Polls have closed in the Westminster by-election in Runcorn and Helsby on the same day as local elections in parts of England.

The by-election was triggered by the resignation of Mike Amesbury, who was convicted earlier this year of assaulting a constituent.

On 27 February, Amesbury was given a 10-week prison sentence and taken straight to HMP Altcourse in Liverpool.

After three nights behind bars, a judge agreed to suspend Amesbury’s jail term for two years.

Under concerted pressure to quit the House of Commons, Amesbury – who lost the Labour whip after he was arrested last autumn and has since been sitting as an independent MP – agreed to stand down.

Runcorn and Helsby includes the towns of Runcorn, Frodsham and Helsby, as well as various villages and a significant rural area.

In total, 22% of the constituency is classed as a built-up area, 60% rural and 14% as water or wetland.

It has a population of 93,520, with 21% of residents under 18, 57% aged 18-64 and 21% over 65.

Runcorn and Helsby is a new constituency that was only created in time for the general election in July 2024.

More than half of it (51.2%) came from the former constituency of Weaver Vale, with 37.1% from Halton and the remainder from three other former constituencies – Ellesmere Port and Neston, Eddisbury, and City of Chester.

At the 2024 general election, Amesbury won Runcorn and Helsby for Labour with 52.9% of the vote, a majority of 14,696.

Reform UK came second with 18% of the vote, ahead of the Conservatives on 16%, the Green Party with 6.4%, and the Liberal Democrats with 5.1%.

Two smaller parties received 1.4% between them.

Amesbury was the Labour MP for Weaver Vale from June 2017 until the seat was abolished before the general election.

He gained the seat from Conservative Graham Evans, who had been the constituency’s MP since 2010.

Meanwhile, from its creation in 1983, Halton was always held by Labour.

Derek Twigg – who is now the MP for Widnes and Halewood – held it from 1997.

This will be Sir Keir Starmer’s first by-election as prime minister.

A lot has happened in the nine months since Labour swept to power, with several tax rises announced in the Budget, and ongoing negotiations with President Trump about world trade and the war in Ukraine.

University of Liverpool Professor Jon Tonge recently told BBC Politics North West that, as one of the safest Labour seats in the country, it would be “quite some feat” if another party were to take Runcorn and Helsby.

If recent opinion polls are anything to go by, though, Reform UK may well be confident heading into the by-election, not least because they came second there in July.

The Conservatives will be hoping for signs of a recovery too. They came third in Runcorn and Helsby last time around, and they were not far behind Reform.

There is a lot at stake for everyone.

A total of 15 candidates are standing in the by-election.

Listed alphabetically, they are as follows:

• Catherine Anne Blaiklock (English Democrats)
• Dan Clarke (Liberal Party)
• Chris Copeman (Green Party)
• Paul Duffy (Liberal Democrats)
• Peter Ford (Workers Party)
• Howling Laud Hope (Monster Raving Loony Party)
• Sean Houlston (Conservatives)
• Jason Philip Hughes (Volt UK)
• Alan McKie (independent)
• Graham Harry Moore (English Constitution Party)
• Paul Andrew Murphy (Social Democratic Party)
• Sarah Pochin (Reform)
• Karen Shore (Labour)
• John Stevens (Rejoin EU)
• Michael Williams (independent)

The husband of a British-South African woman found dead at her house in France has said he cannot imagine “the terror and the fear she must have gone through”.

Karen Carter, 65, was found by her friend lying near her car with stab wounds in the village of Trémolat in the Dordogne on Tuesday evening, the state prosecutor said.

Mrs Carter’s husband, Alan, who is in South Africa, said she was “such a decent, lovely person”, and spoke of the family’s shock.

A 69-year-old local woman has been arrested as part of an investigation into the mother-of-four’s death.

A friend who discovered Mrs Carter’s body was questioned by police and later released without charge, the state prosecutor, Sylvie Martins-Guedes, said.

“At this stage, no hypothesis is being favored,” she added.

Mrs Carter had lived in Trémolat for more than a decade, where she ran two holiday rental homes.

“Particularly since Covid, my wife has spent more time there running the gîtes (holiday homes). It’s been very busy, it’s been very successful,” Mr Carter said.

“She was very good at her job and marketing it and getting bookings throughout the year.”

Mr Carter said his cousin, who lives in Trémolat, called him after seeing a post about Mrs Carter’s death on a local community Facebook page.

“She phoned me…to say she’s sorry to tell me and that she thinks Karen has died. That was the first I heard about it,” he said.

“No one had got in touch with me at all to let me know what had happened. I found out through my cousin who happened to see it on a Facebook page.”

He said he got confirmation of Mrs Carter’s death after his assistant phoned local police.

“She managed to get through to the right person. I don’t know how she managed that, but she did.

“He confirmed it, but he didn’t give any details of what happened,” he said, adding that he has relied on news reports for information.

Mr Carter said the village is in shock over her death, adding: “It’s terrible. Such a small village where nothing like this ever happens.”

He described Mrs Carter as an outgoing, friendly person who “wouldn’t hurt a fly”, and said her death has been “traumatic” for his family.

“I’m an introvert, and she’s the exact opposite. She’s an extrovert, she loves people, she loves to have fun. People love her, she has a good heart,” he said.

“She’s the one who would bring home the lost dog, or cat, or whatever. She’s that sort of person. Everyone liked her. That’s why I married her. She’s just lovely.”

In Western Sydney, an audience of Stetson-wearing Australians are sitting in their fold-up camping chairs, swigging beers and eating a spiralled fried potato on a skewer known as a ‘chip on a stick’.

People here are enjoying bull rides, barrel racing and bucking broncos. It feels like a slice of Americana in New South Wales perhaps – but that would miss the point that here, rodeo has become very much an outback Australian tradition in its own right.

In recent months, politics here in Australia could be compared to watching a rodeo. Between conflict in Europe, the Middle East and more recently US President Donald Trump and his threat of global trade wars, every day has brought with it a sharp jolt that changes the dynamics of the campaign trail. Politicians, like these cowboys, have been thrown off course despite their best efforts.

“Tariffs are great,” exclaims rodeo fan Guy Algozzino, who’s dressed in a cowboy hat, a waistcoat and a Western-style bolo tie with an engraved image of a cowboy riding a bull. “We should have had tariff protection many years ago – it looks bad now [but] America’s fantastic … Trump’s the best thing America ever had.”

Other spectators are more nuanced.

“It’s going nuts,” admits Jared Harris, when asked about world politics. “I’m just sitting back and watching. It’s a bit like a show. It’s quite interesting to watch, it’s entertaining. It probably affects me more than I realise, but I just choose to ignore it.”

Australia didn’t worry too much about President Trump’s second coming when he won power back in November. The country had already witnessed a Trump presidency – and weathered it. Australia felt far removed from the shores of America.

But Trump’s second term is panning out very differently. Tariffs – imposed on ally and adversary alike – have travelled the whole world.

Trump doesn’t care about making enemies. But Australia does. People here pride themselves on ‘mateship’ – a value that embodies friendship and loyalty – and that extends to politics too.

Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said as much when Trump initially announced tariffs without exemptions. This was not “the act of a friend,” said Albanese, while he also committed to not responding in kind.

All of this comes as the country heads to a federal election on 3 May. Candidates would rather focus on domestic issues they can control: cost-of-living, housing and healthcare. Instead, they are forced to grapple with a question that goes right to the heart of Australia’s role in the world: how to deal with a US president as unpredictable as Trump?

In the final few days of campaigning before up to 18 million Australians go to the polls, the Labor Party’s Albanese, who entered power three years ago after promising to invest in social services and tackle climate change, went on a speedy tour of six states. That effort appears to be paying off, with the latest YouGov poll putting Labor on 54 per cent of the two-party vote, versus 47 per cent for the opposition Coalition (an alliance of the Liberals and Nationals). This is a modest turnaround from the beginning of the year, when Labor was consistently lagging the Coalition in polls.

“It’s not the campaign either party thought they would be having,” says Amy Remeikis, chief political analyst at the Australia Institute think tank. “The looming figure of Trump is overshadowing the domestic campaign but also forcing Australia’s leaders to do something they haven’t had to do in a long time – examine Australia’s links to the US.”

The US-Australia relationship has perhaps been taken for granted in these parts. Australia likes the fact the US has long been a dominant military force in the Pacific. Australia relies on its funding and benefits from being part of alliances like Aukus – the far-reaching defence pact between Australia, the UK and the US, designed to counter China – and the Anglo-intelligence alliance Five Eyes.

The rise of China has made Australia even more conscious about having the US on its side. Beijing has expanded its military presence in the Pacific, launching various military exercises in recent years – including one live-fire drill in February that saw Chinese naval vessels just 340 nautical miles from the New South Wales coast. Australia recently announced efforts to expand its navy and now hosts four US military bases – decisions fuelled in part by the rise of China.

It’s all placed extra value on Canberra’s alliance with Washington DC – one that Trump may be throwing into doubt.

Back in February, Trump held a meeting with the UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer. He was asked whether they would be discussing Aukus.

“What does that mean?” Trump asked the reporter. After being given an explanation of Aukus, he continued. “We’ll be discussing that … we’ve had a very good relationship with Australia.”

Australia collectively held its breath, then let it out in a big sigh of relief.

A blip maybe – but an indication perhaps of how little Trump thinks about Australia right now. However, Australia, like much of the world, is thinking about the US.

“We don’t have anywhere else to turn,” says David Andrews, senior policy advisor at the National Security College, which is part of the Australian National University in Canberra. “We are physically isolated from everyone. As long as we’ve had European settlement here, we’ve always been concerned about the distance [and] isolation, which is why we’ve always maintained such a strong relationship with first Britain and then the US as the dominant maritime power.”

While only 5% of Australia’s exports go to the US (China is by far Australia’s biggest trading partner), the US still dominates the conversation here.

“This isn’t a time to end alliances,” says Justin Bassi, director of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, a think tank. “That would be cutting off our nose to spite our face.”

And, perhaps counter to the majority view here, Bassi thinks that Australia should support Trump’s moves.

“We should continue to make it clear that any measures the US takes against Australia are unjustified but we should welcome and support American measures to counter Beijing’s malign actions – or for that matter Russia,” he says. “Not to keep Trump happy but because it is in Australia’s interests to constrain the adversary that is undermining our strategic interests.”

A poll published by the Sydney Morning Herald newspaper last month found that 60% of Australians felt Trump’s victory was bad for Australia. That was up from last November when it was just 40%.

And a Lowy Institute poll published two weeks later showed almost two in three Australians held ‘not very much’ or no trust ‘at all’ in the US to act responsibly.

Big questions on transnational alliances are not part of normal campaigning. But when Albanese and opposition leader Peter Dutton faced each other in their first televised debate, the first question asked by the audience was one on Trump.

Dutton has long stressed that he would be the politician best suited to dealing with the US President. He often cites his experience as a cabinet minister during tariff negotiations in Trump’s first term. But that strategy doesn’t always serve him well.

“He went into the election telling people he and Trump were similar enough that they would get on better, that he was the sort of personality Trump liked,” says Remeikis. “He’s not repeating that now because people don’t want someone to get on with Trump – they want someone who will stand up to him.”

Dutton has had to do some back-pedalling on comments he made earlier in the year. Back in February, after Trump said he had plans to eject Palestinians from Gaza, Dutton called the US president “a deal-maker … a big thinker.”

And he has come in for some criticism amid accusations of copying the US president. He’s talked about cutting public sector jobs, for example. And his Liberal party appointed Jacinta Nampijinpa Price as shadow minister for government efficiency, not too dissimilar to the Doge. But when Senator Price recently started talking about wanting to ‘Make Australia Great Again’ on the campaign trail, Dutton avoided questions over the comments.

Albanese of course has to tread a careful line too. In a world that’s being turned upside down, he’s trying to reassure people he’s a safe pair of hands; that those alliances remain.

That may turn out to be in his favour.

Indeed, some analysts say that Trump’s conduct may be helping Albanese, with voters rushing to support the incumbent during a time of perceived crisis. Just a few months ago, Labor’s re-election was thought unlikely as it consistently polled behind the Coalition. But the final YouGov polling model of the election, published a few days ago, predicted that Labor will win 84 of the 150 seats in the House of Representatives – an increased majority.

For Professor Gordon Flake, CEO at Perth USAsia Centre, a think tank, it paints a stark parallel with this week’s election result in Canada – in which the Liberal Party won re-election by riding a backlash of anti-Trump sentiment.

“What we have seen in Canada has been a dramatic shift back towards the incumbent government and that is a rallying around the flag based on attacks on that country,” he says.

“The attacks on Australia haven’t been as severe so it’s not the same degree, but at the same time you’re also seeing a rallying around the current Labor government. Six months ago you thought their re-election would be unlikely; today on the cusp of the election here in Australia, it seems more likely than not – and one of the important factors in that has been developments in Washington DC. “

But whoever wins, they will have a big job on their hands to navigate Australia’s future with its allies.

“We have to make do with the hand we’ve been dealt,” says Andrews. “I expect that we are going to have to be much more ruthlessly self-interested and that’s not comfortable because our foreign policy has generally been based around cooperation, collaboration and multilateralism – so that shared sense of threat that middle powers have of working together to maximise their output.”

Back at the rodeo, the sun’s gone down, the cheerleaders are out and the audience gets ready to watch bucking broncos – the riders shortly afterwards holding on to their steer for as long as possible before being violently thrown to the ground.

Flying above the arena are the flags of Canada and the US, alongside Australia, New Zealand and Brazil. There may not be much of a team spirit among allies right now – but voters here will be keen to see how their next leader rides out the storm.

BBC InDepth is the home on the website and app for the best analysis, with fresh perspectives that challenge assumptions and deep reporting on the biggest issues of the day. And we showcase thought-provoking content from across BBC Sounds and iPlayer too. You can send us your feedback on the InDepth section by clicking on the button below.

Apple says it is shifting production of most iPhones and other devices to be sold in the US away from China, which has been the focus of President Donald Trump’s tariffs.

The majority of the iPhones bound for the US market in the coming months will be made in India, while Vietnam will be a major production hub for items like iPads and Apple Watches, chief executive Tim Cook says.

It comes as the technology giant estimated that US import taxes could add about $900m (£677.5m) to its costs this quarter, despite Trump’s decision to spare key electronics from the new tariffs.

The Trump administration has repeatedly said it wants Apple to move production to America.

The estimate comes as firms around the world are scrambling to respond to the huge shifts in global trade triggered by Washington’s trade policies.

On a call with investors on Thursday to discuss the firm’s financial performance, the Apple boss seemed keen to draw attention to its investments in the US.

Mr Cook opened the discussion with a reminder of the company’s plans to invest $500bn across several US states over the next four years.

He also said Apple is shifting its supply chain for US-bound products away from China, but it is India and Vietnam that are poised to be major beneficiaries of that move.

“We do expect the majority of iPhones sold in US will have India as their country of origin,” Mr Cook said.

Meanwhile, Vietnam is expected to be the chief manufacturing hub “for almost all iPad, Mac, Apple Watch and AirPods product sold in the US.”

China will remain the country of origin for the vast majority of total products sold outside the US, he added.

Apple shares had plummeted after Trump announced his administration would levy “reciprocal tariffs” on products imported to the United States, with the aim of persuading companies to manufacture more in the US.

But the administration faced significant pressure to moderate its plans. Shortly after the tariffs went into effect, it announced that certain electronics, including phones and computers, would be exempted.

For now, trade turmoil has left Apple’s sales unscathed.

The company said revenues for the first three months of the year rose 5% from the same period last year, to $95.4bn.

Amazon, another tech giant whose results were being closely watched for signs of tariff damage, likewise said sales were holding up, rising 8% year-on-year in its North America e-commerce business in the most recent quarter.

It forecast similar growth in the months ahead.

“Obviously no one of us knows exactly where tariffs will settle or when,” said Amazon boss Andy Jassy, while noting that the firm has emerged from periods of disruption – like the pandemic – stronger than before.

“We’re often able to weather challenging conditions better than others,” he said. “I’m optimistic this could happen again.”

The shift of the iPhone supply chain to India was “impressive” according to Patrick Moorhead, chief executive of Moor Insights & Strategy.

“This is a marked change from what [Cook] said a few years back when he said that only China can build iPhones,” Mr Moorhead said.

“There is lots of progress that Apple must show here but it’s a pretty good start,” he said.

Amazon is also repositioning itself to increase resilience in the face of the tariffs.

The company said it working to make sure it had a diversity of sellers and Mr Jassy said he felt the firm was well-positioned for the months ahead, pointing to the firm’s scale and its role supplying everyday essentials.

For now, it said sales had not been hurt by the tariff turmoil. If anything, executives said the business may have benefited from some customers starting to stockpile.

Overall sales jumped 9% to $155.7bn in the first three months of 2025, compared with the same period last year, while profits surged more than 60% year-on-year to roughly $17bn.

A duty-free loophole for low-value packages is about to be closed by President Donald Trump, pushing up prices for US customers of firms like Shein and Temu.

The Chinese online retail giants relied on the so-called “de minimis” exemption to sell and ship low-value items directly to the US without having to pay duties or import taxes.

Supporters of the loophole, which applied to parcels worth less than $800 (£600), argue it helped streamline the customs process.

But both Trump and his predecessor, Joe Biden, said it damaged American businesses and was used to smuggle illegal goods, including drugs.

De minimis is a Latin term, which literally translates to “of the smallest”.

In this context it refers to a US trade rule enacted in 1938 to allow tourists returning to the US to bring souvenirs worth up to $5 (about $112 in today’s money) from abroad without declaring them to customs.

In the 21st Century, it allowed retailers to ship packages worth less than $800 to US customers without having to pay duties or taxes.

Shipments under the exemption account for more than 90% of all the cargo entering the US, according to the country’s Customs and Border Patrol (CBP).

Chinese online retailers like Shein and Temu have benefited greatly from the loophole.

Both platforms have attracted millions of US customers with marketing blitzes that showcased their ultra-low prices

And it was the de minimis exemption that helped them offer those deals so cheaply.

Shein and Temu did not immediately respond to BBC requests for comment.

However last month, in almost identical statements, the rival companies said they have seen operating expenses rise “due to recent changes in global trade rules and tariffs”, adding they will make “price adjustments” from 25 April.

In February, Trump briefly closed the loophole.

The suspension was quickly paused as customs inspectors, delivery firms and online retailers struggled to adapt to such a major change at short notice.

During the initial suspension of the exemption the US Postal Service temporarily stopped accepting parcels from mainland China and Hong Kong.

The executive order announcing the latest move said it was aimed at tackling the illegal importation of synthetic opioids like fentanyl.

It said many Chinese shippers use deceptive practices to hide illicit substances in low-value packages “to exploit the de minimis exemption”.

“These drugs kill tens of thousands of Americans each year, including 75,000 deaths per year attributed to fentanyl alone,” it added.

Under the executive order, those packages from mainland China and Hong Kong will become subject to import duties from 2 May and the charge will rise the following month.

The idea is not new. Last year, the Biden administration proposed rules intended to stop “abuse” of the exemption.

“The growing volume of de minimis shipments makes it increasingly difficult to target and block illegal or unsafe shipments,” it said.

The move is in line with Trump’s policies of cracking down on goods from China.

Since returning to the White House in January, Trump has imposed taxes of up to 145% on Chinese imports. His administration said in April that when the new tariffs are added on to existing ones the levies on some Chinese goods could reach 245%.

US authorities have also blamed the success of firms like Temu and Shein for putting strains on border authorities, as the number of packages entering the US under the loophole surged from about 140 million a decade ago to more than one billion last year.

Even before these packages became subject to import taxes, US consumers saw prices rising.

Shein and Temu started putting up prices for their US customers ahead of the 2 May deadline “due to recent changes in global trade rules and tariffs”.

The American Action Forum, a right-leaning policy group, estimated last year that getting rid of the exemption would result in “$8bn to $30bn in additional annual costs that would eventually be passed on to consumers”.

Chinese online retailers have also benefited from similar rules in the UK and the European Union to reach millions of customers.

There are concerns that the US crackdown could lead to cheap goods from China flooding into the UK.

In a move mirroring the US action, the UK has announced a review of low-value imports coming into the country.

In the UK, the current rule allows international retailers to send packages to the UK worth less than £135 without incurring import taxes.

Chancellor Rachel Reeves said the cheap goods are “undercutting the British High Street and British retailers”.

The European Union has also called on member states to scrap duty-free exemptions for parcels worth less than €150 (£127.50; $169.35)

And in February, the EU proposed a new fee for parcels being shipped into the bloc from online retailers.

Which means consumers in the UK and EU could soon also see prices rising.

Packages that arrive in the US under the exemption are inspected in the same way as other goods, including being checked for illegal substances. And most synthetic opioids are brought into the country through the border with Mexico, according to officials.

Some experts think ending the exemption will do little to curb illegal drugs and not address the challenges faced by US manufacturers.

There are also concerns the move will create more work for US border officials, who are already stretched as they try to stop drug smuggling.

According to pro-open trading association the National Foreign Trade Council (NFTC), removing the de minimis exemption would “shift the CBP’s focus away from the border, where a vast majority of illegal substances and products are entering the country.”

“CBP would need to hire and train new personnel, costing the agency millions or causing them to move agents from the already overburdened southern border,” it added.

A lynx born in a zoo in Cornwall could become the first UK zoo-born cat to be successfully released into the wild.

Animals born and raised in zoos are rarely considered for release because they either don’t have the survival skills or have become too used to human interaction.

But a shortage of female lynxes in the European breeding programme led to the unusual request being made for the cat from Newquay Zoo.

It has been moved to Germany’s Black Forest where it will spend the next few months being monitored in an enclosure to see if it’s up to the challenge.

This week the BBC watched on as, with the help of some judicious prodding with a broom, the Newquay lynx was loaded onto a truck headed for southwestern Germany.

Two days later we were in Germany as it was cajoled into a 1,200-sq-metre enclosure. John Meek from Newquay Zoo was also on hand to see the lynx gingerly stroll out into its new home.

“I’m a big boy but I had a few tears in my eyes,” he said. ” Nowadays, zoos are not here to keep animals in cages. They’re there for conservation. And this is it, conservation in action.”

Thousands of lynx already roam wild in European forests but efforts are being made to introduce new cats to increase their genetic diversity particularly in central Europe.

Though not officially classed as a “big cat” Eurasian lynx can weigh up to 30 kilos and hunt deer for food.

Once native to the UK they were driven to extinction hundreds of years ago and with British deer populations at record levels there have been calls for their re-introduction.

“Basically I’m Tinder for the zoo-born lynx,” says Dina Gebhardt from Bern Animal Park with a smile when I speak to her on Zoom.

It was her who sent out the SOS for the Newquay lynx.

The lynx-breeding coordinator for the European Endangered Species Programme (EEP), she matches females and males from across the continent as well as finding new homes for their offspring.

“Our nature is very fragmented, due to railways and streets and cities. And this means we created a lot of barriers for the lynx, which leads to inbreeding,” Dina says.

To combat that Dina finds captive young lynx that can be introduced into the wild to increase numbers and improve the genetic mix. Usually Dina’s lynxes have been raised from birth with the minimum of human contact, specifically with release in mind.

But last year, much to Dina’s frustration, there was a particularly high number of male lynxes born. And a successful rewilding programme needs females much more than males.

So Dina reached out to Newquay Zoo to ask them if their one year old female might be available.

“Of course we said yes straight away, that’s something that we’d love to do,” says John Meek, the curator of plants and animals at Newquay Zoo.

Over the next few months the lynx will be monitored to see if it has the necessary skills to survive in the wild. Catching and killing prey is not expected to be a problem.

“If you know your cats, you know that even a cat that has lived in a room its whole life, once it gets out is able to kill a bird or a mouse,” Eva Klebelsberg who runs the lynx reintroduction programme for Baden-Württemberg told us.

We’re standing over the carcass of a Roe Deer in the Black Forest just outside Karlsruhe. There is a small population of lynxes already living in the forest and this is one of their kills.

There are puncture marks on its throat – a sure sign.

“Our ecosystems in Europe are missing large predators,” Eva says, explaining that the lynx helps control populations of deer as well as ensuring that they keep moving and don’t strip forested areas.

The key question in relation to the Newquay lynx is likely to be its relationship with humans. Having spent its entire life looking through bars at visitors and being fed by keepers it will need to show that it is not going to seek out more human interaction.

“Central Europe is very crowded and we don’t have many places where there is enough space for larger animals.” says Dr Marco Roller from Karlsruhe zoo, who manages the enclosure.

“We don’t want human animal conflicts. So for us it’s important we don’t have aggressive animals or curious animals which may walk through cities or close to human settlements.”

The final decision on the Newquay lynx’s fate will be taken later in the summer after several months of close monitoring.

Campaigners have questioned Health Secretary Wes Streeting’s commitment to maternity safety after his department watered down funding levels.

Almost £100m was invested into improving maternity safety annually following the publication of an interim report into poor care at the Shrewsbury and Telford NHS trust. But changes by the Department of Health mean that just £2m of the funding is guaranteed to be spent on maternity care this year.

Rhiannon Davies, who lost her daughter due to poor care at the trust, called the decision “an absolute betrayal by Wes Streeting”.

The Department of Health said local health leaders would be given the money to decide how best to spend it.

The Royal College of Midwives described the funding decision as taking “a wrecking ball” to maternity safety.

The review into maternity care at the Shrewsbury and Telford trust, published in 2022, found that at least 201 babies and nine mothers could have survived with better care.

Following the publication of an interim report, in March 2021, NHS England said it would increase spending on maternity care by £95m a year.

At the time, it said the money would be used to hire as many as 1,000 midwives and around 80 consultant obstetricians.

Some of the money was also to be spent on allowing consultants and midwives to train together – a key recommendation of the initial report, by senior midwife Donna Ockenden – as well as allocating money for the NHS to recruit from overseas.

But analysis of NHS funding for this year, carried out by the Health Service Journal, showed that just £2m of the £95m was to be ringfenced for 2025/26.

The rest of the money will be given to the 42 Integrated Care Boards (ICBs) that decide how the health service funding is allocated locally across England.

Responding to the change, Ms Ockenden posted on social media: “How has this happened? So disappointed. Talking to colleagues across perinatal services, the sense of disappointment is profound.”

If the ICBs decide to spend the money they’ve been allocated on maternity care, there won’t be a funding cut.

But some maternity staff have labelled the change as disastrous, fearing that taking away the funding protection will mean maternity budgets will be cut.

“Removing the ringfencing will take us back years,” said a senior midwife.

The Royal College of Midwives said it was “utterly shocked” by Streeting’s decision, adding it was “short-sighted” and “utterly unacceptable”.

“These budget cuts… will rip the heart out of any moves to improve maternity safety,” said chief executive Gill Walton.

“The government has taken a wrecking ball to the work that’s being done up and down the country to improve maternity safety, something which is desperately needed.”

Rhiannon Davies, who alongside Kayleigh Griffiths was instrumental in getting the Shrewsbury inquiry commissioned, was also strongly critical of the health secretary.

The money, she wrote, “was to ensure others avoided the lifelong pain we have to endure without our children”.

The Department of Health and Social Care said maternity care remained a top priority for the health service.

In a statement, it said: “The same level of funding is still being delivered as part of wider ICB allocations, giving local healthcare leaders – who are best placed to decide how to serve their local community – more flexibility.

“We are clear that too many women are not receiving the safe, personalised and compassionate maternity care they deserve, but through our Plan for Change, this government is determined to change that.”

The department said it would help hospital trusts to make rapid improvements and train thousands more midwives.

In January a migrant boat was rescued off the north African coast after 14 harrowing days lost at sea. Some 50 people died on the voyage, many of whom were lied to by people smugglers promising safe and legal routes to Europe. BBC Verify has tracked one of the traffickers responsible – documenting his activities across three continents.

Punjabi rap music plays over a video showing three men at a beachside restaurant in Mauritania’s capital Nouakchott. One after the other, they smile at the camera before casually turning to talk and laugh together.

The three are clearly friends. Two of them, Sufian Ali and Atif Shahzad, are cousins from rural Pakistan.

But it’s the third man in particular who dominates the conversation. He’s Fadi Gujjar, a people smuggler.

The video – posted to Gujjar’s TikTok account – is one of more than 450 clips analysed by BBC Verify that reveal clues about his activities and his close relationship to the other men.

Within a month of this video being posted online, Ali and Shahzad were dead – beaten to death on the boat journey sold to them by Gujjar, who promised a safe route into Europe.

Meanwhile, Gujjar found himself on the run, wanted by Pakistan’s Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) for his role in the tragedy.

When BBC Verify contacted him on a phone number obtained from survivors, Gujjar said repeatedly in a series of voice notes his name had been “misused” by survivors in connection with the disaster and that he was leaving it all in the hands of Allah.

Fadi Gujjar is from Jaurah in Pakistan’s Punjab region. In his 30s, his real name is Khawar Hassan – though he also goes by Bishi Gujjar.

Pakistani smugglers the BBC has previously reported on have tended to boastfully advertise illegal routes to Europe online.

But Gujjar is careful. His online presence is limited to highly edited videos of his travels and almost all clients BBC Verify identified are local to Jaurah. Advertisements for his services seem to spread by word of mouth.

His current location on Facebook is set to Istanbul, Turkey – an oasis for smugglers looking to make a quick buck. Videos posted to TikTok place him in the city since July 2022, showing the smuggler outside the iconic Hagia Sophia and a Pakistani supermarket.

One other location stands out: Mauritania on West Africa’s Atlantic coast – the nerve-centre of his operation and the place from which the migrant boat started its perilous journey.

Since 2023, the International Organisation for Migration (IOM) says Mauritania has become a hub for people smuggling – spurred on by a crackdown on other routes.

The route is deadly. IOM data shows that 170 people – including 14 children – have died or gone missing on it this year.

Many Pakistanis seeking economic opportunities in Europe are willing to take the risk. Life there is glorified online by migrants already living on the continent. Smugglers like Gujjar, whose lucrative business is fuelled by people’s aspirations, take advantage of this.

These migrants are taking a gamble, using their families’ savings or selling up to make the journey. The survivors we spoke to, on average, say they paid Gujjar $13,000 (£10,000).

There are no direct flights from Pakistan to Mauritania, so some of the migrants transited through Ethiopia or the Middle East. From there, almost all of them went on to Senegal, before crossing into Mauritania, either by road or a short boat journey along the Senegal River.

Gujjar’s travel history – obtained by BBC Verify through a source – showed the smuggler followed a similar route, entering Dakar airport in Senegal on two occasions in 2024.

Multiple videos also place him in the Mauritanian capital Nouakchott from October 2024 – though the date of upload could differ to when they were filmed.

Further clips, posted to TikTok by Ali and Shahzad place Gujjar in Mauritania as early as August 2024. The trio are seen on the rooftops of Nouakchott’s sand-coloured buildings and in restaurants around the city – a luxury other migrants couldn’t afford.

Videos from their accounts reveal the men were close, hailing from the same village. Their uncle, Ahsan Shahzad Chaudhry, confirmed to BBC Verify that his nephew Sufian Ali was friends with Gujjar.

One survivor named Uzair Bhat said Gujjar falsely promised him safe and legal routes to Europe. He sent BBC Verify proof of funds transferred to a bank account under Gujjar’s real name, Khawar Hassan.

But when Uzair arrived in Mauritania, the smuggler backtracked.

“He said going by air will not work from here. I’ll send you by a big ship,” Uzair recalled. “Please cooperate, your visa [to Europe] won’t come through.”

Eventually Uzair relented.

As well as Ali, Shahzad and Uzair, BBC Verify identified two other migrants who bought journeys from Gujjar.

Once they arrived in Nouakchott they say they were placed in “safe houses” – a term used for buildings tucked away in obscure alleys where migrants are held illegally by smugglers.

One person who used a different agent said he also stayed in safe houses run by Gujjar.

BBC Verify confirmed the location of one to an area near the port of Nouakchott, which survivors say Gujjar occasionally visited.

Survivors BBC Verify spoke to say they set off from Nouakchott in a small fishing boat in the early hours on 2 January. Most of those onboard bought passage from smugglers in their hometowns in Pakistan.

But the three day trip turned into a deadly two-week journey adrift at sea.

Uzair said that from the day they left port the migrants “were constantly scooping water out of the boat”. Another man, Bilalwal Iqbal, recalled that passengers soon began “drinking sea water and after drinking it, people became delirious”.

According to the survivors, the crew onboard – West Africans employed by the smugglers – starved the Pakistani migrants of food and water, and beat them daily.

“I tried to take one of their bottles of water so they hit me on the head with a rope and the impact just made me fall back,” Iqbal told BBC Verify. “Then they pummelled my thumbs with a hammer. I still have those wounds.”

Sufian Ali and Atif Shahzad died after being beaten to death by the crew, their uncle said. He was informed of the circumstances surrounding their deaths by survivors.

Others died of starvation, dehydration and hypothermia.

Those still alive, including the crew, had given up until they saw a much larger fishing vessel come into view. Uzair Bhat jumped into the ocean and swam towards it for help.

The coastguard instructed the vessel to take the migrant boat to Dakhla port – 60 miles away. According to the IOM, 15 dead bodies were found onboard while 35 people remain missing at sea and presumed dead.

Pakistani authorities have named Gujjar as one of ten smugglers involved in the tragedy. Some have been arrested, but not Gujjar.

BBC Verify geolocated his most recent TikTok posts to Baku, Azerbaijan – though we cannot say for certain if he is still there.

Since news of the rescue broke, his mother and one of his brothers have been detained in Pakistan, accused of collecting money on Gujjar’s behalf from people buying routes to Europe.

BBC Verify has also seen six police reports filed in Punjab by the families of those on the boat journey. They allege Gujjar collected $75,000 (£56,000) for his role in the January disaster. Three people paid in full, while the remaining three had only paid deposits, the police reports said.

We believe Gujjar was still facilitating journeys to Europe after the boat disaster in January.

Contacted by an undercover BBC reporter in March using a phone number obtained from survivors, Gujjar said he “knew someone” who would help arrange a journey, but did not directly offer to get involved himself.

Additional reporting by Dilay Yaçin, Javed Sumroo and Joshua Cheetham.

From Winston Churchill to Amy Winehouse, Charles Darwin to Doctor Who star Ncuti Gatwa, portraits of a host of British icons feature in the first immersive exhibition to use one of Britain’s national art collections.

The National Portrait Gallery (NPG) has combined digital versions of portraits from its collection with animated graphics and voiceovers to tell the stories of 19 celebrities and historical figures.

It is the latest in a wave of increasingly popular immersive art shows, which fill gallery walls with large-scale projected visuals.

The show launches in Salford on Friday before going on a UK tour. But while access to see the original portraits in the NPG in London is free, entrance to the Stories Brought To Life exhibition costs up to £35.

NPG director Victoria Siddall told BBC News: “The main driver of this is taking the collection to new audiences outside of London.

“But there is another element to that, of course, which is raising revenue, which is absolutely crucial for museums to thrive.

“Obviously we’re always looking at new innovations that can help engage audiences. And if that brings us revenue too that’s wonderful.”

All national galleries charge for admission to special exhibitions, she added.

The gallery has forecast an operating deficit for the latest financial year.

The use of the striking paintings and photos with animated graphics, music and narration was a “powerful combination”, Siddall said.

The exhibition is being held in a pop-up venue at MediaCity in Salford until August and will then tour to five more locations, but they have not been announced.

The venue’s walls are filled with about 40 giant picture frame-style boxes, which the portraits and animations are projected onto.

Some of the chosen personalities, such as Malala Yousafzai, Churchill and Audrey Hepburn, tell their stories in their own words; while actors narrate the sections about others, including William Shakespeare and Emmeline Pankhurst.

It’s a whistlestop guide to selected slices of history, with each person’s story told in two or three minutes, and the entire show taking about 45 minutes. It ends with Queen Elizabeth II.

Standard adult tickets cost between £22 and £30, with an extra £5 for a flexible ticket, and some “affordable” £10 tickets available on Mondays.

Joy Coker, editor of arts outlet Alt A Review, said she thought it was worth it, but that the price could exclude some people.

“Right now with the cost of living it might not be something everybody can afford,” she said.

“It’s thought-provoking and it actually makes you think about each individual subject again, and takes you back to those moments in time, which you’re not necessarily going to get from a looking at a portrait on its own.”

In recent years, artists from Vincent van Gogh to David Hockney have successfully been given the immersive treatment.

This weekend, LS Lowry will also be added to the list when a new, free immersive experience brings his trademark matchstick men to life at Salford’s Lowry arts centre.

The walls, floor and ceiling of one gallery become the canvas for projections of the artist’s 1953 painting Going To The Match. The crowds flocking to watch Bolton Wanderers FC are animated, zooming in on sections of the artwork.

The six-minute experience is narrated by Bolton comedian and actress Sophie Willan, and visitors can then see the real painting in the next gallery.

“People are going and standing in front of the painting and then looking for elements that have come to life, and that is a different way for them to be able to engage with the real artwork,” The Lowry chief executive Julia Fawcett explained.

The venue bought the painting for almost £8m in 2022 and has spent two years working on the immersive version. Fawcett said she did not consider charging for entry.

“Our galleries are free and this is part of our gallery offer,” she said. “For us, it was about making sure we reached the widest possible audience.

“We know immersive [art] is popular but we know also that price can be a barrier, and it would be counter-intuitive, when you have a project that is about reaching more audiences and deepening people’s love and appreciation of the artist, to put a barrier in place.”

The 2024 film Conclave – a box office hit and Oscar winner – tells the story of a papal election in which there are no obvious favourites. For many people, it was a glimpse into the rarefied world of the Vatican, and the highly secretive process of choosing a leader for the Roman Catholic Church.

On Wednesday 7 May, life follows fiction when 134 cardinals begin the process of electing a successor to Pope Francis. As viewers of the film will know, the papal conclave will take place entirely behind the closed doors of the Sistine Chapel, beneath its world-famous Michelangelo frescoes.

Nobody outside the confines of the Vatican will know the outcome until a plume of white smoke curls from its chimney, signifying that the Roman Catholic Church has a new leader.

But what does the film tell us about how the conclave could unfold, and why do people find the process so fascinating?

Adapted from the bestselling novel by Robert Harris, Conclave shows the cardinal-electors isolating themselves within the confines of the Vatican during the process of the election.

They are not allowed communication with anyone outside the conclave – although given the practicalities, they are not entirely cut off.

“They all need feeding, they’re not totally hermetically sealed off from the world,” says Stephen Bullivant, professor of theology and the sociology of religion at St Mary’s University, Twickenham.

This self-imposed isolation is a tradition which stretches back hundreds of years.

In part, it is aimed at preventing the electors being influenced by external factors, although the idea of a process that happens behind closed doors may seem at odds with the modern world’s “focus on transparency, visibility and scrutiny”, according to Anna Rowlands, professor of Catholic social thought and practice at the University of Durham.

The film invokes an “incredible, introspective atmosphere” and sense of withdrawal from the world, she says. “I struggle to think of a more intense responsibility and feeling than being locked away in conclave.”

On the screen, claustrophobic and intense deliberations, strategic huddles and tactical moves abound. One cardinal undermines a frontrunner to improve their own chances. Others with unlikely prospects urge their supporters to change their vote.

This conflict of interests and competing ideologies provides much of the film’s drama. “It’s essentially about the political machinations that go on,” Nick Emerson, the film’s editor, told the BBC earlier this year.

While some cardinals will think the most important part is following divine guidance, others will have anxiety over making a quick decision, says Tina Beattie, professor emerita of Catholic studies at the University of Roehampton.

Given that Pope Francis’s health had been poor for a while, it is likely that, even before the conclave, “there will have been lots of politicking and jostling for position already behind the scenes”, she adds.

“There will be all those tussles going on and [the cardinals] won’t all be of one mind.”

Although in the film, some of the tensest scenes are focused on the act of voting, in reality, much of the drama may come in meetings in the days before conclave officially begins.

During this time, the participants will be “getting to know each other, working out what the priorities are and learning how to work together as a body so they can come up with a unified decision”, says Prof Rowlands, who is nearing the end of a two-year secondment to the Vatican.

In the film, an unknown cardinal – secretly appointed by the late pope – is catapulted into the fray.

In real life, this would not be possible. Although any baptised Roman Catholic male is theoretically eligible to be made pope, all cardinals voting in the conclave would need to have been appointed publicly by a previous pope.

Having said this, the imminent election may be one of the most unpredictable there has ever been. About 80% of the cardinals eligible to vote have been appointed in the past 12 years by Pope Francis. He consciously chose people from across the globe and with diverse political backgrounds.

Many of Francis’s appointees are from the developing world – “places and contexts which are not normally given a red hat”, says Prof Rowlands.

This adds a level of uncertainty as to their priorities and the ultimate decision.

The film presents the cardinals as fallible human beings jostling for power.

Director Edward Berger told the BBC last year that while the conclave was thought of as “an ancient spiritual ritual”, he wanted to bring the participants “into modernity”.

“We put them on this pedestal, and when you look closer, they’re going to have cell phones, they’re going to smoke, they have the same problems and vices and secrets as we do.”

Prof Rowlands says the film provides a peak behind a process, with all elements of human nature and human life in it: “Loss. grief, ambition, fear, temptation, courage.”

She adds: “It’s a very, very human thing, a conclave… It’s got a divine purpose to it, but it’s a very human thing.”

On Friday morning, a spokesperson for China’s ministry of commerce announced that Beijing was assessing the possibility of tariff negotiations with the United States.

It was news the rest of the world had been waiting to hear as astonishingly high tariffs – up to 245% on some Chinese exports to the US – throttle trade between the world’s two biggest economies, raising the spectre of a recession.

“US officials have repeatedly expressed their willingness to negotiate with China on tariffs,” the spokesperson told reporters.

“China’s position is consistent. If we fight, we will fight to the end; if we talk, the door is open… If the US wants to talk, it should show its sincerity and be prepared to correct its wrong practices and cancel unilateral tariffs.”

The statement comes a day after a Weibo account linked to Chinese state media said the US had been seeking to initiate discussions, and a week after Trump claimed discussions were already underway – a suggestion Beijing denied.

“China has no need to talk to the United States,” Yuyuantantian, a Weibo account affiliated with China Central Television (CCTV), said in Thursday’s post. “From the perspective of negotiations, the United States must be the more anxious party at present.”

Such comments follow a cycle of assertions and denials from both the US and China, as each side refuses to publicly initiate discussions.

The question is not whether those discussions will take place, but rather when, under what circumstances and at whose behest.

Experts characterise the tussle as a game of chicken between Trump and Chinese leader Xi Jinping, as both men attempt to save face while covertly pursuing a mutually beneficial outcome – namely, a de-escalation of the trade war.

“I expect some of this back-and-forth, because neither Washington nor Beijing wants to look like they are the side that’s giving in,” says Ja Ian Chong, assistant professor of political science at the National University of Singapore.

“[But] a de-escalation would be to the overall benefit of both sides, so there is some overarching incentive to do so.”

Wen-Ti Sung, an academic member of the Australian Centre on China in the World, puts it another way: “It’s like two race cars going at each other: whoever swerves first will be seen as the weaker of the two parties. And at this juncture, neither party wants to look soft.”

The leader who admits he was the first to initiate tariff talks would be seen as the one compromising his position in negotiations.

“Whoever seems desperate loses bargaining leverage,” Mr Sung says. “Both sides want to portray the other side as the more desperate one.”

This peculiar stalemate – where both parties seek the same outcome, but neither wants to be the first to suggest it – has resulted in a tactic of “constructive ambiguity”: the deliberate use of language so vague that each party could arguably claim to be in the right.

It is this tactic that Mr Sung points to as an explanation for Yuyuantantian’s Weibo post.

“This is Beijing trying to explore the possibility of using word games to create an off-ramp for both sides, so that they can gradually climb their way down from this escalation spiral,” he says.

One way to escape this game of chicken is when a third party mediates, offering both sides an off-ramp. The other option, Mr Sung explains, is a “much looser understanding of what ‘the other side has reached out’ means”.

That way, the side that does indeed come to the table first is still able to characterise it as a response rather than the first move.

In Trump and Xi’s case, it would also mean that tariff negotiations could begin with both leaders claiming to have achieved some kind of victory in the trade war.

The optics here are important. As Mr Chong points out, de-escalation is one thing – but another top priority for Trump and Xi is to “deliver a win for their domestic audiences”.

“Trump obviously wants to show that he has made Beijing capitulate. And on the People’s Republic of China side, Xi probably wants to show his own people and the world that he’s been able to make Trump become more reasonable and moderate and accommodating,” Mr Chong says.

On the domestic front, both leaders are facing tariff-induced headwinds. Trump this week struggled to quell fears of a recession as fresh data indicated the US economy contracted in its first quarter for the first time since 2022.

Meanwhile, Xi – who before the tariffs was already battling persistently low consumption, a property crisis and unemployment – must reassure China’s population that he can weather the trade war and protect an economy which has struggled to rebound post-pandemic.

“Both [Trump and Xi] recognise that at this point of the trade war, it’s not going to be a winner-takes-all outcome for either side anymore,” Mr Sung says.

“Trump recognises he’s not going to get anywhere near 100% of what he wants, so he’s trying to find a concession point where China can let him have just enough winning, especially for domestic purposes.”

While China is not unwilling, he adds, “they are very much stuck on what’s the right price point”.

For Xi, Mr Sung described the situation as a “two-level game”.

“The China side needs to manage US-China bilateral negotiations, while domestically Beijing needs to save enough face so that the Chinese leadership can hold on to this narrative of ‘the East is rising and the West is declining’,” he says.

“A kowtowing of the East towards the West is not a rising East.”

At the time of writing, the US has not denied China’s claims that it has been attempting to initiate talks. But the fact that both sides have now made that assertion indicates there is “some sort of contact”, according to Mr Chong.

“The two sides are talking,” he says. “And that is a sign that there is some possibility that some accommodation could be reached.”

But the start of negotiations does not mean that the US-China relationship – which was rocky even before Trump kicked off a trade war – is close to being steadied.

Mr Chong isn’t holding his breath. For one, he believes the “posturing” suggests the two sides have not reached the point “where they are both trying to seek a way out”.

“[Each party] may hope that there are concessions from the other side, so they’re going to have this standoff until they see which side blinks first.”

US President Donald Trump has removed Mike Waltz from his post as national security adviser, and will nominate him as ambassador to the United Nations.

In a post on social media, Trump thanked Waltz for his work and said he would be temporarily replaced by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who will continue as America’s top diplomat.

Waltz had faced criticism for mistakenly adding a journalist to a chat group where sensitive military plans were discussed – a political embarrassment likely to feature during confirmation hearings for the UN post.

The former Florida congressman is the first senior member of the administration to leave the White House in Trump’s second term.

“From his time in uniform on the battlefield, in Congress and, as my National Security Advisor, Mike Waltz has worked hard to put our Nation’s Interests first,” Trump wrote in a post on Truth Social.

“I know he will do the same in his new role.”

Waltz posted a short statement on X, alongside a screenshot of the announcement by the president.

“I’m deeply honoured to continue my service to President Trump and our great nation,” he wrote.

According to the BBC’s US partner CBS News, Trump decided to nominate Waltz as UN ambassador just hours before the announcement on Thursday.

Multiple sources told the network he was ousted because of the Signal situation and a perception in the White House that he did not properly vet National Security Council staff, among other reasons.

But the sources said Trump respects Waltz so he was given a soft landing and a high-profile new post.

However, the BBC spoke to several US officials – who wished to remain anonymous – and they suggested the Trump administration believed Waltz might struggle to be confirmed by the Senate, allowing the president to get rid of him completely without having to fire him.

Waltz has been under scrutiny since he acknowledged in March mistakenly adding the editor-in-chief of the Atlantic magazine, Jeffrey Goldberg, to a group chat on Signal with top US security officials.

Confidential plans for a military strike on Yemen’s Houthis were discussed on the message chain, whose members included Waltz, Rubio and Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth.

There was uncertainty on Thursday over the fate of Waltz’s deputy, Alex Wong, a seasoned foreign policy hand from Trump’s first term who was also on the Signal chat.

Wong was asked about the leak during an interview with the BBC’s Newsnight programme on Wednesday. He said the administration had been “very successful” in taking on Yemen’s Houthis and “the president led on that”.

In March, lawmakers questioned some of the other Signal chat participants at hearings, including the director of national intelligence and the director of the CIA.

The UN ambassador position remains unfilled. Trump withdrew the nomination of his first pick, New York congresswoman Elise Stefanik, amid Republican concerns about preserving their slender majority in the House of Representatives.

Minnesota Governor and former Democratic vice-presidential candidate Tim Walz made light of the national security adviser’s exit on Thursday.

He posted on X: “Mike Waltz has left the chat.”

Waltz has continued to use Signal, according to an image captured by a Reuters photographer at a White House cabinet meeting on Wednesday.

The zoomed-in picture showed Waltz checking his phone and a chat ongoing with a contact saved under the name of JD Vance, who is US vice-president.

The message from the Vance contact read in part: “I have confirmation from my counterpart it’s turned off. He is going to be here.”

In an interview with Fox News aired on Thursday evening, Vance rejected any suggestion that Waltz had been fired, saying he was actually being promoted.

“I like Mike,” said Vance. “I think he’s a great guy. He’s got the trust of both me and the president.

“But we also thought that he’d make a better UN ambassador as we get beyond this stage.”

Trump’s announcement, meanwhile, of the latest role for Rubio appeared to catch state department officials off guard.

Rubio will now be the first official to serve both as secretary of state and national security adviser since Henry Kissinger half a century ago.

Rubio is also acting head of both the gutted United States Agency for International Development and the National Archives.

Some reports suggest Steve Witkoff, a real estate developer and personal friend of Trump who is currently a US Special Envoy to the Middle East, could ultimately replace Waltz.

Another name being touted as a potential candidate by some in Washington is also one of Trump’s special envoys, Ric Grenell, who has a longer diplomatic track record.

Trump went through four national security advisers in his first term. The first, Michael Flynn, served for just three weeks.

Another, John Bolton, later wrote an unflattering book about Trump.

Bolton told the BBC on Thursday that Waltz’s removal was reminiscent of the “chaos” from Trump’s first term.