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.

Cardinals will meet next month in a secret conclave to elect the next pope, the Vatican has said.

The closed-door meeting will start inside the Sistine Chapel on 7 May and will involve some 135 cardinals from across the world.

It follows the death of Pope Francis who died at the age of 88 on Easter Monday and whose funeral was held on Saturday.

There is no timescale as to how long it will take to elect the next pope, but the previous two conclaves, held in 2005 and 2013, lasted just two days.

Vatican spokesman Matteo Bruni said cardinals will take part in a solemn mass at St Peter’s Basilica, after which those eligible to vote will gather in the Sistine Chapel for the secretive ballot.

Once they enter the Sistine Chapel, cardinals must have no communication with the outside world until a new Pope is elected.

There is only one round of voting on the first afternoon of the conclave, but the cardinals will vote up to four times every day afterwards.

A new pope requires a two-thirds majority – and that can take time.

Each cardinal casts his vote on a simple card that says, in Latin: “I elect as Supreme Pontiff” to which they add the name of their chosen candidate.

If the conclave completes its third day without reaching a decision, the cardinals may pause for a day of prayer.

Outside the Sistine Chapel the world will be watching for the smoke from the chimney.

If the smoke is black, there will be another round of voting. White smoke signals that a new pope has been chosen.

On Saturday, politicians and royalty joined thousands of mourners as Pope Francis’ funeral was held in St Peter’s Square.

Hymns played out on giant speakers, occasionally drowned out by the sound of helicopters flying overhead, before 91-year-old Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re gave a homily on the pope’s legacy.

After a ceremony, huge crowds lined the streets of Rome to watch as the Pope’s coffin was carried in a procession to his final resting place, Santa Maria Maggiore Basilica.

Authorities said 140,000 people had lined the streets, clapping and waving as the hearse – a repurposed white popemobile – crossed the Tiber river and drove past some of Rome’s most recognisable sights: the Colosseum, the Forum and the Altare della Patria national monument on Piazza Venezia.

On Sunday images of Pope Francis’s tomb at the church were released showing a single white rose lying on the stone that bears the name he was known by during his pontificate, below a crucifix illuminated by a single spotlight.

People who eat lots of ultra-processed foods (UPF) may be at greater risk of dying early, a study in eight countries including the UK and the US suggests.

Processed meats, biscuits, fizzy drinks, ice cream and some breakfast cereals are examples of UPF, which are becoming increasingly common in diets worldwide.

UPFs tend to contain more than five ingredients, which are not usually found in home cooking, such as additives, sweeteners and chemicals to improve the food’s texture or appearance.

Some experts say it’s not known why UPFs are linked to poor health – there is little evidence it’s down to the processing itself and could be because these foods contain high levels of fat, salt and sugar.

The researchers behind the study, published in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, looked at previous research to estimate the impact of ultra-processed food intake on mortality.

The study cannot definitively prove that UPFs caused any premature deaths.

This is because the amount of ultra-processed foods in someone’s diet is also linked to their overall diet, exercise levels, wider lifestyle and wealth, which can all also affect health.

The studies looked at surveys of people’s diets and at data on deaths from eight countries – Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, UK and US.

The report estimates that in the UK and the US, where UPFs account for more than half of calorie intake, 14% of early deaths could be linked to the harms they cause.

In countries such as Colombia and Brazil, where UPF intake is much lower (less than 20% of calorie intake), the study estimated these foods are linked to around 4% of premature deaths.

Lead study author Dr Eduardo Nilson, from Brazil, said UPFs affected health “because of the changes in the foods during industrial processing and the use of artificial ingredients, including colorants, artificial flavours and sweeteners, emulsifiers, and many other additives and processing aids”.

By their calculations, in the US in 2018, there were 124,000 premature deaths due to the consumption of ultra-processed food. In the UK, nearly 18,000.

The study says governments should update their dietary advice to urge people to cut back on these foods.

But the UK government’s expert panel on nutrition recently said there wasn’t any strong evidence of a link between the way food is processed and poor health.

There is no one definition that everyone agrees on, but the NOVA classification is often used. Examples include:

• cakes, pastries and biscuits
• crisps
• supermarket bread
• sausages, burgers, hot dogs
• instant soups, noodles and desserts
• chicken nuggets
• fish fingers
• fruit yoghurts and fruit drinks
• margarines and spreads
• baby formula

The numbers in the study are based on modelling the impact of ultra-processed foods on people’s health.

Prof Kevin McConway, emeritus professor of applied statistics, Open University, said the study makes lots of mathematical assumptions which make him cautious about what the findings mean.

“It’s still far from clear whether consumption of just any UPF at all is bad for health, or what aspect of UPFs might be involved.

“This all means that it’s impossible for any one study to be sure whether differences in mortality between people who consume different UPF amounts are actually caused by differences in their UPF consumption.

“You still can’t be sure from any study of this kind exactly what’s causing what.”

Dr Nerys Astbury, an expert in diet and obesity at the University of Oxford, also agrees there are limitations to the research.

It’s been known for some time that diets high in energy, fat and sugar can increase the risk of diseases, such as type 2 diabetes, obesity, heart conditions and some cancers, which can lead to premature death.

“Many UPF tend to be high in these nutrients,” she says, adding that studies to date haven’t been able to prove that the effects of UPFs are due to anything more than “diets high in foods which are energy dense and contain large amounts of fat and sugar”.

This type of research cannot prove that consumption of ultra-processed foods is harmful, says Dr Stephen Burgess at Cambridge University.

How physically fit someone is may be the main cause of poor health instead. But when numerous studies across many countries and culture suggest UPFs could be a risk to health, Dr Burgess says “ultra-processed foods may be more than a bystander”.

The Food and Drink Federation, which represents manufacturers, said the term ‘ultra-processed food’ “demonises a wide variety of food that can help people achieve a healthy balanced diet, such as yoghurt, pasta sauces or bread”.

It said all additives used by food manufacturers are approved by the Food Standards Agency, who ensure they are safe to eat and drink.

Marks and Spencer (M&S) customers have been telling the BBC of their frustration as disruption caused by the cyber attack which has hit the retailer continues into another trading week.

The incident – which it disclosed last Monday – has caused delayed parcels, paused online orders and suspended gift card payments, and has seen the retailer take down several parts of its operations over the last few days.

It has yet to disclose the nature of the cyber attack or when it expects operations to return to normal. Some customers told the BBC that M&S’ communication over affected orders has been “disappointing”.

Analysts warn the incident may affect the retailer’s reputation.

Customers have been telling the BBC of the impact the situation is having on them.

Linda Sonntag, who lives in Norwich, told the BBC she was left “disappointed” after a flower delivery arranged for a friend never arrived.

She told the BBC she was still awaiting a refund and email with information about her order.

“In the meantime I’ve had to order flowers from somewhere else,” she said.

“I don’t blame them, they’ve had a cyber attack,” Ms Sonntag added.

“But I don’t think their attitude towards their customers is very helpful.”

Dawn Cunnington, of Exeter, agreed the company was not to blame, but said she had no communication from M&S about her own flower order not being fulfilled.

She had ordered flowers on Wednesday, on behalf of her 91-year-old mother, for her mother’s friend, who was celebrating their 90th birthday.

“I’d had nothing from them until I phoned up,” she told the BBC.

Ms Cunnington said she received a refund and a £10 apology voucher after calling M&S to find out what happened to the flowers, but was “a bit cross” they had allowed her to place the order in the first place, given it was aware of cyber incident.

Other customers have described having to cancel orders for clothes which they were expecting to collect before going on holiday, or being unable to return goods they had previously bought.

But some have expressed sympathy for the staff at the stores, who they say have been on the receiving end of abuse from angry customers, or having to deal with shopping abandoned at the tills when customers were unable to pay when contactless payments were down.

M&S remains silent on how the cyber attack unfolded, the nature of the attack and how specifically it has been affected by it – leaving cyber security experts to speculate as to what might have happened.

It is known it has hired external cyber security experts, who are likely to be a team of incident response specialists who will be working around the clock either at the headquarters of the company or remotely.

Their first priority is likely to be find out where the hackers are in the IT system and kick them out.

Switching off computer servers used in their online ordering, payment or logistics systems might imply that security teams have isolated that portion as a way the hackers gained entry.

They might also have taken these offline to stop the hackers from spreading their malicious software into those previously unaffected areas.

It might also be the case that the company is taking all non-business critical services offline to help deal with the hack.

“In situations like this, in-store services are typically prioritised for recovery, which can mean online operations take slightly longer to restore,” said Sam Kirkman, a director at cyber-security firm NetSPI.

He told the BBC that while M&S taking steps like pausing services may make the incident seem “even more serious from the outside,” they would allow staff to contain any potential threats and begin recovery safely.

About a third of M&S’s clothing and household goods’ sales in the UK are through its online platforms and were worth some £1.268bn in latest published financial results.

Susannah Streeter, head of money and markets at Hargreaves Lansdown, said even though M&S’s physical stores were still open, many of them “simply don’t stock the popular ranges from online”.

She added clothes sales were “likely to take a big hit” as the cyber-attack had occurred during a spell of warm weather when summer ranges would be “piling up in virtual baskets”.

Dan Coatsworth, investment analyst at AJ Bell, said M&S’s success was “built on trust” – and this was something customers may question after it suspended online orders.

“The longer it takes to draw a line under the cyber incident, the greater the risk to Marks & Spencer’s reputation,” he told the BBC.

“Shoppers want to know that their personal and financial details are safe when buying goods online and Marks & Spencer failing to give the all-clear implies that something is very wrong at its end.”

Additional reporting by Michael Race

A 14-year-old girl who stabbed two teachers and a pupil while screaming “I’m going to kill you” has been sentenced to 15 years in detention.

The teenager, who cannot be named due to her age, will serve at least half the sentence in custody.

She was found guilty of attempted murder in a second trial at Swansea Crown Court in February after the first collapsed.

Fiona Elias, Liz Hopkin and a pupil were treated in hospital with stab wounds after the attack at Ysgol Dyffryn Aman, Carmarthenshire, last April.

Speaking in court, Ms Hopkin said she worried about the girl’s future, while Ms Elias said the defendant had put her, her family and the entire school “through hell”.

The teenager, who brought a weapon to school every day, used her father’s multi-tool knife to initially attack Ms Elias on 24 April 2024.

Judge Paul Thomas KC, sentencing, said the girl had not shown remorse and had attacked the three for attention.

The jury heard she repeatedly stabbed Ms Elias saying “I’m going to kill you” and the teacher suffered wounds to both arms.

Fellow pupils said the defendant previously told them she would stab Ms Elias and “do something stupid” that would get her expelled.

Ms Hopkin intervened during the incident to try and restrain the girl and was also stabbed, receiving injuries to her neck, back, legs and arms, the court heard.

After a “stand off”, the girl then ran at a 14-year-old pupil with the knife and shouted “I’m going to kill you” before stabbing her, causing a wound to the upper arm.

She was restrained by teacher Darrel Campbell until she was later arrested.

During the hearing, Ms Elias started reading her victim impact statement in tears and said she would never forget the moment she saw the tip of the blade.

“The image is etched in my mind,” she said, “it’s a moment that replays itself over and over”.

“The scars on my arms are a daily reminder of the pain I endured. She tried to murder me.”

Ms Elias said she has received counselling to “stop the spirals” before they “consume” her.

She said her daughter found out about her involvement in the incident on social media when a photo was shared of Ms Hopkin on a stretcher with the caption ‘RIP Mrs Elias’.

“Those three words have haunted her ever since,” she said.

Ms Elias addressed the teenager in court and said: “Your motive was clear, you tried to murder me.

“Thankfully, thanks to Liz’s selfless actions, you didn’t manage to finish what you started.

“You have put me, my family and the entire school though hell.”

Ms Elias said she had not ruled out meeting with the teenager in future, and will use her experience to campaign for teachers’ safety.

She finished her statement with the words her husband wrote in a card following the incident.

“I always knew that you give your time to the school, give your heart to the school, but I never expected you to give your blood,” Ms Elias said.

“I will always give my heart to Ysgol Dyffryn Aman,” she added.

Reading her statement, Ms Hopkin turned to look at the teenager and said her life had been changed forever due to the defendant’s “calculated violence”.

She told the court the scars from that day remain not only on her body but “deep within”.

“I was fighting for my life in a place where I should have felt safe,” she said, adding her son and husband who work at the school found her “in a pool of blood”.

“Although this has been the worst experience of my life, I’m glad it was me that was there that day,” she said.

“I’m glad I stopped you from killing [Fiona Elias]. I truly believe I saved you both that day. You are not a murderer.

“I would not let you carry out your plan. I’m still here, I’m still alive, though at the time I was sure I was going to die.”

Ms Hopkin said the girl had “been with her” every day since the attack.

Addressing the teenager, she said: “Despite what you did, I worry about your future.”

“I don’t want what happened that day to be what defines you.”

On Monday Judge Thomas said he believed the girl was not sorry for what she did, and that she “actually enjoyed” the publicity “in a weird way”.

“In my view, you wanted as many of your fellow pupils as possible to see what you intended to do,” he said.

“I’ve watched you carefully over the two trials. I believe that what you did that day, you did above all, for attention. Attention, you perhaps haven’t had.”

Judge Thomas added the defendant had already “made serious threats to someone” since last April, and posed a potential risk even after custody.

“I hope you will go on to lead a good life,” he added as he passed the sentence.

The girl listened, her arms crossed, and she was taken back to the detention centre.

She will be almost 30 when her licence period ends.

Speaking outside the court, Ms Hopkin said: “While some might see today’s sentencing as a good result, there is no real good result when a child or young person finds themselves in a situation like this.”

“I would give anything for it never to have happened,” she added.

Ms Hopkin said “extreme violence” in schools was becoming more common and called for urgent action from leaders.

“We cannot keep pretending that they are rare or isolated, or confined to city schools hundreds of miles away,” she said.

“It’s happening in Wales, in small rural towns where people think it just won’t happen, it does and it will continue.”