News Desk

April 21 (UPI) — The British government announced it will pass legislation to ban children from using smartphones in schools in England.

The plans unveiled Monday in the House of Lords by Baroness Jacqui Smith, the education minister, formalize what is already policy in many schools but introduces a “clear legal requirement” that would empower them to enforce it — including removing phones from children before class.

The proposed amendment to the Labour administration’s Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill came after repeated efforts by members of the upper chamber over the past few months to tack on a social media ban for children younger than 16.

Further “ping pong” opposition and blocking, with the Lords repeatedly refusing to pass the legislation and sending it back to the House of Commons, could risk the flagship bill running out of time to become law in the current session of parliament, which is due to end within weeks.

“We recognize the strength of feeling on this issue, both in this House and beyond,” said Baroness Smith.

“Notwithstanding the fact that we think the guidance already in place provides head teachers and schools with a range of approaches to be able to deliver the objective that we all share, we are committing to tabling an amendment in lieu, which will place the existing guidance on a statutory footing in the Bill, creating a clear legal requirement for schools.

“We’ve listened to concerns about how we support headteachers in delivering on this policy and we have listened to parliament,” added Baroness Smith.

The law will only apply to schools in England because education is an area where power is devolved to the parliaments and assemblies of the other countries of the United Kingdom — Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

The move came two months after the Department for Education issued new guidance to schools that they should be phone-free environments, including during lessons, between lessons, breaktimes and at lunch, but stops short of an outright ban, stating only that phones must be off and in a bag or jacket.

Baroness Smith rejected criticism from some Lords that while the government’s proposal removes the “not seen, not heard” policy from guidance to schools — because phones remain a distraction even when off and out of sight — there was confusion with schools assuming the existing policy remains unchanged and “will continue to be the norm in schools.”

“We have now taken that out of the guidance, and we would be willing to consider whether we should be stronger on that. It is a complex area where different schools and different head teachers might have different ways of achieving the outcome, but it is not possible for me to say that it would be impossible [for children to still use their phones],” said Baroness Smith.

Kemi Badenoch, the leader of the opposition Conservative Party opposition, said Tuesday that her party had been battling Prime Minister Keir Starmer for a ban for over a year and that it had only been realized due to the efforts of her education secretary, Laura Trott.

“In March last year, I asked Starmer to ban phones in schools. He dismissed it as ‘completely unnecessary.’ Now it’s the latest Government U-turn. This is a testament to the relentless work of Laura Trott and our shadow cabinet,” Badenoch wrote on X.

“Now, let’s get under-16s off social media,” she added.

In a post online, Laura Trott, credited the efforts of teachers, parents and health professionals for what she said was “the right step for improving behaviour and raising attainment in our classrooms,” but vowed to hold the government to its word on making sure phones were actually banned.

“We’ll push the government to make clear that ‘not seen & not heard’ policies aren’t allowed,” wrote Trott.

United States President Donald Trump has said a nuclear agreement currently being negotiated with Iran will be “far better” than the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which he withdrew from in 2018 during his first term in office.

The original 2015 accord took roughly two years of negotiations to reach and involved hundreds of specialists across technical and legal fields, including multiple US experts. Under it, Iran agreed to restrict the enrichment of uranium and to subject itself to inspections in exchange for the relaxation of sanctions.

But Trump took the US out of that pact, calling it the “worst deal ever”. Before the initial US-Israeli strikes on Iran at the end of February, the US had made new demands – including additional restrictions on Tehran’s nuclear programme, the restriction of its ballistic missiles programme and an end to its support for regional armed groups, primarily in Lebanon, Yemen and Iraq.

Trump’s latest remarks come amid growing uncertainty about whether a second round of talks will proceed in the Pakistani capital Islamabad, as a two-week ceasefire between the US-Israel and Iran approaches the end in just a day.

So, what was the JCPOA, and how did it compare to Trump’s new demands?

What was the JCPOA?

On July 14, 2015, Iran reached an agreement with the European Union and six major powers – China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, the US, and Germany – under which these states would roll back international economic sanctions and allow Iran greater participation in the global economy.

In return, Tehran committed to limiting activities that could be used to produce a nuclear weapon.

These included reducing its stockpile of enriched uranium by about 98 percent, to less than 300kg (660lb), and capping uranium enrichment at 3.67 percent – far below weapons-grade of 90 percent, but high enough for civilian purposes such as power generation.

Before the JCPOA, Iran operated roughly 20,000 uranium-enriching centrifuges. Under the deal, that number was cut to a maximum of 6,104, and only older-generation machines confined to two facilities, which were subject to international monitoring.

Centrifuges are machines which spin to increase the concentration of the uranium-235 isotope – enrichment – in uranium, a key step towards potential bomb-making.

The deal also redesigned Iran’s Arak heavy water reactor to prevent plutonium production and introduced one of the most intrusive inspection regimes ever implemented by the global nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

In exchange, Iran received relief from international sanctions which had severely damaged its economy. Billions of dollars in frozen assets were released, and restrictions on oil exports and banking were eased.

The deal came to halt when Trump formally withdrew Washington from the nuclear deal in 2018, a move widely criticised domestically and by foreign allies, and despite the IAEA saying Iran had complied with the agreement up to that point.

“The Iranian regime supports terrorism and exports violence, bloodshed and chaos across the Middle East. That is why we must put an end to Iran’s continued aggression and nuclear ambitions. They have not lived up to the spirit of their agreement,” he said in October 2017.

He reimposed crippling economic sanctions on Tehran as part of his “maximum pressure” tactic. These targeted Iran’s oil exports, as well as its shipping sector, banking system and other key industries.

The goal was to force Iran back to the negotiating table to agree to a new deal, which also included a discussion about Tehran’s missile capabilities, further curbs on enrichment and more scrutiny of its nuclear programme.

What has happened to Iran’s nuclear programme since the JCPOA?

During the JCPOA period, Iran’s nuclear programme was tightly constrained and heavily monitored. The IAEA repeatedly verified that Iran was complying with the deal’s terms, including one year after Trump announced the US’s withdrawal from the agreement.

Starting in mid-2019, however, Iran began incrementally breaching the deal’s limits, exceeding caps on uranium stockpiles and enrichment levels.

In November 2024, Iran said it would activate “new and advanced” centrifuges. The IAEA confirmed that Tehran had informed the nuclear watchdog that it planned to install more than 6,000 new centrifuges to enrich uranium.

In December 2024, the IAEA said Iran was rapidly enriching uranium to 60 percent purity, moving closer to the 90 percent threshold needed for weapons-grade material. Most recently, in 2025, the IAEA estimated that Iran had 440kg (970lb) of 60-percent enriched uranium.

What are Trump’s latest demands for Iran’s nuclear programme?

The US and its ally, Israel, are pushing Iran to agree to zero uranium enrichment and have accused Iran of working towards building a nuclear weapon, while providing no evidence for their claims.

They also want Iran’s estimated 440kg stock of 60pc enriched uranium to be removed from Iran. While that is below weapons-grade, it is the point at which it becomes much faster to achieve the 90 percent enrichment needed for atomic weapons production.

Iran has insisted its enrichment effort is for civilian purposes only. It is a signatory to the 1970 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).

In March 2025, Tulsi Gabbard, the US director of national intelligence, testified to Congress that the US “continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon”.

On Sunday, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, in a strongly worded statement, said Trump had no right to ⁠⁠”deprive” Iran of its nuclear ⁠⁠rights.

What else is Trump asking for?

Restrictions on ballistic missiles

Before the US-Israel war on Iran began, Tehran had always insisted negotiations should be exclusively focused on Iran’s nuclear programme.

US and Israeli demands, however, extended beyond that. Just before the war began, Washington and Israel demanded severe restrictions on Iran’s ballistic missile programme.

Analysts say this demand was at least partly triggered by the fact that several Iranian missiles had breached Israel’s much-vaunted “Iron Dome” defence system during the 12-day war between the two countries in June last year. While Israel suffered only a handful of casualties, it is understood to have been alarmed.

For his part, Trump has repeatedly warned, without evidence, about the dangers of Iran’s long-range missiles, claiming Iran is producing them “in very high numbers” and they could “overwhelm the Iron Dome”.

Iran has said its right to maintain missile capabilities is non-negotiable. The JCPOA did not put any limits on the development of ballistic missiles.

However, a United Nations resolution made when adopting the nuclear agreement in July 2015 did stipulate that Iran could not “undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons”.

Ending support for proxy groups

The US and Israel have also demanded that Iran stop supporting its non-state allies across the Middle East, including Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen and a number of groups in Iraq. Together, these groups are referred to as Iran’s “axis of resistance”.

In May last year, Trump said Tehran “must stop sponsoring terror, halt its bloody proxy wars, and permanently and verifiably cease pursuit of nuclear weapons”, during a GCC meeting in Riyadh.

Three days before the war on Iran began in February, during his State of the Union address to Congress, Trump accused Iran and “its murderous proxies” of spreading “nothing but terrorism and death and hate”.

Iran has refused to enter a dialogue about limiting its support for these armed groups.

Can Trump really get a new deal that is ‘much better’ than the JCPOA?

According to Andreas Kreig, associate professor of Security Studies at King’s College, London, Trump is more likely to secure a new deal that closely resembles the JCPOA, with “some form of restrictions on enrichment, possibly with a sunset clause, and international supervision”.

“Iran might get access to frozen assets and lifted sanctions much quicker than under the JCPOA, as it will not agree to a long drawn-out, gradual lifting of sanctions,” Krieg pointed out.

However, he warned that the political landscape in Tehran has hardened. “Iran now is a far more hardline and less pragmatic player that will play hardball at every junction. Trump cannot count on any goodwill in Tehran,” he said.

“The IRGC is now firmly in charge… with likely new powerful and tested levers such as the Strait of Hormuz,” he said, referring to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, which operates as a parallel elite military force to the army and has a great deal of political and economic power in Iran. It is a constitutionally recognised part of the Iranian military and answers directly to the supreme leader.

Overall, Krieg stressed, the US-Israel war on Iran “leaves the world worse off than had Trump stuck to the JCPOA”, even if a new compromise is eventually reached.

Moreover, since the revocation of the JCPOA, the US and Israel have waged two wars on Iran, including the current one. The 12-day war in June last year included attacks on Iran’s nuclear sites and killed more than 1,000 people.

Attacks on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure have continued since the latest war began on February 28, including on the Natanz enrichment facility, Isfahan nuclear complex, Arak heavy water reactor, and the Bushehr nuclear power plant.

Nevertheless, King’s College’s Krieg said there is still room for a negotiated outcome if Tehran and Washington scale back their demands.

“Both sides can compromise on enrichment thresholds, and on temporary moratoriums on enrichments. But Iran will not surrender its sovereignty to enrich altogether, and the Trump administration will have to meet them halfway,” he said.

“While the Iranians will commit on paper not to develop a nuclear weapon, they will want to keep R&D [research and development] in this space alive.”

Economic incentives will be central, he added. “Equally, Iran would want to get immediate access to capital and liquidity. Here, the Trump administration is already willing to compromise.”

“For Want of a Horse,” a play by Olivia Dufault receiving its world premiere in an Echo Theater Company production at Atwater Village Theatre, wants to have a rational conversation about a taboo topic that can provoke instant outrage.

The subject is zoophilia, not to be confused with bestiality, though for many of us it will be a distinction without much of a difference.

Calvin (Joey Stromberg), a good-looking, mild-mannered married accountant, has harbored a secret for much of his life. He has a thing for horses. His erotic interest began at an early age, and all his efforts to lead a normal life have left him depressed and contemplating suicide.

His wife, Bonnie (Jenny Soo), is a permissive kindergarten teacher who’s having difficulty restraining a girl in her class who has discovered the joys of masturbation. Worried about her husband, she discovers through his browsing history that he’s once again visiting strange animal sites.

She suggests he keep a horse, explaining that she doesn’t want to end up a widow or divorcée. Calvin is taken aback by her generosity but has come to recognize that his preference is more than a kink. It’s part of his identity — and maybe the only part that makes his life seem worth living.

Joey Stromberg and Jenny Soo in “For Want of a Horse” at the Echo Theater Company.

(Cooper Bates)

A horse named Q-Tip (Griffin Kelly) enters the couple’s lives. A stable is secured, and the mare, who senses that something strange is going on, is indulged with apples and caresses.

Kelly, a statuesque presence in a dress, harness and boots, brings the horse to life with wild, unpredictable movements. The sheer size of the animal poses a threat to humans. One kick, as Q-Tip herself explains in one of her thought-bubble monologues, is capable of penetrating a steel wall. But controlling an animal’s food supply is an effective way of winning over its trust.

Calvin has found support in the online zoophilia community. PJ (Steven Culp), a man whose current inamorata is a bichon frise, is considering moving to a country where zoophilia isn’t illegal. He’s tired of the shame and the secrecy. He’s proud of his attachment to pooch, even if his thing for dogs has cost him contact with his daughter and ex-wife.

Dufault doesn’t shy away from sexual details. For PJ, intimacy depends on peanut butter. Calvin describes the physical signals that reveal Q-Tip’s erotic satisfaction. The play occasionally descends into sitcom humor. (PJ says he’s considering creating a human-dog dating app called Rin Tin Tinder.) But mostly the subdued tone steers clear of sensationalism.

The production, directed by Elana Luo, is scrupulously well-acted by the four-person cast. Stromberg makes Calvin seem not only reasonable but surprisingly sensitive. Soo’s Bonnie sweetly embodies the excesses of a kind of progressive piety. As PJ, Culp gruffly embraces his role as the play’s polemical fire-starter. And Kelly’s Q-Tip, in the production’s most physically demanding performance, straddles the human-animal divide with theatrical aplomb.

Steven Culp, left, and Joey Stromberg in “For Want of a Horse” at the Echo Theater Company.

(Cooper Bates)

The open-mindedness that Dufault, a trans playwright, brings to the play creates some dramatic slack. Possibly the same fear of making value judgments that has inhibited Bonnie from imposing common-sense discipline in her classroom has robbed “For Want of a Horse” of a propulsive point of view.

The play moves monotonously between Calvin and Bonnie’s bedroom and the stable. Scenic designer Alex Mollo has worked out an efficient way of shifting between these realms by employing the same set of wooden trunks. But the argument of the play doesn’t so much build as elapse.

Time takes its toll, and Calvin eventually has to make a decision. But the character who interested me most was Bonnie, whose reality is only glimpsed. The play tacitly uses her husband’s threat of suicide as a trump card. Zoophilia isn’t merely a fetish for Calvin but a nonnegotiable part of his identity.

This questionable assumption can be psychologically scrutinized not only from Calvin’s point of view but also from his wife’s. The play wants to have an intelligent debate, but it doesn’t want to interrogate certain political positions too skeptically.

At one point, Bonnie objects when Calvin compares his situation to that of homosexuality, but the conversation ends there. The reality is that the right wing has been making a similar claim, arguing that same-sex marriage opens the door to bestiality, polygamy and incest. “For Want of a Horse” inadvertently lends legitimacy to this line of reasoning.

Griffin Kelly in “For Want of a Horse” at the Echo Theater Company.

(Cooper Bates)

Not that extremist positions should be off limits, but they ought to be more rigorously addressed. Similarly, Bonnie’s concern about the issue of consent — how can a horse say yes to intercourse with a human — is introduced only to be dismissed in a shrug of mild-mannered bothsidesism.

While watching “For Want of a Horse,” I recalled a program on PBS called “My Wild Affair” that wasn’t about zoophilia but about the problematic nature of human bonds with untamed animals. Relationships with a seal, an elephant and a rhino, for example — obsessive, protective, loving friendships — all seemed to end if not in outright tragedy, then in shattering heartbreak.

Q-Tip is rightfully given the play’s last word, and Kelly, an actor (HBO’s “The Book of Queer”), writer and comedian, is the production’s driving force. We can never know what’s inside this mare’s mind because Q-Tip’s brain has evolved so differently from our own. Kelly plays the anthropomorphic game while retaining some of the inscrutability of a four-legged creature.

It is through language that we, as humans, traverse the chasm separating us from one another. That’s not possible with animals, even with our closest domestic companions. (Try explaining a necessary medical procedure to a cat.)

“For Want of a Horse” sets out to speak about the unspeakable, but its construction may be too tame for such a wild subject.

Tens of thousands of Afghans have been displaced by recent fighting along the Pakistan border, forced into tents with little access to food, healthcare, or education. Pakistan says its strikes target armed groups attacking its territory, but displaced families now fear for their safety and are uncertain if they will ever return home.

The Jamieson Greer has told Mexican industry leaders that tariffs imposed by Donald Trump will remain in place, even as negotiations to revise the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement intensify ahead of a July review deadline.

The remarks, delivered during meetings in Mexico City, signal a major shift from decades of tariff free trade under USMCA and its predecessor NAFTA.

End of Zero Tariff Era

According to multiple sources, Greer made it clear that the United States does not intend to return to a zero tariff framework.

This marks a fundamental change in North American trade policy, where free trade in autos and parts had been the norm for over 30 years. The introduction of tariffs, including a 25 percent duty on automotive imports, has disrupted deeply integrated supply chains across the region.

Impact on Key Industries

The implications for Mexico are significant:

• More than half of Mexico’s auto and steel exports go to the United States
• Vehicle exports have already declined, with job losses in the auto sector
• Steel and aluminum industries face steep duties, some as high as 50 percent

These pressures have weakened Mexico’s competitive position, especially as the United States has negotiated lower tariffs with other partners.

Shifting Trade Rules

U.S. negotiators are also pushing for stricter rules of origin.

Proposals include requiring 100 percent North American sourcing for key components such as engines and electronics, up from current thresholds of around 75 percent. This would force manufacturers to further regionalize supply chains, potentially increasing costs but aligning with Washington’s goal of boosting domestic production.

Mexico’s Position

The Mexican government, led by Claudia Sheinbaum, is seeking relief from tariffs as part of the USMCA review. Officials aim to secure at least partial reductions, particularly in the auto and steel sectors, before finalizing broader trade revisions.

However, the latest signals from Washington suggest that while some easing may be possible, a full rollback is unlikely.

Why It Matters

This development underscores a broader shift in global trade policy away from pure free trade toward managed trade and economic security.

For Mexico, the stakes are high due to its deep economic integration with the United States. Persistent tariffs could reshape manufacturing patterns, investment decisions, and employment across North America.

What’s Next

Formal negotiations are set to begin in late May, with both sides aiming to resolve key disputes before the July deadline.

Key areas of focus will include:

• Tariff levels on autos and metals
• Rules of origin requirements
• Broader economic security cooperation

The outcome will determine the future structure of North American trade.

Analysis

The U.S. position reflects a strategic recalibration rather than a temporary policy shift. By normalizing tariffs, Washington is prioritizing domestic industry and supply chain control over traditional free trade principles.

For Mexico, this creates a structural challenge. Its export driven model, built on open access to the U.S. market, now faces persistent barriers. While some adjustments may preserve competitiveness, the era of frictionless trade appears to be over.

Ultimately, the negotiations will test whether North America can adapt to a new trade paradigm or whether tensions will deepen within one of the world’s most integrated economic regions.

With information from Reuters.

Netflix’s eerie cult thriller features a disturbing opening scene.

Unchosen’s dark opening scene has left viewers curious.

The show has just arrived on Netflix and the star-studded cult thriller follows a wife and mother who feels trapped in an oppressive Christian sect.

Echoing themes from The Handmaid’s Tale and Happy Valley, the dark psychological series sees Rosie (played by Molly Windsor) question who she can trust.

After she comes across an escaped convict called Sam (Fra Fee), he offers her a taste of life outside the religious cult, while her husband Adam (Asa Butterfield) continues to chastise her.

The thriller opens with Rosie, Adam and their daughter Grace (Olivia Pickering) enjoying a party outside with the other members of their extended cult family.

A storm suddenly closes in on them, forcing them all inside, and Grace looks particularly concerned as she calls it “the Rapture” – but what does this mean?

What does the Rapture mean in Unchosen?

At the start of the series, viewers learn that the Christian cult is part of the church of The Fellowship of the Divine.

Their beliefs quickly become apparent when Mrs Phillips (Siobhan Finneran) curses Grace for reading a children’s magazine – a forbidden item.

During their street party, a storm appears overhead and Grace looks particularly terrified, believing the black clouds and thunder are the signs of the Rapture.

In Christianity, the Rapture is the concept of an event when all dead Christian believers will be resurrected and reunited with Christians who are still alive.

Together, they will will rise “in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air”.

The storm clouds in the series represent the concept, which suggests live Christians will leave the earth to meet Jesus Christ.

Grace may have been scared at the thought of being ‘taken’ in order to meet Jesus Christ at the Second Coming.

The actual term ‘Rapture’ is not mentioned anywhere in the Bible, it is instead a concept that has developed over time.

In his First Letter to the Thessalonians, Paul – one of the Apostles – wrote that Jesus would return one day, and “we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up”.

Some believe the Rapture is when Christ’s followers will be taken up to Heaven, while those who do not follow him will be left behind on Earth.

Unchosen is on Netflix

3D-printed technology is being used to help Palestinian children who were injured in Israeli attacks on Gaza but their treatment is at risk due to Israeli restrictions on supplies and aid organisations.

In a letter to EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas, the three governments say Israel is violating ‘human rights’.

Spain, Slovenia and Ireland have urged the European Union to debate suspending its association agreement with Israel, saying the bloc can no longer remain “on the sidelines” as conditions worsen in Gaza, the occupied West Bank and Lebanon.

Speaking before a meeting of EU foreign ministers in Luxembourg on Tuesday, Spanish Foreign Minister Jose Manuel Albares said the three countries had formally requested that the issue be placed on the agenda.

“Spain, along with Slovenia and Ireland, has requested that the suspension of the Association Agreement between the European Union and Israel be discussed and debated today,” Albares said.

“I expect every European country to uphold what the International Court of Justice and the UN say on human rights and the defence of international law. Anything different would be a defeat for the European Union,” he added.

In a joint letter sent last week to EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas, the three governments said Israel had taken a series of measures that “contravene human rights and violate international law and international humanitarian law”, adding that it breached the 1995 agreement that outlines political, economic and trade relations between the EU and Israel.

They said repeated appeals to Israel to reverse course had been ignored. The ministers pointed to a proposed Israeli law that would impose the death penalty by hanging on Palestinians convicted in military courts, describing it as “a grave violation of fundamental human rights” and a further step in the “systematic persecution, oppression, violence and discrimination” faced by Palestinians.

They also cited the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, saying conditions there were “unbearable”, with continuing violations of the ceasefire agreement and insufficient aid entering the territory.

The letter warned that violence in the occupied West Bank was also intensifying, with settlers acting “with absolute impunity” alongside ongoing Israeli military operations, causing civilian deaths.

“The European Union can no longer remain on the sidelines,” the ministers wrote, calling for “bold and immediate action” and saying all options should remain on the table.

The three countries argued Israel was in breach of Article 2 of the EU-Israel Association Agreement, which ties relations to respect for human rights. An earlier EU review had already found Israel was failing to meet those obligations, they said, adding that the situation had deteriorated further since then.

During a donor conference in Brussels, Kallas said the estimated cost of rebuilding Gaza had risen to $71bn.

Ireland and Spain first pushed for a review of the agreement in 2024, but the effort failed to win enough backing from member states supportive of Israel. A later Dutch-led initiative succeeded in triggering an EU assessment, which concluded Israel had “likely” breached its obligations under the pact.

Possible trade measures, including suspending parts of the relationship, were later discussed but not implemented after Israel pledged to significantly increase humanitarian aid entering Gaza.

Occupied Territories Bill

Ireland is also seeking to revive its Occupied Territories Bill, first introduced in 2018, which would ban trade in goods and services from illegal settlements in the occupied Palestinian territory, including the West Bank. Progress has stalled despite unanimous backing in the lower house of parliament, the Dail.

Meanwhile, Spain and Slovenia have moved to curb trade with illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank following sustained public protests and growing political pressure. In August last year, Slovenia banned imports of goods produced in Israeli-occupied territories, becoming one of the first European states to take such a step.

Spain followed later that year with a decree banning imports from illegal Israeli settlements, with the measure coming into force at the start of 2026.

All three countries formally recognised the State of Palestine in May 2024, in what was widely seen as a coordinated diplomatic move aimed at increasing pressure for a two-state solution.

JACK Whitehall’s countryside wedding to Roxy Horner over the weekend may have appeared to be oozing class, but the comedian says he actually had a wardrobe disaster during the ceremony.

In fact, the dad-of-one, 37, says he was left with his “a** hanging out” at the end of the aisle.

Jack ripped his luxe Tom Ford suit when picking up their two-year-old daughter during the ceremony.

“I squatted down to pick up Elsie and my trousers split, my whole a** was hanging out,” he told Vogue.

Luckily, the comedian had a back-up suit and later changed into one by menswear brand Dunhill.

Meanwhile, his bride also donned two outfits during the day, but hers were both by choice.

moving on

Kelly Osbourne cuts final ties with Slipknot’s Sid Wilson after ending engagement

love split

Hilary Duff’s sister splits from fiance after 12 years amid feud with pop star

Roxy donned two stunning wedding dresses from designer boutique Galia Lahav, changing between the ceremony and reception.

She added a lengthy veil and pulled her blonde tresses into an up do, with two strands framing her face.

Roxy and Jack’s wedding took place in the grounds of £12million stately home Euridge Manor, near Chippenham, Wilts.

The Georgian-style property is owned by Kate Middleton’s former boss, Jigsaw tycoon John Robinson.

Jack and Roxy shared the details of their big day with Vogue, explaining how Elsie was one of the model’s three flower girls.

They also had a whopping eight bridesmaids, with Jack’s brother, Barnaby, serving as Best Man.

After Jack predicted a “brutal” best man speech from his brother during a chat with The Sun earlier this year, due to his own ‘below the belt’ speech at his sibling’s nuptials, Barnaby didn’t hold back.

“He threw me under the bus, because that’s what I’d done to him,” confirmed Jack in his post-wedding chat.

Celebrity guests included TV pals James Corden and Jamie Redknapp, who Jack worked with on Sky’s A League of Their Own.

Guests were asked to turn off their phones during the ceremony and were put on a social media blackout.

The newlywed pair are now headed to Venice for a stunning Italian honeymoon.

April 21 (UPI) — Iran on Tuesday demanded the United States release the Iranian-flagged container ship the U.S. military seized over the weekend, threatening to use “all its capacities” to defend itself as the cease-fire neared its end.

The U.S. military seized Touska on Sunday as it enforced a military blockade of Iranian ports and ships, raising already high tensions during a two-week cease-fire rapidly nearing its end that negotiators from both countries are to use to secure an end to the war.

U.S. warships intercepted Touska transiting the north Arabian Sea en route to Iran’s Bandar Abbas port city for allegedly violating the blockade.

Iran responded with accusations of violating the cease-fire and drone strikes targeting U.S. military vessels, according to state-run media, though U.S. Central Command has yet to comment.

Iran’s Foreign Ministry on Tuesday condemned the seizure of Touska as an “unlawful and savage act of the terrorist U.S. army,” saying the “act of maritime banditry and terrorism” terrified the ship’s passengers and crew, some of whose family members were onboard.

“The Islamic Republic of Iran, while warning of the very dangerous consequences of this unlawful and criminal act by the United States, emphasizes the immediate release of the Iranian vessel, its passengers, its crew and its families,” the ministry said in a statement.

The ministry said the seizure is a violation of international and the fundamental principles and rules of the U.N. Charter, and that it had informed the U.N. secretary general, the Security Council and maritime organizations.

“There is no doubt that the Islamic Republic of Iran will use all its capacities to defend Iran’s national interests and security and to safeguard the rights and dignity of its citizens,” the ministry statement said.

“It is obvious that full responsibility for the further complication of the situation in the region lies with the United States.”

The cease-fire is to end at midnight Tuesday.

Iran has accused Trump of ducking real negotiations on ending the war in favor of trying to exert the United States’ economic and military might to force it to capitulate.

“Trump, by imposing a blockade and violating the cease-fire, wants — in his view — to turn the negotiating table into a table of surrender, or else justify starting the war again,” Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf said late Monday in a statement.

“We do not accept negotiations under the shadow of threats, and over thee past two weeks we have prepared to reveal new cards on the battlefield.”

Trump has continued to boast online that he was “winning” the war while defending himself from criticism and vowing the deal his administration is working on with Iran will be “FAR BETTER” than the landmark multinational Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action the United States, Iran and several other countries signed during the Obama administration.

“If a deal happens under ‘TRUMP,’ it will guarantee Peace, Security and Safety, not only for Israel and the Middle East, but for Europe, America and Everywhere else,” he said on his Truth Social media platform.

“It will be something that the entire World will be proud of, instead of the years of Embarrassment and Humiliation that we have been forced to suffer due to incompetent and cowardly leadership!”

Turkey, Iran’s neighbor and U.S. ally, has been among nations working to de-escalate tensions in the Gulf and seek an extension to the cease-fire as negotiations appear to be at a stalemate over Iran’s nuclear program.

Though public rhetoric is fiery, negotiations behind closed doors are progressing, Ankara’s foreign affairs minister, Hakan Fidan, said Sunday during a forum in southeastern Turkey’s Antalya.

“The good thing is this: both sides continue to negotiate with a very serious intention, sincerely, they have the will to continue,” Fidan said.

“Now, no one wants a new war to start again with the end of the cease-fire next week.”

Turkey hopes that under international pressure, the United States, Israel and Iran will extend the cease-fire to solve outstanding issues, he said.

“A two-week period is good for a cease-fire, but the file in front of them is so comprehensive that it will not be possible to solve all these issues in two weeks,” he said.

“Therefore, a new extension will be needed. I hope this extension will come. I am optimistic about that.”

Sina* is a 28-year-old video editing assistant who fought hard to build a life in Tehran. After completing mandatory military service, he refused to return to his hometown of Neyshabur in eastern Iran, knowing opportunities for a young man with a background in film editing and independent student theatre were bleak there. Through a college friend, he found his footing at a video content creation studio in the capital, climbing from camera assistant to assistant video editor within six months, before losing his job as a result of the US-Israel war on Iran. As told to Arya Farahand. 

It has been a few days since the guns fell silent, and the sliver of hope I felt when the ceasefire was announced is already fading. Out of all the resumes I sent in desperation, only one company called me for an interview. The salary they offered would not cover the bare minimum to survive. My family keeps calling from Neyshabur, repeating the same line: “Come back, there’s work for you here.” What they intend as a lifeline feels like salt in the wound.

I had stopped taking money from my father, my salary grew, and I was buying gifts for my two sisters. I was, for the first time in my life, truly independent. Now, I am sitting in my grandmother’s empty apartment in Tehran, staring at a phone with almost no internet, waiting for a job offer that’s not coming.

This is what the war has done to me. Not a scratch on my body, but everything else – gone.

Croissants on the roof

The morning the war started, we were in a briefing meeting, drinking tea. A colleague had brought fresh croissants. Then we heard the roar of a fighter jet, a whistle, and seconds later, an explosion.

Our initial instinct wasn’t terror, but naive curiosity. Against every survival guide we had read from the previous war, we piled into the elevator and went up to the roof, mugs still in hand. Pillars of smoke were rising across the city. Then, another explosion hit, deafeningly close. We sprinted for the stairs.

Our manager sent us home. The city had seized up. My driver called to say he couldn’t get through the gridlock, so we started walking – 40 minutes under the glaring sun, past stranded people and stalled cars. At one point, a middle-aged driver lost his nerve, swerving into the bus lane against traffic. A bus appeared head-on and deadlocked the lane. Trapped, he looked ready to explode. I didn’t stick around. I just kept walking.

I went to my grandmother’s house. Hard of hearing, she hadn’t heard a single blast and was simply overjoyed to see me. I drank tea, sat in front of the television, tried to process what was happening, then ate lunch and slept.

The city hollowing out

When I woke up, I reached for my phone, only to be reminded that the internet was dead. I am someone who fills every spare moment with online gaming or Instagram. Without either, the boredom was stifling. I couldn’t smoke in front of my grandmother, and the forced abstinence only added to my agitation.

In the days that followed, the city hollowed out. Whenever I stepped into the alley – using a quick errand as a pretext to sneak a cigarette – I saw fewer and fewer people. In our building, only five of the 12 units remained occupied. I could tell by the empty spaces in the parking garage.

When my cigarette supply ran out, the corner shop didn’t have my brand and the supermarket was charging double. With no certainty that my March salary would be paid, I settled for a cheaper, unknown brand. It was like inhaling truck exhaust.

The days blurred: the unemployment anxiety, the stifling boredom, the desperate secret cigarettes. I tried buying VPNs twice. The first worked for a single day. The second – the seller blocked me the moment I transferred the money.

The closest I have come to death

The true nightmare came on the night of March 5. A mild explosion jolted me awake around 4m. I walked to the kitchen for water. Then a blast ripped through the air – a sound seared into my brain for life. I froze. My grandmother stumbled out of her bedroom in terror. I pulled her into the kitchen.

Then came the barrage. More than 10 consecutive explosions, each less than 10 seconds apart. My grandmother sat on the floor beside me, arms wrapped tightly around my leg, head buried. It was the closest I have ever felt to death.

When it finally stopped, the windows held. My grandmother, shaken, recalled how during the Iran-Iraq war, sirens had warned them in time to reach shelters. What she found most painful about this war was the absolute lack of warning – no sirens, no shelters. Just sitting, waiting for the next blast. With tired legs, she climbed back into bed. I did not sleep until morning.

Ten voices in my head

Through all of it, I kept telling myself, “Hold on”. Our manager had hoped this war, like the previous conflict, would end in under two weeks. Whenever my parents called, begging me to return to Neyshabur, I said no.

On March 17, we had our final online meeting. The studio’s debts were mounting, invoices unpaid, and our manager saw no end in sight – for the war or the internet blackout. For the new Iranian year, starting on March 21, only 200 resources staff would remain. The rest of us were laid off, without pay.

As the call ended, it felt like 10 different voices were screaming in my head. I couldn’t rely on my grandmother’s meagre pension. My father was already supporting a family of four. The calculation was merciless: move back to Neyshabur and work at my uncle’s supermarket. Instead of planning how to improve my life, I was plotting survival.

I packed up and left. It was a gruelling 10-hour bus ride through eerily quiet roads. What haunted me most were the final moments in Tehran. The city felt hollow, silent, swallowed by a darkness I had never seen before.

The void

From Neyshabur, I called my manager, hoping against hope. He laid out the brutal math. During the previous war and the December protests, waiting out the shutdowns had been viable. But a relentless year of economic bleeding, capped by this blackout, had driven revenue to zero. Even if the internet were restored tomorrow and we worked nonstop for months, it wouldn’t be enough. The studio hadn’t paused. It had collapsed.

I updated my resume, bought a return bus ticket, and went back to my grandmother’s apartment. There was nothing to go back to. I just needed to feel like I was doing something.

When the ceasefire was announced, I felt a sliver of hope. It lasted about a day.

My life used to be a blur of motion: the studio, independent theatres, cafes with friends, early mornings and late nights. Now, my entire existence has shrunk to four walls. The war has ended, at least for now. The internet remains largely throttled, the economy is in ruins, and the job market that existed before February 28 has not returned with the ceasefire.

Outside, people are beginning to move through the streets again. For them, perhaps, something is resuming. For me, there is nothing to resume.

I don’t know how much longer I can hold out.

*Name changed for security reasons

Dishing about what you’re reading is one of life’s greatest pleasures. Even better if your audience has read the same book. Reading with others also provides space to deepen community, ignite conversations and share moments of joy. Los Angeles needs that more than ever right now as we continue to shoulder a heavy 2025 marked by fires and ICE raids. But how to choose a book to get started? The best books to read in groups inspire a dialogue. They have sparkling prose and unshakable narratives. These were the guiding factors for compiling our recommendations for all kinds of readers.

We surveyed 200-plus luminaries in the book and journalism worlds to make this in-depth list. The voters included prizewinning authors, indie bookstore owners, a Man Booker Prize judge, Ivy League professors, literary agents, lauded journalists and several zealous book club members. To ensure an especially varied selection, the editors gave a final curatorial pass.

The list includes 10 categories for every type of reader, whether you reach for literary fiction or romance. We also crowned an “Ultimate Book Club Pick,” which is the title that received the most votes out of all the books by a landslide, and happens to be eerily prophetic (find it among the “Make-Believers” selections). Of course, we couldn’t include every worthy book. Let us know your picks and pull up a chair next to us. Why not read together?
— Sophia Kercher

If you buy books linked on our site, The Times may earn a commission from Bookshop.org, whose fees support independent bookstores.

Voters in Virginia head to the polls on Tuesday to decide on a measure that could redraw the state’s congressional map and potentially shift the balance of power in Washington.

Major political figures, including former President Barack Obama and House of Representatives Speaker Mike Johnson, have weighed in on the high-stakes vote, with nearly $100m spent on campaigning around it.

Part of a broader redistricting battle that began in Texas and spread nationwide, the vote may be the Democrats’ last chance this year to gain seats by changing district maps. The vote comes about six months before the 2026 midterm elections.

Here is what we know:

What is Virginia voting on?

Virginia currently sends 11 members to the House. At the moment, six of them are Democrats, and five are Republicans, reflecting the state’s balance.

Democrats now want to redraw the map to favour them in a way that could help them win up to 10 of the 11 seats. Under the proposal, most districts would be safely Democratic or lean towards the party, with only one strongly Republican.

A breakdown would be:

• Eight districts would be safely Democratic
• Two would be competitive but lean Democratic
• Only one would be safely Republican

If approved, this could give the Democrats several extra seats in Congress, helping them win back or strengthen control of the House in Washington, where majorities are often decided by just a few seats.

That would be a big political shift for the state, which was once closely contested but has become more Democratic-leaning in recent years.

How would the vote work?

Voters in Virginia can cast their ballots either early or on Election Day.

Polling stations will be open across the state on Tuesday:

• Polls open at 10:00 GMT
• Polls close at 23:00 GMT

Votes will be counted after polls close, with early results expected later that evening and fuller results overnight or the next day.

What are voters being asked to decide?

The proposed constitutional amendment is the only statewide contest on the ballot.

It reads:

“Should the Constitution of Virginia be amended to allow the General Assembly to temporarily adopt new congressional districts to restore fairness in the upcoming elections, while ensuring Virginia’s standard redistricting process resumes for all future redistricting after the 2030 census?”

A “yes” vote would support allowing the General Assembly to redraw congressional districts before the midterms.

A “no” vote would leave current boundaries unchanged until the next round of regularly scheduled redistricting after the 2030 census.

What do the latest polls suggest?

The result is expected to be close.

A recent poll by State Navigate, a nonpartisan research group, suggests a small lead for supporters, with about 53 percent in favour and 47 percent against.

Why do district lines matter so much?

District lines decide how voters are grouped, which can shape who wins elections.

Moving the lines can make a district more favourable to a Democratic or Republican win, by adding or removing neighbourhoods and communities that lean one way or the other.

It can turn a close race into a safe seat, or the other way around. It affects which communities are kept together and who represents them.

This process, often called gerrymandering, allows parties to draw maps that benefit them.

In a closely divided state like Virginia, even small changes to the map can shift several seats and influence who holds power in Congress.

A 2023 study by Harvard University researchers found that gerrymandering often creates “safe” seats for politicians, meaning their races are less competitive.

In turn, those politicians become less responsive to the needs of their constituents, who become discouraged about voting as a result.

When could new maps take effect?

If approved, the new map could be used as early as the next election cycle, including the upcoming midterms, depending on legal approval.

However, the plan could face legal challenges. Critics have questioned the ballot wording and the process used by lawmakers.

The Virginia Supreme Court has allowed the vote to go ahead while reviewing those concerns.

If it later finds that rules were broken, the results could be overturned, and the current maps would remain.

Why this vote could shape power in Washington?

A handful of seats could decide control of the US House.

Republicans currently hold a narrow 218–213 majority, but Democrats are seen as competitive heading into the midterms.

Political leaders have underscored the stakes.

Hakeem Jeffries, the Democratic Party’s leader in the House, has pointed to Virginia as a crucial battleground, while Mike Johnson has said the result will be closely watched across the country.

What it means to control the US House

The party with the majority (more seats) in Congress can:

• Set the agenda, deciding which bills are brought up for debate
• Control committees, including investigations and hearings
• Pass legislation more easily (if they stay united)
• Block bills from the minority party.

The majority party also chooses the speaker of the House, who has major influence over what reaches the floor.

Where else has this happened?

Virginia’s redistricting vote is part of a larger political battle playing out in the US. Republicans in Texas, encouraged by Donald Trump, have redrawn district maps to strengthen their advantage, prompting similar efforts in other states.

In rare cases, voters have been asked to decide directly, including in California last year and now in Virginia.

In California, voters backed the changes despite concerns about fairness. Now it’s Virginia’s turn to decide.

What Democrats are saying, and why?

Democrats argue the plan is a response to Republican actions in other states, not just a power grab.

Leaders like Obama had long opposed gerrymandering in principle, but have now backed the Virginia move, even releasing a video asking voters to go out and vote for the constitutional amendment.

Barcelona’s Yamal bags Young Sportsperson of the Year accolade a year after winning the Breakthrough award in 2025.

Tennis ruled the red carpet in Madrid as Aryna Sabalenka and Carlos Alcaraz were crowned Sportswoman and Sportsman of the Year at the Laureus Awards.

The pair were honoured on Monday after glittering 2025 campaigns that saw them finish atop the women’s and men’s tennis rankings, respectively.

Spaniard Alcaraz, 22, reclaimed the year-end world number one spot after capturing two Grand Slam titles at the French Open and US Open, underlining his supremacy across surfaces.

Belarusian Sabalenka, 27, meanwhile, stood alongside him in the winners’ circle in New York and also reached the final in Australia and France, capping a season of relentless consistency.

With her triumph, Sabalenka joins a roll call of Laureus Sportswoman of the Year recipients from her sport, including Serena Williams, Jennifer Capriati, Justine Henin and Naomi Osaka.

Barcelona and Spain athlete Lamine Yamal, 18, won the Young Sportsperson of the Year award. It is the second award for the young Barca forward after being voted Breakthrough Sportsperson of the Year in 2025, making him the youngest athlete to have won two Laureus awards.

German football great Toni Kroos won the world sporting inspiration award, and retired gymnast Nadia Comaneci got the lifetime achievement prize.

The world action sportsperson award went to American snowboarder Chloe Kim.

Brazilian Gabriel Araujo was the world sportsperson of the year with a disability.

In a first for the awards, the ceremony was hosted by two athletes – both former Laureus winners – Novak Djokovic and Eileen Gu. Last year’s top honours went to gymnast Simone Biles and pole-vaulter Mondo Duplantis.

McIlroy takes comeback prize

Elsewhere, Rory McIlroy claimed the World Comeback of the Year Award after ending an 11-year wait to complete the career Grand Slam with a playoff victory at the 2025 Masters, a title he defended in 2026.

Formula One’s Lando Norris was named World Breakthrough of the Year, while Paris St Germain took World Team of the Year after a trophy haul in 2025 that included the French league and Cup, plus their first Champions League crown.

The Laureus World Sports Awards nominees are selected by the global media, while the winners are determined by the 69 members of the Laureus World Sports Academy.

The awards have been presented annually since 2000.

Laureus winners 2026:

• World Sportsman of the Year Award: Carlos Alcaraz
• World Sportswoman of the Year Award: Aryna Sabalenka
• World Team of the Year Award: Paris Saint-Germain
• World Breakthrough of the Year Award: Lando Norris
• World Comeback of the Year Award: Rory McIlroy
• World Sportsperson of the Year with a Disability Award: Gabriel Araujo
• World Action Sportsperson of the Year Award: Chloe Kim
• World Young Sportsperson of the Year Award: Lamine Yamal
• Laureus Sporting Inspiration Award: Toni Kroos
• Lifetime Achievement Award: Nadia Comaneci
• Laureus Sport for Good Award: Futbol Mas

THE oldest member of a much-loved 70s pop group has passed away, his family has announced.

Alan Osmond, the founding brother and guitarist of The Osmonds, died on Monday aged 76.

The family said in a statement that his wife Suzanne and their eight sons were beside Osmond at his bedside when he passed away, but did not reveal an official cause of death.

Alan Osmond had battled multiple sclerosis for 40 years after being first diagnosed in 1987.

He was the third-born child of parents George Virl Osmond Sr. and Olive Osmond, and in 1958 performed alongside his younger brothers Wayne, Merrill and Jay on a TV show at the age of 12.

The group first found fame as a barbershop quartet on The Andy Williams Show.

This early success set the stage for their siblings to join the lineup; once younger brother Donny arrived, the group transitioned into pop music as “The Osmonds,” quickly achieving superstar status as teen heart-throbs.

They had hits such as One Bad Apple, Yo-Yo, Down by the Lazy River and Love Me for a Reason.

Alan left the group in 2007, and his brothers went on with solo careers.

Alan and his brother Merrill founded the Stadium of Fire in Provo, Utah, a massive Fourth of July celebration, and he also co-founded and ran the OneHeart Foundation.

He then published his memoir, “One Way Ticket,” in 2024.

Osmond is survived by his wife, their eight sons, 30 grandchildren, and five great-grandchildren.

The US tech giant Palantir Technologies has posted what it terms a summary of Palantir CEO Alex Karp and head of corporate affairs Nicholas Zamiska’s book, The Technological Republic, on social media.

Many of the positions articulated in the book go far beyond what would normally be expected of a tech company: calling for the introduction of national service, the “moral” duty of technology companies to participate in defence, the necessity for hard power if what it calls free and democratic powers are to prevail, and an embrace of religion in public life.

The publication of what appears to be a 22-point manifesto comes at a critical time for Palantir, which faces global criticism for its support of US President Donald Trump’s controversial immigration crackdown and its backing of the Israeli military’s actions in Gaza and the occupied West Bank.

Many have expressed alarm at the book’s emphasis on cultural hierarchies and what it calls “regressive” cultures.

Eliot Higgins, the founder of the online investigations platform Bellingcat, sarcastically pointed out how “completely normal” it was for a tech company to post what he said was a manifesto attacking democratic norms. “It’s also worth being clear about who’s doing the arguing,” Higgins added. “Palantir sells operational software to defence, intelligence, immigration & police agencies. These 22 points aren’t philosophy floating in space, they’re the public ideology of a company whose revenue depends on the politics it’s advocating.”

So, what is Palantir, why is it so controversial, and why has it posted the “manifesto” now?

What does the book say?

As well as referring to the hard power needed to replace the “soaring rhetoric” previously used to defend “free and democratic societies”, the book rails against what it calls the “psychologization of modern politics”, which appears to criticise anyone the authors feel has become too emotionally invested in their political representatives and identity.

The call for people to care less about politics appears to critics as a way of deflecting from Palantir’s own controversial political positions and its openness to working with government policies that clamp down on liberty. Worryingly for some is also the book’s emphasis on what it calls the technology sector’s “obligation to participate in the defence of the nation”, and on the supposed inevitability of developing AI weapons.

Among other points, the writers appear to defend billionaires, such as Elon Musk, whose achievements, they say, are not met with “curiosity or genuine interest” but are instead dismissed by those who “snicker” at the South African-born businessman. Musk was heavily criticised for his role as the head of DOGE, or the US Department for Government Efficiency, which scrapped several government agencies without much regard for the roles those agencies played, or the legal and political process necessary to shut such agencies down.

Palantir’s post concludes by criticising “the shallow temptation of a vacant and hollow pluralism”. It argues that an unthinking commitment to inclusivity and pluralism “glosses over the fact that certain cultures and indeed subcultures… have produced wonders. Others have proven middling, and worse, regressive and harmful”.

How have people reacted?

Not well.

Mark Coeckelbergh, a Belgian philosopher of technology who teaches at the University of Vienna, described Palantir’s messaging as an “example of technofascism”, while Greek economist and former Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis said Palantir had effectively signalled a willingness “to add to nuclear Armageddon the AI-driven threat to humanity’s existence”.

Posting on social media, Arnaud Bertrand, the entrepreneur and geopolitical commentator, claimed that Palantir had revealed a dangerous “ideological agenda”.

“They’re effectively saying ‘our tools aren’t meant to serve your foreign policy. They’re meant to enforce ours’,” he wrote.

What is Palantir?

Palantir Technologies is widely regarded as one of the world’s most influential data analytics firms, securing major contracts with governments, militaries and global corporations.

Founded in 2003 by Alex Karp and Peter Thiel, with support from In-Q-Tel, the CIA’s venture capital arm, it built its early business on post-9/11 intelligence work and has since expanded internationally, with contracts across Europe, the Middle East, and beyond.

While retaining his shares in Palantir, Thiel is understood to no longer play an active role in its day-to-day operations. Karp has positioned himself as the public face of the company.

Under Karp’s leadership, Palantir has drawn heavily on the expertise of former members of Israel’s cyber-intelligence unit, 8200. After the company announced a “strategic partnership” with Israel in January 2024, its involvement in Gaza and the occupied West Bank expanded considerably. Using a mix of intercepted communications, satellite material and other digital data sources, Palantir began integrating these inputs to help produce targeting databases – effectively, “kill lists” – for the Israeli military.

It has also cultivated close ties with US security agencies, particularly during the Trump administration, of which Thiel has been an enthusiastic backer, and has also worked with Israel in its occupation of the West Bank and genocide in Gaza.

According to its critics, including the rights group Amnesty International, “Palantir has a track record of flagrantly disregarding international law and standards, both in the violations of the human rights of migrants in the United States, to which it risks contributing to, and its ongoing supply of artificial intelligence (AI) products and services to the Israeli military and intelligence services that are linked to Israel’s ongoing genocide in Gaza.”

What exactly has Palantir been accused of in Israel and the US?

Palantir Technologies has faced criticism across the world for its enabling of government surveillance and military systems in the US and Israel.

In the US, it has been accused of supporting immigration enforcement and policing tools that aggregate vast personal datasets, including medical information, enabling profiling and raising due process and privacy concerns. In Israel, critics allege that its AI and data platforms have been used in military operations in Gaza, potentially contributing to the targeting decisions that have underpinned Israel’s genocide there.

Responding to questions from Al Jazeera earlier this year, a spokesperson for Palantir said, “As a company, Palantir does support Israel. We’ve chosen to support them because of the appalling events of October 7th. And more broadly, we’ve chosen to support them because we believe in supporting the West and its allies – and Israel is an important ally of the West.” The spokesman was referring to the Hamas-led October 7, 2023, attack on Israel, after which Israel launched its genocidal war on Gaza.

Why post the ‘manifesto’ now?

Palantir’s politics and alarm over its influence are growing and gaining traction across much of the West.

As well as concern among US Democrats, politicians in Germany, Ireland, and in the European Parliament have criticised the tech giant, whose products, according to one German lawmaker and cyber security expert, have fallen short of security standards across the bloc.

In the UK, the row over the National Health Service’s adoption of Palantir technology has led to some of the fiercest criticism yet. MPs calling for the UK to take advantage of an early break in the tech giant’s 330 million-pound ($446.4m) contract with the health service labelled Palantir “dreadful” and “shameful” in a debate last week, after which even the government conceded that it was “no fan” of the US company’s politics.

Louis Mosley, the head of Palantir Technologies UK, defended the company by arguing that it had no interest in patient data and existed only as a tool to better manage health service resources.

This is a very similar situation to the one that surrounded Red Bull’s former head of strategy, Will Courtenay, who is now McLaren’s sporting director.

It emerged at the 2024 Singapore Grand Prix that Courtenay had signed to join McLaren when his contract ended, and Red Bull emphasised that he would not be allowed to leave before 2026.

They did not specify exactly when in 2026, and BBC Sport has been told that negotiations were held that led to him starting work at McLaren on 1 January this year.

Despite that, for the entirety of last year, Courtenay stayed in his previous role, even though Red Bull were fighting McLaren for the drivers’ championship.

For now, the same thing will happen with Lambiase – he will continue in his role as Red Bull’s head of racing and race engineer to Verstappen for the foreseeable future.

However, just because Red Bull’s statement announcing his departure said he would not be joining McLaren until 2028 does not necessarily mean that will be the case.

McLaren’s statement said Lambiase would join “no later than 2028”. That means they will be hoping to come to an agreement with Red Bull that shortens that timeframe.

It’s worth pointing out, meanwhile, that McLaren have emphasised that Lambiase is joining to provide support for team principal Andrea Stella, not ultimately replace him.

Stella has until now been fulfilling the role to which Lambiase has been appointed, that of chief racing officer, in addition to that of team principal.

Stella said last week: “Zak (Brown, the chief executive officer of McLaren Racing) and I have built a flat team structure, in which it is essential to ensure all leaders are properly empowered, but at the same time, we must guarantee there is always the necessary level of long-term support.

“It goes without saying that, with this approach, the dual role I currently hold could not be sustainable in the long run.”

McLaren have indirectly – but very clearly – rejected what are said to be inaccurate reports that Stella is on his way to Ferrari.

Stella said in a statement issued by McLaren on Friday: “Some of the recent rumours, including those regarding astronomical salaries and mythical pre-contracts, have made me smile.

“It almost seems as though the ‘silly season’, which usually begins before summer, has arrived early!

“I’m quite used to this sort of thing by now and I take with a smile. It almost looks as if some envious pastry chef has tried to spoil the preparation of a good dessert at the McLaren patisserie. However, we do know very well how to distinguish the good ingredients from the poisoned biscuits.”

During a recent Zoom interview from his studio in Switzerland, Peter Zumthor offered a candid look at the making of the Los Angeles County Museum of Art’s new David Geffen Galleries.

The Pritzker Prize-winning architect addressed long-standing criticisms of the building and answered questions about his craft. He noted that the structure is a rejection of the overly “slick” architecture he believes defines the present moment, and shed light on the building’s early development, describing a contained process in which the concept was shaped before being presented to the public.

Finally, he discussed the broader ambition of the endeavor: dissolving traditional circulation and prioritizing emotional experience over institutional order.

The following interview excerpts have been edited and condensed for length and clarity.

You are well–known as both an architect and a craftsman. I think the biggest place for that focus was the concrete. I’m curious about how you formed it. It’s not the typical museum concrete.

I work like an artist in building. This means I custom-make buildings. I can use a few standard details or products, like in the basement. But where the building has an identity, becomes visible, it’s almost all handmade. I have an image of what I want to do, what the building should do, how it should look. So I need people who can help me make custom-made products.

The people who did the formwork — the concrete pouring — [worked in] groups of 100 or more. They were fantastic. They loved their work. At the beginning, formwork leaked on a door, and it looked terrible. They said, “Peter, we’re sorry. We made a mistake. We can fix this. You will not see this afterwards.” But if you make a mistake, you cannot mend it, because what you’re doing here is a concrete sculpture. Sculptures are never mended.

It’s not a perfectly smooth concrete. I’m assuming that’s on purpose?

I love this kind of rawness. This was what I gladly learned. Michael [Govan] in a very friendly, careful way let me know that he would like more “American details” and fewer “European details.” OK, my European details, they stand. That’s what I did 20, 30 years ago. My background as a furniture maker shows, and I can do this. But the challenge in this museum is to get the right “American” roughness. And I think I pretty much succeeded.

What I learned in California [came] back to Europe, and many times we now say in the office, “Let’s do this more L.A.-style.” Because we have too many slick magazines in the world. We have this corporate architecture which doesn’t want to see any touch of a hand. No mistakes. What we need is not refinement. We need wholehearted directness. This is what I take back from America. There’s a certain freshness. It’s not overly refined. I’m proud of that. The roughness has to do with our times. Because our time is slick and glossy, right? The time to make refined, slick architecture is over.

Horizontal light enters from floor-to-ceiling windows around the perimeter of LACMA’s new David Geffen Galleries, which use concrete as a kind of living building material.

(Iwan Baan)

In a 2023 interview with [architecture critic] Christopher Hawthorne, you said there were no “Zumthor details” left in the building. Do you think there are any Zumthor details now?

Of course there are Zumthor details. And I love them. They are not Swiss details. I think Christopher got this wrong. I was actually proudly speaking of how I learned a new way of looking at details. It doesn’t have to be refined all the time.

[Editor’s note: Zumthor told Hawthorne verbatim, “There are no Zumthor details any more,” in the 2023 interview with the New York Times.]

There’s always a tension with every building when it comes to value engineering. Were there any other places where you would want [David Geffen Galleries] to be different?

Basically, I say no. I’m very proud of this building. This is what I wanted to do, and this is what Michael helped me to do. This is exactly it. It’s one of my children and I love it.

Do you see this approach as an evolution in your work? Or is it more specifically for L.A.?

L.A. has changed me. And it’s in a good way. I would [not] have changed and reacted to our slick times the same way without L.A.

There were complaints that the project, and the process, were not as public as some people thought they should be. What is your reaction to that criticism?

I think I can say this: Michael said, “We cannot make a competition or anything like it, because competitions in the U.S. always end up with a winner who doesn’t build because he found out his own way of staging this whole procedure. The first, the most important thing, is that we start on a small budget, just the two of us.” That’s what we did. So when we started to talk about this museum, it was him and me, basically, and he gave me a little bit of money. And he said, “There will come a time when we will have to show something to the public. Let’s see whether people say yes.” They could have said no, but I think what they saw at that point was already too convincing.

Architect Peter Zumthor speaks at the press preview for the David Geffen Galleries at Los Angeles County Museum of Art.

(LACMA/ Museum Associates / Gary Leonard)

Because the museum’s not organized in a traditional way, it might be harder than normal to navigate for some people. It might be a little confusing. What do you say to that concern?

This will take some time, to see the benefits of this new type of museum. I think if you start to like this building in one corner or in another, or you get lost, you start to understand what it is all about. When something new comes, you have to learn, right? But I hope you can see this building never looks down on you. This building is, in a way, deeply human. And it lets you have your opinion.

There are people who have said, very loudly, this space shouldn’t have lost square footage. What is your response to that?

Small museums are beautiful, big museums tend to be really difficult. And the bigger the museum gets, the more difficult it is to make it easily accessible. So I’m very glad that this is not bigger. But it feels bigger.

What is this with bigness? What kind of a hang-up is this? You don’t have to be big. It has the right scale. We were often asked, “Can you experience this building and this collection in one day?” And we said, “Maybe. But maybe it will be better to come back.” Start from the other end. You have your own personal path. And then you research a little bit further. I think these are the beautiful ideas of how to experience the building. And I think it’s endless.

The interior of LACMA’s new David Geffen Galleries encourages guests to wander and make their own connections rather than follow a linear path.

(Eric Thayer / Los Angeles Times)

Can you go back to the beginning and talk about the core concept for the museum?

There are three major things that I always have to answer, whatever I do. What does the building do with the place? Does it help the place? Does it interpret the place? And then, what is the content of the building? What does the building have to do? Why are we building this?

To start out, there was a museum here which was modeled a bit after Lincoln Center. Later, it got clogged up with new buildings and you didn’t recognize the initial idea anymore. These things we took away. Whenever a building is there, whether it’s beautiful or ugly, it will always have grown into the soul of somebody. There will always be people saying, “No, no, I want to keep it.” This is part of my life. I understand this kind of thing always comes up.

The place was rather difficult because I couldn’t see any big urbanistic concept in L.A. L.A. [is] not urban in the European sense with, for instance, the market square.

There was a master plan, which was made by Renzo Piano. And this presented a long axis, and I tried to follow it. It just did not feel right. So I started to react in a more organic way, inspired by the tar pits. This whole area, which to me, is the ancient part of the site, became the starting point.

There was more: like the idea that side light is the most human light. Yeah, no skylights. And another thing was the museum had to be open to its surroundings. So contemporary L.A. should be present at all times. It should come in, whenever you can look out.

Another important thing … was to create or enlarge the public space that Michael [Govan] had started to create between his buildings. Friday evenings, Saturday, you saw so many families there. There is a desire here, a wish, for public space. This is not exactly the strength of L.A. So I think it was amazing that we were allowed to lift up the building and have the whole ground free for people.

Also, let’s do the museum on one level only. Classical museums have a main level, then they have a second level and a third level, a south wing and north wing and so on. And then, as an artist, you can have your work on the main level in the most beautiful spot. But as an artist, you can also land top left, third level near to the attic. So let’s make a building type which treats everybody equal.

LACMA’s David Geffen Galleries are hoisted above the ground on discrete piers, allowing for ample public space below.

(Eric Thayer / Los Angeles Times)

And then we started to think about how we wanted something open for wandering, experiencing and dreaming. This is always difficult to explain — let’s have the knowledge of art, of the history of art, coming second. It’s not because I think this is a secondary thing. It’s just because our experience should come first.

As a boy, I saw the opposite. There’s a tour and there’s a guide, and the guide starts to tell you what you should think. And I never liked this. We thought we should lay out things on a big plane where you can stroll and wander and develop your interest in art. Follow your own path.

You’re overturning a lot of unspoken rules in the art world. And I guess that’s the point in a lot of ways?

This is our point. You see other rules. For instance, if you do a new museum, the conservators say art can be exposed to less daylight. I told them as a joke, “If it goes on like this, soon the art will be in the basement, locked away.”

We have a building wide and long enough that within the building, you can find strong daylight for, let’s say, china or pottery, which love daylight. Then you can go deep into the building where it gets darker, and you can put pieces you don’t want to expose too much to the light. All without having to flip a switch.

Morbi, India – For seven years, Pradeep Kumar would walk into the ceramics factory in western India at 9am, load raw materials – clay, quartz and sand – into the kiln, and spend the day around the heat and dust of the furnaces.

He handled the clay at different stages, sometimes feeding it into machines, sometimes moving semi-processed pieces towards firing. The work was repetitive and demanding, with no protective gear, such as gloves and masks, against the high temperatures.

“It would be very challenging in the summers since the heat would be at its peak,” he told Al Jazeera.

But on March 15, he lost his job – not because of anything he or the company behind his factory had done, but because the United States and Israel attacked Iran, triggering another war in the Middle East and a global fuel crisis.

Barely two weeks after the war began, the ceramics company where he worked shut down due to a shortage of propane and natural gas. The company, in Morbi in Gujarat state – like all of its peers in the ceramics industry – depends on these critical ingredients.

Morbi is the centre of India’s ceramics industry that employs more than 400,000 people. More than half of these workers, like Kumar, are migrants from poorer Indian states like Uttar Pradesh and Bihar.

Five days after Kumar lost his job, the 29-year-old took his wife and their three children back to their home in Uttar Pradesh’s Hardoi district.

“I am here until every other migrant worker who came back home with us goes back,” he told Al Jazeera.

“We don’t want to suffer like dogs, like we did during the COVID-19 pandemic,” he added, referring to the 2020 and 2021 exodus of migrant workers from India’s more industrialised western states to the poorer east, with millions of starving families, including children, walking on foot for days and sometimes weeks to reach their homes amid a coronavirus lockdown.

About 450 of 600 companies shut

With more than 600 companies, Morbi produces about 80 percent of India’s ceramics in the form of tiles, toilets, bathtubs and wash basins. But at least 450 of those companies have been forced to shut down as a standoff on the Strait of Hormuz, a lifeline for India’s gas imports, continues.

Meanwhile, the war continues, with the US on Sunday capturing an Iranian cargo vessel, even as Washington says it is willing to hold another round of talks with Tehran in Pakistan to reach a deal. Tehran has refused to commit to peace talks after its ship was seized.

The developments came as a fragile ceasefire agreed by Iran and the US after a month of fighting expires on Wednesday. But a re-escalation in hostilities has seen Iran shutting down Hormuz for traffic, disrupting global fuel supplies and raising oil prices.

“All manufacturing units in Morbi rely on propane and natural gas to fire kilns at high temperatures. While propane is supplied by private companies, natural gas is provided by the state to those with connections. Around 60 percent of manufacturers use propane because it is comparatively cheaper,” Siddharth Bopaliya, a 27-year-old third-generation manufacturer and trader in Morbi, told Al Jazeera.

Manoj Arvadiya, president of the Morbi Ceramic Manufacturers Association, said they had shut down the units till April 15, hoping that the Middle East crisis would be resolved by then.

“But even today, only around 100 units have opened, and most have still not begun the manufacturing process. For at least another 15 days, it is likely to remain the same,” he told Al Jazeera.

Arvadiya said the closure has impacted 200,000 workers, with more than a quarter of them forced to go back to their homes in other states.

India’s ceramic industry is valued at $6bn.

“About 25 percent of Morbi’s ceramics are exported to countries in the Middle East, Africa and Europe, with a net worth of $1.5bn. But exports are now delayed and, in some cases, completely halted, especially to Middle Eastern countries, due to the production slowdown over the past month,” Arvadiya told Al Jazeera.

Factories that rely on propane remain shut in Morbi. Though natural gas is mostly available, many units have not made the switch yet, as new connections are being priced at 93 rupees a kilo, while existing users receive it at about 70 rupees.

Khushiram Sapariya, a manufacturer of washbasins who relies on propane, said he will wait this month before deciding on reopening his factory.

“Because then I have to call hundreds of staff who have gone to their homes, and I want to be sure before taking their responsibility,” he said.

Returned home with ‘Morbi disease’

Among the workers who left Morbi last month is 27-year-old Ankur Singh.

“The shutdown of my company did not send me back alone, but with a Morbi disease – silicosis. I would often have fever and cough but kept ignoring it, until I came back to my hometown near Patna in Bihar and found after a check-up that it was silicosis,” he told Al Jazeera.

Silicosis is an incurable lung disease caused by inhalation of silica dust found in rock, sand, quartz and other building materials. One of the oldest occupational diseases in the world, it kills thousands of people every year.

Gujarat-based labour rights activist Chirag Chavda says the disease is “widespread in Morbi because workers are routinely exposed to fine silica dust generated during ceramic production”.

“Even those not directly involved in moulding or kiln work often inhale the particles due to poor ventilation and prolonged exposure across factory spaces,” he told Al Jazeera.

Chavda said most ceramic companies do not follow the government regulations regarding the safety of workers.

Harish Zala, 40, had worked in different ceramic companies in Morbi for two decades before he got silicosis two years ago. He said he received no help from his employer, who allegedly abused and threatened his father when he visited the company after the diagnosis.

“Every year, at least one labourer dies of silicosis in each company, while several get detected for silicosis,” Zala told Al Jazeera. “Some like me get lucky and survive, but have no choice but to quit the job immediately.”

Zala said many companies do not provide the workers with written proof of employment, such as appointment letters, salary slips, or identity cards. “This is done so that if a worker later demands labour rights or legal entitlements, they have no concrete evidence to prove that they were employed by the company.”

Chirag added that such workers are also denied social security under various Indian laws regarding salaries or pension funds, since doing so would establish proof of employment.

“As a result, even after working for years, workers are deprived of their labour rights due to a lack of evidence. This leaves employers with little to no legal accountability,” he said.

In Morbi, there are also migrants like Sushma Devi, 56, who did not go back to her home in West Bengal because the tile company her son works at has promised to continue giving them shelter and food as it waits for manufacturing to resume.

“I am here with a few more people because we did not want to spend money on travelling. Here, at least our ration is sorted,” she said as she walked with a bundle of dry twigs, wood and discarded plywood for the cooking.

“We step out to collect these every day to be able to cook our two-time meal,” said Devi. “I hope the kilns and manufacturing resume soon, but I also hope they don’t stop giving us rice and potatoes even if the kilns don’t start running anytime soon.”

Devi’s husband, Debendar, and their son Ankit live in a one-room set given to them by their company. The family has access to a common toilet for 10 families on one floor.

Kumar, meanwhile, is running out of his meagre savings and fears he could fall into a debt trap.

“Initially, we ate from whatever we had saved. But the house needed repair and we had to borrow 20,000 rupees ($214) from a relative, which we have no idea when or how we will repay,” he said, looking at the reworked roof of his brick house in Hardoi.

Dozens of US veterans and family members of military personnel have been arrested while staging a protest in the US Capitol building in opposition to the war on Iran.

Emmerdale’s Moira Dingle actress Natalie J Robb has hinted her character could take a deadly revenge on evil Joe Tate in a gun showdown, and she ‘could kill him’

There’s dramatic scenes on the way on Emmerdale as Joe Tate is finally rumbled by Moira Dingle.

Robert Sugden confesses his part in Moira being arrested over Celia Daniels’ drugs and human trafficking crimes. When he explains what really happened, Moira finds out Joe was blackmailing him and Victoria Sugden.

But she’s left even more rage-filled when she realises Joe is a huge part of the reason she’s been in prison over a double murder she did not commit. Preparing to take revenge, it all leads to a gun showdown at Home Farm.

Will Moira end up in prison again though if she takes a deadly revenge on Joe? Actress Natalie J Robb has revealed what fans can expect from the moment, and what the future holds for Joe…

READ MORE: Soap spoilers for next week: Icon faces death, Swarla wedding and deadly stuntREAD MORE: Coronation Street Lisa and Carla wedding first look as Roy makes moving gesture

Robert tells Moira the truth about planting the documents. How does she react?

Robert starts to feel guilty because he finds out that it’s Moira’s birthday and everybody has kind of forgotten about it. She says that it doesn’t matter and then he gets really guilty about it.

Moira starts to get a little bit suspicious and thinks: ‘What’s going on here? This is odd’. He gives her some pictures that Holly did, and things like that, which he found in the attic.

And then he just says something and she says: ‘How did you know about that?’ Because he wouldn’t have known where the documents were hidden. Then of course she gets it out of him and he confesses that it was him and she goes ballistic.

She’s really hurt actually, because she doesn’t expect that of him. She actually thought he’d turned a corner and changed as a person. Then he admits that it was down to Joe Tate – that he forced him – and why he had to protect Victoria and it was down to Joe Tate.

Moira plots revenge doesn’t she…

I’m fuming then, so I go back to the house to tell Cain but he’s having a bit of an argument with Sam. He’s just not in the mood so I think, good old Moira style, she gets her shotgun and goes to visit Joe Tate.

And literally at that point, she’s going round there to kill him. She has the shotgun, she makes him sit down and try to confess. He’s trying to play dumb but she knows it’s down to him.

Then more people get involved. Obviously she doesn’t kill him. But she swears to him at this point that she will make it her priority to make his life a living hell. Or a non-living one…

Why does she decide not to tell Cain about Robert?

She thinks if he finds out, he’s going to go ballistic and do something stupid. She’s just got out of prison, the last thing she wants is for him to go to prison.

But that’s going to eat him up because he knows what she’s been doing for Robert as well. And the fact that he’s in my farm, it’s just a hard pill to swallow. But I’m trying to prevent something terrible happening and protect the marriage as well, because we’re dealing with something that’s a lot bigger than money.

When she has the shotgun, does it not enter her head that she might end up back in prison?

I don’t think she cares at that point. In that split second, she’s so angry because he’s [Cain] had to deal with the cancer on his own. He’s [Joe] kept me away from my children and she thinks: ‘Really? Are you really that horrible and that cruel? Are you really that greedy? It’s all about power’.

It’s a bit like the world we’re living in now, all about power and it’s not actually about being humane to people. And at that point she’s definitely going there to kill him and she nearly does.

Can you tease what’s to come for Joe?

Well I think he’s going to be under her radar, it might just be quietly. He might try to worm her round. But we don’t know how that’s going to pan out with the writing and which route they’re going to go.

But when I was filming the scenes, it was pretty certain that she was going to get him back in some way or another. And she does, she does team up with people to get him to suffer in a similar way, but that would be by him losing everything, so that he has no power. So we’ll see.

Would you like Moira and Kim to become friends after their recent heart-to-heart at the prison?

It’s nice that they don’t get on but they have that mutual respect for each other. You really see how Kim knows what that farm meant to Moira. And for her to do that for him, it really opens Kim’s eyes. Like: ‘Oh right, okay, it’s a proper love’.

She really respects that and it’s about family roots and values. So there’s that respect for each other. I think that’ll always be there in the background now but they’ll still have fights – probably because of Joe to be honest, he’ll be the main factor!

Emmerdale airs weeknights at 8pm on ITV1 and ITVX. * Follow Mirror Celebs and TV on TikTok , Snapchat , Instagram , Twitter , Facebook , YouTube and Threads .

Japan could soon sell weapons overseas, including fighter jets, in major shift from pacifist policies introduced after World War II.

The cabinet of Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi has lifted a ban on exporting lethal weapons, including fighter jets, in a major shift to Japan’s pacifist post-World War II constitution.

In a post on X announcing the changes on Tuesday, Takaichi did not specify which weapons Japan would now sell overseas. However, Japanese newspapers said the changes would encompass fighter jets, missiles and warships, which Japan has recently agreed to build for Australia.

“With this amendment, transfers of all defence equipment will in principle become possible,” Takaichi said, adding that “recipients will be limited to countries that commit to use in accordance with the UN Charter”.

“In an increasingly severe security environment, no single country can now protect its own peace and security alone.”

At least 17 countries will be eligible to buy weapons manufactured in Japan under the changes, Japan’s Chunichi newspaper reported, adding that this list may be expanded if more countries enter into bilateral agreements with Japan.

Previous rules, introduced in 1967 and enacted in 1976, had limited Japanese military exports to non-lethal arms, such as those used for surveillance and mine sweeping, Japan’s Asahi newspaper reported.

Asahi also reported that Japan will still restrict exporting weapons to countries where fighting is currently taking place, but exemptions are allowed under “special circumstances” where Japan’s national security needs are taken into account.

Countries interested in buying Japanese-made weapons include Australia, New Zealand, the Philippines and Indonesia, which recently signed a major defence pact with the United States, Chunichi reported, citing Japan’s Ministry of Defence.

Tokyo’s change in policy comes soon after Japan and Australia signed a $7bn deal that will see Japan’s Mitsubishi Heavy Industries build the first three of 11 warships for the Australian navy.

Takaichi sends offering to controversial war shrine

The changes announced by Takaichi on Tuesday come amid reports that the Japanese prime minister had sent a ritual offering to the notorious Yasukuni Shrine in Tokyo on the occasion of its spring festival.

Built in the 1800s to honour Japan’s war dead, the shrine includes the names of more than 1,000 convicted Japanese war criminals from World War II, including 14 who were found guilty of “Class A” crimes.

Visits by Japanese officials to the shrine have long been considered insensitive to the people of China, South Korea, and other countries that Japanese soldiers brutalised during the war.

After the defeat of Axis countries, including the bombing of Japan’s Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of World War II, Japan introduced a new constitution renouncing participation in war.

However, Takaichi, considered a China “hawk” and sometimes referred to as Japan’s “Iron Lady”, is among a number of recent Japanese leaders to have pushed back against the country’s pacifist stance.