The United States has steered an economic order for 80 years based on trade and trust, making the country the world’s financial superpower. That vision is now blurred.
Charges of antisemitism and liberal bias and dismay over cuts to the opera budget have led to a small mutiny at Chautauqua Institution. And this was after the attack on Salman Rushdie.
The company counts on the sale of devices for three-quarters of its nearly $400 billion in annual revenue, and it makes almost all of its iPhones, iPads and Macs overseas.
DA leader John Steenhuisen pictured with President Ramaphosa (L) and Deputy President Paul Mashatile (R) not long after their coalition was formed
South Africa's coalition government is on shaky ground, with the sharp divisions between its two biggest parties - the African National Congress (ANC) and Democratic Alliance (DA) - exposed in a crucial vote on the national budget.
The centre-right DA voted against the fiscal framework - a key part of the budget - after rejecting an increase in VAT, and demanding a cut in spending across all government departments.
The ANC, which positions itself as a centre-left party, refused to bow to what it called the DA's demand for an "austerity budget".
It demonstrated its political acumen by winning the support of a slew of smaller parties - both inside and outside government - to get the fiscal framework through parliament by 194 votes to 182.
The DA filed papers in court to challenge the vote, saying it was "procedurally flawed" while its top leadership is due to meet later to decide whether or not to remain in what South Africans call a government of national unity (GNU).
Professor William Gumede, an academic at Wits University's school of governance in Johannesburg, told the BBC it was unclear whether the DA would quit the government at this stage.
"It will be asking itself whether this is the tipping-point or whether it should wait - at least until the outcome of the court case," Prof Gumede said.
The coalition government was formed less than a year ago after the ANC lost its parliamentary majority in elections for the first time since Nelson Mandela led it to power in 1994 at the end of white-minority rule.
South Africa's business sector lobbied the two parties to enter into a coalition, seeing it as the best option to guarantee economic stability.
But hinting that the DA's participation was no longer certain, DA spokesman Willie Aucamp accused the ANC of a "serious infraction" and said the party had "crossed a line in the sand".
DA federal chair Helen Zille said the party would consider all its options, and not rush into a decsion.
"We know that being in a coalition requires compromise. You can't get it all. But the ANC also can't get it all, and they are refusing, point blank, to share power," Zille added.
The ANC took an equally tough stand, with its parliamentary chief whip, Mdumiseni Ntuli, accusing the DA of "complete betrayal" by breaking ranks with its partners in the GNU.
"The DA is a member, or was a member," Ntuli said.
"I don't know what is going to happen with them now, but the GNU remains," he added, referring to the fact that other parties in the 10-member coalition remain committed to it.
President Cyril Ramaphosa's spokesman Vincent Magwenya also threw down the gauntlet to the DA, saying: "You can't be part of a government whose budget you opposed."
The DA found itself voting alongside South Africa's two biggest, and most populist, opposition parties - former President Jacob Zuma's uMkhonto weSizwe (MK) party and Julius Malema's Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF).
Advocating the nationalisation of key sectors of the economy, these two parties are the impeccable foes of the pro-business DA.
But the three parties were united in opposing a VAT increase, believing it would hit the poor hard.
As DA leader John Steenhuisen put it: "The ANC is out of touch with the people, and if they bought their own groceries or filled their own tanks, they would know how expensive life already is."
But the ANC argued that a VAT increase - set at 0.5% this year and a further 0.5% next year - was necessary to raise revenue, and to offer public services such as health and education.
Crucially, the Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP) voted with the ANC, signalling the end of the alliance it formed with the DA in the build-up to the election in a failed bid to keep Ramaphosa's party out of power.
ActionSA - a small opposition party which broke away from the DA - helped the ANC clinch the vote.
It said it had reached a deal with the ANC that would see the VAT increase scrapped, while alternative ways of raising revenue for the government are explored.
"Yesterday's [Wednesday's] adoption of the report on the fiscal framework was merely one step in a multi-stage budgeting process before the final budget is approved," ActionSA said in a statement.
Getty Images
Prof Gumede says the DA has taken the opportunity to show "it is pro-poor"
Prof Gumede said the ANC would find it difficult to convince the public to pay more taxes when public services were crumbling.
"The optics don't look good for the ANC," he told the BBC.
"The DA has taken the budget as an opportunity to make a big impact, and to show it is pro-poor."
The dispute over the budget is the latest sign of the sharp differences between the two parties, with the DA also challenging in the courts three other pieces of legislation - including the land expropriation act.
This law was one of the issues that led to US President Donald Trump's administration cutting aid to South Africa.
The Trump administration has now imposed tariffs of 30% on all South African imports, in a move that is likely to be a huge blow to its already floundering economy.
"They have got some bad things going on in South Africa. You know, we are paying them billions of dollars, and we cut the funding because a lot of bad things are happening in South Africa," the US president said, before going on to name other countries.
In a statement, Ramaphosa's office condemned the new tariffs as "punitive", saying they could "serve as a barrier to trade and shared prosperity".
But for many South Africans, the tariffs signal the need for the two biggest parties to resolve their differences and work together - or risk seeing the nation sink into a deeper economic crisis at a time when the unemployment rate is already at more than 30%.
Spain won the 2023 Women's World Cup in Australia and New Zealand
Published
The United Kingdom is set to host the 2035 Women's World Cup after being the only valid bid received by Fifa, the organisation that runs international football.
Fifa has already stated that the tournament must be in Europe or Africa.
There was a suggestion that Spain alongside Portugal and Morocco might be putting a bid forward, but Fifa president Gianni Infantino said the UK's was the only valid one received.
Meanwhile, the United States are set to host the 2031 Women's World Cup.
"The path is there for the Women's World Cup in 2031 and 2035 to take place in some great nations and further boost the women's football movement," Gianni Infantino said.
In 2031, 48 teams are due to compete up from the 32 teams competing in the 2027 World Cup in Brazil.
Local media say Moscow's absence is "to the disappointment of many in the West"
One country that did not feature on Donald Trump's list of tariffs on US trade partners was Russia.
US outlet Axios quoted White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt as saying this was because existing US sanctions on Russia "preclude any meaningful trade" and noting that Cuba, Belarus and North Korea were also not included.
However, nations with even less trade with the US - such as Syria, which exported $11m of products last year according to UN data quoted by Trading Economics - were on the list.
The US imposed large-scale sanctions on Russia after its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Trump has generally taken a friendlier approach to Russia since his return to the White House.
Last month, Trump threatened to impose a 50% tariff on countries buying Russian oil if Russian President Vladimir Putin did not agree to a ceasefire.
On Thursday, Russian media also argued that their country was not on the sweeping tariffs list because of existing sanctions.
"No tariffs have been imposed on Russia, but that's not because of some special treatment. It's simply because Western sanctions are already in place against our country," says state-run Rossiya 24 TV.
According to its sister channel Rossiya 1, Russia is missing from the list "to the disappointment of many in the West".
Many Kremlin-controlled media outlets have specifically referred to US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who told Fox News: "Russia and Belarus, we don't trade with. They're sanctioned."
According to the Office of the US Trade Representative, the US imported goods from Russia worth $3.5bn (£2.7bn) in 2024. It mainly consisted of fertilisers, nuclear fuel and some metals, according to Trading Economics and Russian media.
Some of the Russian coverage has taken a mocking tone, with pro-Kremlin NTV saying Trump treated America's allies in Europe as "serfs" who only respond with "moaning".
Many, such as Zvezda TV which is run by Russia's defence ministry, note the inclusion of uninhabited Heard Island and McDonald Islands on the tariffs list.
"Looks like it's some penguins who will have to pay the 10% tariff," Zvezda said.
Ukraine, meanwhile, is facing a 10% tariff on its exports to the US.
The country's first deputy prime minister, Yulia Svyrydenko, said the new US tariff would mostly hit small producers.
She also said Ukraine was "working to secure better terms".
In 2024, Ukraine exported $874m (£642m) worth of goods to the US and imported $3.4bn from the US, according to the deputy prime minister.
"Ukraine has much to offer the United States as a reliable ally and partner," she added. "Fair tariffs benefit both countries."
Despite the small scale of trade, the US has provided significant material support for the war against Russia. Trump has argued that the US has spent $300-$350bn on such aid, while the US Department of Defense said $182.8bn had been "appropriated" - a figure that covers US military training in Europe and replenishment of US defence stocks - for Operation Atlantic Resolve.
The US has also been attempting to reach a deal for access to Ukrainian minerals as part of negotiations to end the war.
Trump’s tariffs erect a wall between Americans and other people — a wall that obstructs not only the flow of goods, but the flow of ideas, contacts, technology and friendships.
Trump’s tariffs erect a wall between Americans and other people — a wall that obstructs not only the flow of goods, but the flow of ideas, contacts, technology and friendships.
Trump said repeatedly that the tariffs are “reciprocal,” but that’s not true. The rates were calculated using a childish formula based on trade imbalances.
During the 30-minute meeting, Ms. Loomer excoriated National Security Council officials in front of the president and Michael Waltz, the national security adviser.
Trump said repeatedly that the tariffs are “reciprocal,” but that’s not true. The rates were calculated using a childish formula based on trade imbalances.
US President Donald Trump has imposed a 10% tariff on goods from most countries being imported into the US, with even higher rates for what he calls the "worst offenders".
But how exactly were these tariffs - essentially taxes on imports - worked out? BBC Verify has been looking at the calculations behind the numbers.
What were the calculations?
When Trump presented a giant cardboard chart detailing the tariffs in the White House Rose Garden it was initially assumed that the charges were based on a combination of existing tariffs and other trade barriers (like regulations).
But later, the White House published what might look like a complicated mathematical formula.
White House
The formula shared by the White House
But the actual exercise boiled down to simple maths: take the trade deficit for the US in goods with a particular country, divide that by the total goods imports from that country and then divide that number by two.
A trade deficit occurs when a country buys (imports) more physical products from other countries than it sells (exports) to them.
For example, the US buys more goods from China than it sells to them - there is a goods deficit of $295bn. The total amount of goods it buys from China is $440bn.
Dividing 295 by 440 gets you to 67% and you divide that by two and round up. Therefore the tariff imposed on China is 34%.
Similarly, when it applied to the EU, the White House's formula resulted in a 20% tariff.
Are the Trump tariffs 'reciprocal'?
Many commentators have pointed out that these tariffs are not reciprocal.
Reciprocal would mean they were based on what countries already charge the US in the form of existing tariffs, plus non-tariff barriers (things like regulations that drive up costs).
But the White House's official methodology document makes clear that they have not calculated this for all the countries on which they have imposed tariffs.
Instead the tariff rate was calculated on the basis that it would eliminate the US's goods trade deficit with each country.
Trump has broken away from the formula in imposing tariffs on countries that buy more goods from the US than they sell to it.
For example the US does not currently run goods trade deficit with the UK. Yet the UK has been hit with a 10% tariff.
In total, more than 100 countries are covered by the new tariff regime.
'Lots of broader impacts'
Trump believes the US is getting a bad deal in global trade. In his view, other countries flood US markets with cheap goods - which hurts US companies and costs jobs. At the same time, these countries are putting up barriers that make US products less competitive abroad.
So by using tariffs to eliminate trade deficits, Trump hopes to revive US manufacturing and protect jobs.
Reuters
The US car industry is one of the manufacturing sectors Trump is keen to revive
But will this new tariff regime achieve the desired outcome?
BBC Verify has spoken to a number of economists. The overwhelming view is that while the tariffs might reduce the goods deficit between the US and individual countries, they will not reduce the overall deficit between the US and rest of the world.
"Yes, it will reduce bilateral trade deficits between the US and these countries. But there will obviously be lots of broader impacts that are not captured in the calculation", says Professor Jonathan Portes of King's College, London.
That's because the US' existing overall deficit is not driven solely by trade barriers, but by how the US economy works.
For one, Americans spend and invest more than they earn and that gap means the US buys more from the world than it sells. So as long as that continues, the US may continue to keep running a deficit despite increasing tariffs with it global trading partners.
Some trade deficits can also exist for a number of legitimate reasons - not just down to tariffs. For example, buying food that is easier or cheaper to produce in other countries' climates.
Thomas Sampson of the London School of Economics said: "The formula is reverse engineered to rationalise charging tariffs on countries with which the US has a trade deficit. There is no economic rationale for doing this and it will cost the global economy dearly."
The UK government is launching a consultation with businesses on how taking retaliatory tariff measures against the US would impact them.
It comes after US President Donald Trump announced new tariffs of 10% on all UK imports.
The government has previously said it would not be rushed into a knee-jerk response to Trump's imposition of tariffs on its trading partners around the world while insisting all options were on the table.
But in a toughening of this stance, Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds told MPs he would "seek the views of UK stakeholders over four weeks until 1 May 2025 on products that could be potentially included in any UK tariff response".
He said talks were ongoing with the US government to secure an economic deal aimed at avoiding or reducing tariffs but warned that the UK "reserves the right to take any action we deem necessary if a deal is not secured".
In the event of reaching a deal with the US, the consultation with businesses would be paused, he added.
Speaking in the House of Commons, he said the fact the US had put lower tariffs on the UK compared to other countries "vindicated the pragmatic approach the government has taken". However, he said he was "disappointed" by the increase.
Conservative shadow business secretary Andrew Griffith questioned Reynolds' claim that the government's approach had been "vindicated".
"The government got no special favours," he said noting that the UK was facing the same tariffs as more than 125 other countries and territories including the Congo and the Christmas Islands.
He said the EU was being hit by 20% tariffs and the UK's lower rate of 10% was actually a vindication of those who "were pilloried and abused" for backing Brexit.
"They [Labour] should regret the 48 times they voted to stay in Europe and thank us for getting Brexit done."
Liberal Democrat deputy leader Daisy Cooper said Trump was telling the UK he would only lower tariffs "if you lower your standards".
"If the government gives in to Trump's threats it will only encourage him to use the same bullying tactics again and again."
She reiterated her party's call for an "economic coalition of the willing" against the tariffs.
In addition to the 10% tariffs, a 25% tariff has been put on UK car exports, as well as steel and aluminium products.
The UK exported almost £60bn worth of goods to the US last year, mainly machinery, cars and pharmaceuticals.
The government's official forecaster estimates a worst-case scenario trade war could reduce UK economic growth by 1% and wipe out the £9.9bn of economic headroom Chancellor Rachel Reeves gave herself at last week's Spring Statement.
It could mean that in order to meet her own fiscal rules, she would have to raise taxes or make cuts to government spending.
Watch: Three things to know about Trump's tariffs announcement
US President Donald Trump announced sweeping tariffs on goods from countries across the world, on what he called "Liberation Day".
He says the move will make America wealthy again, but economists warn that prices could rise for Americans and fears of a global trade war have grown.
What are tariffs and which countries is Trump targeting?
Tariffs are taxes charged on goods imported from other countries. Companies bringing the goods into the country pay the amount, typically a percentage of the goods' value, to the government.
Trump has announced a 10% "baseline" tariff on all imports to the US – this is what the UK will face.
But 60 countries will be hit with higher rates of up to 50%, including Cambodia, Vietnam, Malaysia and Bangladesh. Countries in the European Union are facing a 20% tariff. The tariffs are set to take effect in days.
Trump also confirmed previously announced tariffs on specific goods, including 25% on steel, aluminium and foreign-made cars.
Trump says "tariff" is his favourite word, and since the 1980s he has held a strong belief that the taxes can boost the US economy.
He believes they will encourage US consumers to buy more American-made goods, and increase the amount of tax raised. Trump also wants to reduce the gap between the value of US goods imported and exported.
The White House said the measures were necessary because countries were taking advantage of the US by imposing their own high tariffs and other trade barriers.
"For decades, our country has been looted, pillaged, raped and plundered by nations near and far, both friend and foe alike," Trump said as he announced the tariffs.
However, Trump is taking an enormous risk upon which he is staking his presidency, our North America correspondent Anthony Zurcher writes.
If successful, the move could fundamentally reshape the global economic order. Trump promises that it will rebuild American manufacturing and make the country more self-reliant.
But it risks alienating allies, while economists warn it could raise prices and threaten a global recession.
A messy global trade war looks inevitable, suggests the BBC's economics editor Faisal Islam.
Trump's decision to take tariff revenues to a level beyond those seen during the 1930s will mean huge changes to world trade patterns, he says.
Watch: Key moments in Trump’s ‘Liberation Day’ tariffs announcement
Will prices go up for US consumers?
Economists warn this is likely because companies are likely to pass the increased cost of imported goods onto their customers. They could also reduce imports, meaning fewer products are available - putting further pressure on prices.
To raise the revenue Trump is hoping for, US consumers are going to have to swallow rises and keep on buying items made in other countries in similar quantities as now, says the BBC's deputy economics editor Dharshini David.
And as she points out, history shows the frontline casualties tend to be consumers, due to reduced choice and higher prices, and exporters.
"Growth, jobs and price stability are in the firing line," she writes.
Cars, lumber used to build houses, beer, whisky and tequila, and avocados are among the goods that could become more expensive.
Global stockmarkets fell after tariffs were announced and a series of world leaders condemned the measures.
European Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen said "the global economy will massively suffer" and that "the consequences will be dire for millions of people around the globe".
EU countries are finalising a response to 25% steel and aluminium tariffs, which have already been introduced, and could announce further measures.
It has promised to protect European businesses, including Germany's car industry, Italy's luxury goods and France's wine and champagne producers.
China has promised "resolute countermeasures", which are likely to hurt US companies trying to sell into the huge Chinese market.
However, Trump's tariffs may also benefit China by allowing President Xi Jinping to portray his country as a champion of free trade, the BBC's China correspondent Stephen McDonell says. Countries could be encouraged to build or strengthen their trade relationships with China.
UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer acknowledged the economy will be hurt by the latest tariffs but promised to react with "cool and calm heads".
Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds told MPs the government would launch a consultation to explore how retaliatory tariff measures against US products could affect British firms.
Canada's Prime Minister Mark Carney said the tariffs will "fundamentally change the international trading system".
He said Canada would retaliate against US tariffs soon, "with purpose and with force", to protect workers and strength the economy.
How tariffs could affect UK households - and their money
The UK is now facing a 10% tariff on all goods heading to the US but there's a lot of uncertainty about what it could mean for the UK itself:
Prices could rise – or fall
Once tariffs are in place, the value of the dollar could strengthen. That might push up import costs for UK firms buying goods, which could then be passed on to consumers through higher prices.
But some economists say prices might actually drop at first. That's because firms that usually sell to the US might start sending their goods to countries like the UK instead – possibly leading to a surge of cheaper goods here.
Your job could be affected
Higher prices might lead workers to ask for bigger pay rises. If UK companies see their profits squeezed, job cuts could follow. More than 25,000 jobs in the car manufacturing sector could be at risk.
Interest rates could stay high
Rates are currently at 4.5%, and economists had expected two cuts this year. But if inflation rises because of higher prices, rates might stay higher for longer.
The Sentebale charity co-founded by Prince Harry has been caught up in a dispute
The Charity Commission is to examine the bitter dispute that led to the Duke of Sussex and several others resigning from the charity he co-founded.
The watchdog announced it had begun a "regulatory compliance case" involving Sentebale, following concerns raised by its head Sophie Chandauka.
Ms Chandauka told the BBC she welcomed the move by the commission, which comes after she said she had "blown the whistle" on issues including bullying and harassment, and warned of the prince's "toxicity" for the charity.
Sources close to the founders and former trustees of Sentebale have previously rejected the allegations and said they "look forward to the adjudication of the truth".
The Charity Commission's announcement is the first step in assessing the complaints and allegations over what has happened at Sentebale, which was founded in 2006 to help children in southern Africa affected by HIV and Aids.
It will then decide whether inquiries need to be escalated.
Ms Chandauka previously said she had reported the trustees to the Charity Commission, and made a whistleblower complaint about issues including what she described as an abuse of power, bullying, sexism and racism.
On Thursday, Ms Chandauka said in a statement that the concerns brought to the commission included "governance, administration and management matters".
The Sentebale head said she hoped the public and donors would now see there was a new board of trustees "acting appropriately to demonstrate and ensure good governance and a healthy culture".
Insiders have claimed personality clashes and tensions around leadership had added to Sentebale's challenges - and the watchdog is likely to hear financial concerns from some of those formerly involved with running the charity.
"It is devastating that the relationship between the charity's trustees and the chair of the board broke down beyond repair, creating an untenable situation," those trustees leaving the charity said a statement.
Among the likely claims are that £500,000 of Sentebale's money was spent on consultants in a strategy to get donations from wealthy individuals and foundations in the US, but which sources close to the former trustees say had not delivered adequate results.
The financial fears come despite the charity receiving an extra £1.2m from Prince Harry's earnings from his best-selling memoir Spare.
A Sentebale spokeswoman rejected the claim that £500,000 had been spent on US consultants - and defended its approach to seeking new funds for the charity. Sources also claim Ms Chandauka had raised funding to cover the cost of the consultants and that her own family had become significant donors to the charity.
Sentebale told the BBC it had hired a US firm called Lebec to help build a new fundraising strategy, and that by October 2024 a team of six consultants had set up 65 key relationships with potential donors, who might help Sentebale in the future.
It said the 12-month deal with Lebec, a women-led strategy firm, had successfully delivered links to "high-net-worth individuals, family offices, corporations, foundations and partner non-profits".
"Lebec provided the positioning strategy, the tools, and the insights to enter the US market successfully and with credibility," a spokeswoman for Sentebale said.
The one-off donation from Prince Harry from his Spare book was "incredibly useful" but did not represent a long-term "funding pipeline", said Sentebale.
The dispute has become increasingly personal.
Ms Chandauka argued the controversy around Prince Harry leaving the UK had become a barrier to potential donors.
She said the "toxicity" of Prince Harry's brand was the "number one risk for this organisation".
Ms Chandauka also spoke about a dispute over a video at a fundraising polo match, where it had been claimed Meghan was manoeuvring her out of the way during a prize-giving ceremony.
"Prince Harry asked me to issue some sort of a statement in support of the duchess and I said I wouldn't," said Ms Chandauka.
Sources close to Prince Harry and Meghan have rejected suggestions there was any conflict or anything negative about how the prize line-up was organised, saying it had been misrepresented.
They say the full video with sound shows Meghan politely helping the group get ready for the photo by asking: "Do you want to come over here?".
Ms Chandauka says she and her leadership team are focusing on the day-to-day operations of the charity, and looking forward to working with their supporters as "we recalibrate for an ambitious future".
London Luton Airport's owners believe the expansion scheme will generate 11,000 new jobs
The government has approved plans to expand London Luton Airport.
Luton Rising, the airport's owners, wanted to increase airport capacity from 18 million annual passengers to 32 million by 2043.
This would involve building a new terminal, new taxiways and increasing the capacity in the existing terminal.
Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander approved the proposals despite the Planning Inspectorate recommending she reject them over environmental concerns.
Luton Rising
The expansion plans include a new terminal building
Due to the scale of the project, the airport had to submit a Development Consent Order to the Secretary of State for Transport for a final decision.
The decision had been delayed three times - most recently so newly appointed Alexander could have more time to consider the application.
Paul Kehoe, the independent chair of Luton Rising which is owned by Luton Borough Council, welcomed the approval which could bring "significant economic, employment and social benefits for our town".
He said: "At a new capacity of 32 million passengers per year, our scheme will deliver up to 11,000 new jobs, additional annual economic activity of up to £1.5bn, and up to an additional £13m every year for communities and good causes."
BBC/Janine Machin
The airport wants to increase passenger capacity to 32 million a year
Andrew Lambourne of campaign group LADACAN, which has opposed the airport's expansion, said the government had ignored local people.
He said: "The government has said it believes in local decision making, yet has ignored the 90% of residents, groups and councils which strongly opposed this application because they know it is out-of-keeping with the area.
"People living under the flight path are already at risk of health damage from being awoken by night flights, so adding 70% more is inhumane.
"And with climate change worsening, the last thing any of us need is 70,000 more aircraft a year creating greenhouse gases and contrails."
The list of would-be buyers for TikTok in the US - both rumoured and confirmed - has grown longer as the deadline for deciding its future looms.
The social media giant faces being shut down in the US unless it sells to an American company by 5 April.
The runners and riders range from US tech giants to the British entrepreneur dubbed "the king of homemade porn".
However, TikTok and its Chinese owner, ByteDance have still not confirmed they are willing to do a deal.
They also continue to reject the reason for the sale - that the US considers their ties to the Chinese government a national security threat.
It is also not clear what exactly would be sold, in particular what would happen to TikTok's algorithim, which decides what content to expose users to, and is considered a big reason for its success.
"TikTok without its algorithm is like Harry Potter without his wand - it's simply not as powerful," said Kelsey Chickering, principal analyst at Forrester Research.
Despite all this uncertainty, Ms Chickering said it was unlikely the app would go offline in the US as it briefly did in January.
"It is highly unlikely that TikTok will go dark again. All signs point to a deal or another extension."
As with everything else to do with the app's future, who exactly is attempting to buy it is cloaked in uncertainty.
According to the New York Times, Amazon recently sent a letter to the US Vice President JD Vance and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick expressing interest.
Amazon declined to comment when approached by BBC News.
Another late-stage bid reportedly came from an app marketing and analytics company called AppLovin.
They have remained similarly tight-lipped on the speculation, though - at least in public.
A third last-minute bidder includes the man once called "the king of homemade porn" by the Sunday Times - British OnlyFans founder Tim Stokely.
His proposed bid - and all the media attention which comes with it - happens to coincide with the relaunch of a company he co-founded in 2022.
How the proposed and then shelved TikTok ban affected US influencers
One confirmed bidder is Perplexity, an AI search startup which counts Amazon's Jeff Bezos among its backers.
The company recently published its "vision" for what its version of TikTok would look like for America.
Another potential investor is Frank McCourt, who founded the Project Liberty organisation in 2021, which aims to give more power to internet users.
He says he would scrap the current algorithm in favour of a far more open version where users have more control over what they see on the platform.
Also part of this bid are Reddit co-founder Alexis Ohanian and Canadian businessman Kevin O'Leary.
A bid from MrBeast?
According to the Financial Times, a consortium of American businesses is close to getting US government endorsement for a bid - though of course it is up to ByteDance, not the White House, whether they sell or not.
The group includes Trump loyalist Marc Andreessen and Oracle co-founder Larry Ellison.
Oracle already handles the data for TikTok in the US.There are a number of other potential bids which have been mentioned by Donald Trump when he has been asked.
He has said, in responses to questions from reporters, that Elon Musk may be interested in getting hold of TikTok, and has also mentioned Microsoft in the past.
Microsoft had a bid rejected in 2020 when the previous Tump administration explored a TikTok ban which never happened.
YouTuber Jimmy Donaldson, or MrBeast to his millions of fans, has also said he's been contacted by a number of different groups trying to get him to be the face of a new bid.
But whoever ends up being picked by the White House to go forward with a bid will still have to get over the same huge hurdle: how do you buy a company that's not for sale?
Decisions taken within the next few days will determine whether British Steel's Scunthorpe plant stays open, the BBC understands.
The plant's Chinese owner, Jingye, has cancelled two cargo shipments of coking coal for the site's two blast furnaces and it has not yet paid for iron pellets that are scheduled to arrive next week.
Without coal and iron ore, the blast furnaces will shut down within weeks.
Last week British Steel launched a consultation on the proposed closure of its two blast furnaces at Scunthorpe, putting up to 2,700 jobs at risk.
It has been meeting with the trade unions Community, GMB and Unite.
The GMB's national officer, Charlotte Brumpton-Childs, said that a union meeting with workers on Wednesday had shown that ''Jingye has no intention of running the plant responsibly. Nationalisation is now the only option to save UK steel-making."
Sources close to the consultation accuse Jingye of deliberately undermining talks to save the plant by closing down the supply of raw materials.
A British Steel spokesperson said: "We are not able to comment at this time".
Reuters
British Steel has been owned by Jingye since 2020. The Chinese firm says it has invested more than £1.2bn into British Steel to maintain operations and claims it has suffered financial losses of about £700,000 a day.
Zengwei An, the company's chief executive, said the launch of the consultation process had been "a necessary decision given the hugely challenging circumstances the business faces", including the imposition of US tariffs and higher environmental costs.
The BBC reported last week that the company had drawn up a £2bn investment plan and that it had expected the government to contribute half.
The BBC understands that British Steel recently rejected a government offer of £500m.
There are growing calls for the government to nationalise the company.
On Tuesday, North Lincolnshire Council voted unanimously in favour of the company being brought back into public ownership, while last week in Parliament, Conservative MPs and the deputy leader of Reform UK, Richard Tice, also called for nationalisation.
Questioned on the BBC Radio 4 Today programme this morning, business secretary, Jonathan Reynolds MP, said he was ''strongly committed to the UK having a steel industry'' and that he was making sure ''we are closely engaged on this issue''.
However declined to comment on reports that public ownership was being actively considered by ministers, saying to BBC Radio 4: "We are talking to the company. It's in private ownership, that is the situation that we have inherited, we are trying to find a way through that."
"I know for the workforce in particular this is a really difficult time,'' he added.
State education officials will be required to verify that they have eliminated all programs that promote diversity, equity and inclusion that the administration deems unlawful, according to a new memo.
Education Secretary Linda McMahon at the White House last month. Her department has said that an “assessment of school policies and programs depends on the facts and circumstances of each case.”
The World Bank is embarking on a multimillion-dollar programme in response to alleged human rights abuses against Tanzanian herders during a flagship tourism project it funded for seven years.
Allegations made by pastoralist communities living in and around Ruaha national park include violent evictions, sexual assaults, killings, forced disappearances and large-scale cattle seizures from herders committed by rangers working for the Tanzanian national park authority (Tanapa).
In 2023, two individuals wrote to the bank accusing some Tanapa employees of “extreme cruelty” during cattle seizures and having engaged in “extrajudicial killings” and the “disappearance” of community members.
The Oakland Institute, a US-based thinktank that is advising the communities, and which alerted the World Bank to abuses in April 2023, says Ruaha doubled in size from 1m to more than 2m hectares (2.5m to 5m acres) during the project’s lifetime – a claim the bank denies. It says the expansion took place a decade earlier. Oakland claims 84,000 people from at least 28 villages were affected by the expansion plan.
This week, the bank published a 70-page report following its own investigation, which found “critical failures in the planning and supervision of this project and that these have resulted in serious harm”.The report, published on 2 April, notes that “the project should have recognised that enhancing Tanapa’s capacity to manage the park could potentially increase the likelihood of conflict with communities trying to access the park.”
Anna Bjerde, World Bank managing director of operations, said, “We regret that the Regrow project preparation and supervision did not sufficiently account for project risks, resulting in inadequate mitigation measures to address adverse impacts. This oversight led to the bank overlooking critical information during implementation.”
The report includes recommendations aimed at redressing harms done and details a $2.8m project that will support alternative livelihoods for communities inside and around the park. It will also help fund a Tanzanian NGO that provides legal advice to victims of crime who want to pursue justice through the courts.
A second, much bigger project, understood to be worth $110, will fund alternative livelihoods across the entire country, including Ruaha.
The total investment, thought to be the largest amount the bank has ever allocated to addressing breaches of its policies, is a reflection of the serious nature of the allegations.
The bank had already suspended Regrow funding in April 2024 after its own investigation found the Tanzanian government had violated the bank’s resettlement policy and failed to create a system to report violent incidents or claim redress. The project was cancelled altogether in November 2024. A spokesperson said the bank “remains deeply concerned about the serious nature of the reports of incidents of violence and continues to focus on the wellbeing of affected communities”.
By the time the project was suspended the bank had already disbursed $125m of the $150m allocated to Regrow.
The Oakland Institute estimates that economic damages for farmers and pastoralists affected by livelihood restrictions, run into tens of millions of dollars.
Anuradha Mittal, executive director of the Oakland Institute,said the “scathing” investigation “confirmed the bank’s grave wrongdoing which devastated the lives of communities. Pastoralists and farms who refused to be silenced amid widespread government repression, are now vindicated.”
She added that the bank’s response was “beyond shameful”.
“Suggesting that tens of thousands of people forced out of their land can survive with ‘alternative livelihoods’ such asclean cooking and microfinance is a slap in the face of the victims.”
Inspection panel chair Ibrahim Pam said critical lessons from the Regrow case will be applied to all conservation projects that require resettlement and restrict access to parks, especially those implemented by a law enforcement agency.
Regrow was given the go ahead in 2017. The Oakland Institute described its cancellation by the government in 2024 as a landmark victory, but said communities “remain under siege – still facing evictions, crippling livelihood restrictions and human rights abuses”.
In one village near the southern border of Ruaha, the brother of a young man who was killed three years ago while herding cattle in an area adjacent to the park, said: “It feels like it was yesterday. He had a wife, a family. Now the wife has to look after the child by herself.” He did not want to give his name for fear of reprisal.
Another community member whose husband was allegedly killed by Tanapa staff said: “I feel bad whenever I remember what happened to my husband. We used to talk often. We were friends. I was pregnant with his child when he died. He never saw his daughter. Now I just live in fear of these [Tanapa-employed] people.”
The Oakland Institute said the affected communities reject the bank’s recommendations, and have delivered a list of demands that includes “reverting park boundaries to the 1998 borders they accepted, reparations for livelihood restrictions, the resumption of suspended basic services, and justice for victims of ranger abuse and violence.
“Villagers are determined to continue the struggle for their rights to land and life until the bank finally takes responsibility and remedies the harms it caused.”
The bank has said it has no authority to pay compensation directly.
Wildlife-based tourism is a major component of Tanzania’s economy, contributing more than one quarter of the country’s foreign exchange earnings in 2019. The bank has said any future community resettlement will be the government’s decision.
Login
The Guardian | World
