festival, two years after taking a break to focus on his mental health.

The star’s arrival was confirmed when his name flashed up on the video screens at the back of the Pyramid Stage, to a huge roar of support from thousands of fans who’d been tipped off about his performance.

Capaldi strolled onto the stage, taking in the view and raising a peace sign to the sky. Then he hoisted a guitar over his shoulders to play the opening chords to Before You Go.

“Glastonbury it’s so good to be back,” he said after his second song, Grace. “I’m not going to say much up here today because if I did I might start crying.”

He ended his short set by playing Someone You Loved, which had brought his 2023 set to an abrupt close.

“I couldn’t sing this song two years ago. I might struggle to finish it today for different reasons,” he said, tearing up again.

“My name is Lewis Capaldi and I’m [expletive] back, baby.”

The star’s entire set was a back and forth with the audience, as Capaldi alternated lines with fans who’d shown up to give him their love.

It was one of the most moving and heart-warming spectacles I’ve ever witnessed at Glastonbury, or anywhere else, for that matter.

Capaldi, who has Tourette’s, last performed at the festival in 2023 under difficult and emotional circumstances.

In front of thousands, he lost his voice and experienced pronounced tics. The audience ultimately stepped in to help him finish his final song, Someone You Loved, in a gesture of affection, solidarity and support.

“Glastonbury, I’m really sorry,” the singer said as that set drew to a close. “I’m a bit annoyed with myself.”

A few days later, he announced he was retreating from the spotlight to get his “physical and mental health in order” and “adjust to the impact” of his Tourette’s diagnosis. He has only made limited public appearances since.

Addressing those experiences on Friday, he said: “It’s just a short set today but I just wanted to come and finish what I couldn’t finish first time around.

“Second time’s a charm on this one, everybody.”

The audience showed its support by chanting his name to the tune of The White Stripes’ Seven Nation Army.

Speculation about his Glastonbury performance intensified on Friday morning, after he released a rousing comeback single that addressed his struggles.

Titled Survive, it opens with the line: “How long ’til it feels / Like the wound’s finally starting to heal?”

The lyrics continue: “Most nights I fear / That I’m not enough / I’ve had my share of Monday mornings when I can’t get up.”

In the song, the 28-year-old also defiantly sings that he refuses “to spend my best years rotting in the sun” and is determined “to get up and live / Until the day that I die”.

Introducing his new song at Glastonbury, Capaldi welled up as he admitted: “The last two years haven’t been the best for me.

“It’s been difficult at times. I wanted to write a song that was about overcoming that stuff.”.

“This has been my goal,” he added, “to get back here, doing this.”

“You could see, when he was walking off, how proud he was that he’d managed it,” said Kate, a fan from Oxford. “To be part of that was really special.”

“It was really moving,” agreed Georgia, from London.

“I had goosebumps in places I didn’t know I could get goosebumps.”

Welsh teenagers Marley and Maya were in tears after Capaldi left the stage, although they had different reasons from other festivalgoers.

My dog died two days ago and he [Capaldi] saved us when we were in our darkest time,” said Marley.

“He’s so inspiring,” added Maya.

“He’s someone to look up to because he’s just so strong.”

Survive is Capaldi’s first new material since his second album was released in 2023.

Both of his albums went to number one in the UK, and his 2018 single Someone You Loved topped charts around the world – becoming the fourth most streamed song of all time, with almost four billion listens on Spotify.

But he also spoke openly about the pressures of touring on his mental and physical health, and about the impact of panic attacks and Tourette’s, which he was diagnosed with in 2022.

He made a tentative return to the stage in May, playing a last-minute set at Edinburgh’s Assembly Halls, in aid of the charity Campaign Against Living Miserably (Calm).

Fans were asked not to film the show, with their phones placed in sealed pouches as Capaldi sang six songs including the hits Hold Me While You Wait and Someone You Loved.

Friday’s Glastonbury set marks his first full-scale show in two years.

The singer teased his return in the days leading up to the festival by erecting a series of billboards near the Glastonbury site and in his home city of Glasgow.

The first sign appeared near Castle Cary train station, about 14 miles from the festival. It was emblazoned with the words: “I’ve had my fair share of Monday mornings where I can’t get up”.

Separately, an electronic billboard in Scotland displayed a message in the same font which said: “I refuse to spend my best years rotting in the sun”.

Both messages had a phone number to text for more information. Those who sent a message got the reply: “Hey, it’s TBA, thanks for signing up”, apparently confirming the signs were sponsored by an act listed as “TBA” on the festival line-up.

Speculation that Capaldi was responsible peaked after he liked a number of Instagram posts relating to the billboards.

Then, on Friday morning, posters for a Lewis Capaldi lookalike contest appeared around the Glastonbury site.

The singer was not the first surprise performer of Friday’s festivities, however.

That honour went to pop star Lorde, who popped up to open the Woodsies stage, playing her new album Virgin in its entirety.

The top court in the US has ruled judges in lower courts have limited ability to block presidential orders, giving President Donald Trump what he called a “giant win”.

The case surrounded whether Trump’s attempt to use an executive order to end birthright citizenship for non-citizens and undocumented migrants was allowed.

In a 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court’s conservative justices sided with Trump and said they were not addressing Trump’s attempt to end birthright citizenship. Rather their ruling addressed presidential actions broadly.

Experts said the ruling will change how executive actions are challenged in the future and noted legal challenges to the Friday ruling are likely to come.

Immigrant rights groups and 22 states sued the Trump administration over an executive order the president signed on his first day back in office. That order was aimed at ending birthright citizenship which gives people born on US territory automatic citizenship rights.

• What to know about the Supreme Court’s birthright citizenship case

The lawsuits, filed in Maryland, Massachusetts, Washington state and elsewhere, were aimed at blocking the order from taking effect and temporarily did just that.

But the Justice Department disagreed and appealed the case to the Supreme Court, arguing those injunctions were not constitutional.

On Friday, the court agreed with the Trump’s administration and introduced limits on how universal injunctions are issued by federal courts.

Trump hailed the ruling as a victory at a surprise press conference on Friday and said the decision was a “monumental victory for the constitution, the separation of powers and the rule of law”.

He said “radical left judges” have tried to overrule his powers as president and that nationwide injunctions are a “grave threat to democracy”.

Upon returning to the White House in January, Trump immediately began using executive actions as a means to accomplish his agenda.

Attorney General Pam Bondi, who also spoke at the press conference, said the decision meant judges will not be able to stop Trump’s policies.

She said she expects the Supreme Court to take up the question of birthright citizenship itself, in October when the next session of court begins.

While the Friday ruling said courts will still be able to halt presidential actions they deem unconstitutional or illegal, it will happen further along in the judicial process which will give presidents more space to act.

Because of the ruling to limit injunctions, Trump’s birthright citizenship order will be able to take effect, 30 days after the court’s opinion was filed, the court said.

However, the ruling is likely to see further legal challenges.

Samuel Bray, a Notre Dame Law School professor and expert on nationwide injunctions, said the ruling “has fundamentally reset the relationship between the federal courts and the executive branch”.

The Supreme Court’s ruling will mean universal injunctions “will no longer be the default remedy in challenges to executive action”.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who authored the majority opinion, said federal courts do not “exercise general oversight of the Executive Branch” and instead they “resolve cases and controversies consistent with the authority Congress has given them”.

“When a court concludes that the Executive Branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too,” she wrote.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who wrote a concurring opinion, said that the Supreme Court, not the district courts or courts of appeals, “will often still be the ultimate decisionmaker as to the interim legal status of major new federal statutes and executive actions”.

Justice Sonya Sotomayor penned the dissent for the liberal justices and called the Trump administration’s request of the court “gamesmanship” and said the court “plays along”.

“The Court’s decision is nothing less than an open invitation for the Government to bypass the Constitution,” she wrote.

“The rule of law is not a given in this Nation, nor any other. It is a precept of our democracy that will endure only if those brave enough in every branch fight for its survival. Today, the Court abdicates its vital role in that effort. With the stroke of a pen, the President has made a ‘solemn mockery’ of our Constitution.”