Former Proud Boys leader Henry "Enrique" Tarrio and Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes have been released from prison, as President Donald Trump sets free more than 1,500 people charged for the US Capitol riot four years ago.

Within less than 24 hours of Trump pardoning or commuting sentences of those who tried to violently overturn the 2020 election, the riot's two most prominent leaders left prison. Trump is also dismissing charges against those charged, but not yet tried, for the riot.

"My son, Enrique Tarrio, has been released officially as of now!" Zuny Tarrio posted on X.

Rhodes, who was not pardoned but had his sentence commuted, is waiting at the jail for defendants to be freed.

Rhodes, a former US Army paratrooper and Yale-educated lawyer, had been charged for leading a contingent of his Oath Keepers members to Washington.

Though Rhodes did not enter the Capitol, he directed his members from outside, and was sentenced in 2023 to 18 years in prison.

Tarrio was found guilty of seditious conspiracy - a rarely used charge of planning to overthrow the government - over the riot. He was not in Washington DC during the riots but directed others involved.

He received a sentence of 22 years, one of the longest given.

Amid the pardons and commutations, Trump also signed an order directing the Department of Justice to drop all pending cases against suspects accused in the riot.

A leading advocate for those defendants - Edward R Martin - was also made the acting US Attorney for Washington DC, showing the depth of Trump's desire to end the years-long prosecutions. The Washington office was in charge of trying the cases connected to 6 January.

Democrats have condemned the release of more than 1,000 people as an attempt to rewrite history and sanitise the violence of the riot which led to multiple deaths.

Trump has described the day as "peaceful" and the jailed or imprisoned rioters as "hostages".

Ukraine has detained its army's chief psychiatrist for "illegal enrichment" charges related to earnings of more than $1m (£813,000) accrued since the start of Russia's invasion in February 2022.

In a statement, the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) said the man sat on a commission deciding whether individuals were fit for military service.

The SBU statement did not name him - however, a man called Oleh Druz was previously identified as the Ukrainian Armed Forces' chief psychiatrist.

The SBU said he owned three apartments in or near Kyiv, one in Odesa, two plots of land and several BMW luxury cars, and investigators searching his home also found $152,000 (£124,000) and €34,000 in cash.

The statement said the man did not declare the property, which was registered in the name of his wife, daughter, sons, and other third parties.

He now faces ten years in jail for the charges of illegal enrichment and making a false declaration.

Druz was implicated in a similar case in 2017 which saw him fail to declare two SUVs and several properties, leading him to be suspended.

Ukraine has long battled endemic corruption.

In May, a Ukrainian MP was charged with embezzling £220,000, while in 2023 more than 30 conscription officials accused of taking bribes and smuggling people out of the country were sacked in an anti-corruption purge.

Last year, the Ukrainian parliament voted to abolish military medical commissions after several officials were accused of accepting bribes in exchange for issuing exemptions from military service.

The chair of the UK's competition watchdog has been ousted by government ministers who felt that the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) had failed to convince them it was sufficiently focused on growth.

Government sources said that with the chancellor and business secretary at the World Economic Forum in Davos trying to drum up investment, the government wanted to send a signal that it was serious about growth.

The CMA recently held up a merger between Vodafone and Three Mobile Networks which was eventually approved.

Marcus Bokkerink, who has chaired the CMA since 2022, will be replaced on an interim basis by Doug Gurr, former boss of Amazon UK.

Mr Bokkerink and other regulators met with Chancellor Rachel Reeves last week to deliver their ideas on how to stimulate growth.

It is understood that the submission from the CMA was thought to be underwhelming.

The CMA's primary responsibility is to ensure consumers are well served by effective and fair competition.

The CMA has been contacted for comment.

Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs) in the Northern Ireland Assembly have been given a dressing down by the Speaker.

On Tuesday, during a Stormont plenary session, Edwin Poots reminded them that the dress code was "smart."

"Some of you have a very loose interpretation of smart and I would encourage members to dress smartly when it comes to the chamber," he said.

We're not demanding that people, gentlemen, wear shirts and ties, but we're asking (you) to dress smartly and to look up to doing the job."

It comes a day after the inauguration of United Stated President Donald Trump, which saw US senator John Fetterman arrive in a hoodie, shorts and trainers.

Poots also told members off for bringing in coffee cups and cans saying: "I see everything up here. People might not realise it, but I have witnessed over the last number of weeks people bringing in coffee cups and cans and so forth.

"The only thing that you are allowed in this building is the glass of water that is provided for you.

"It's not a committee meeting. It is a plenary session of Parliamentary Assembly. And all other receptacles are not to be in this part of the building."

Mr Poots, who was sporting a tartan tie for Burns' Night, also said some MLAs were not acknowledging him when they are leaving the chamber, adding "that's not following the code".

A 2014 leaflet given to MLAs called "Rules of behaviour and courtesies in the House " warns them "while there is no exact dress code the way in which you dress should demonstrate respect for the House. The Speaker expects Members to wear business attire."

However, the rules have since been relaxed meaning men no longer have to wear jackets and ties.

The opening day of Prince Harry's damages battle against the owners of The Sun newspaper has been delayed after it emerged that the two sides are involved in potential settlement talks after years of legal warfare.

The duke's lawyers were due on Tuesday to open an eight-week trial of his allegations that journalists at News Group Newspapers used unlawful techniques to pry into his private live - and executives then allegedly covered it up.

Moments before they were to begin presenting their case, they asked for an adjournment.

However, after hours of secret discussions, and no sign of a final agreement that could change the nature of the trial, the judge demanded that the two sides begin - leading them both to say they would ask the Court of Appeal to overturn that order.

The practical effect of their objection is that the case has been delayed until at least 10am on Wednesday - which means both sides have more time to negotiate.

It's not clear what has been raised in the 11th hour negotiations.

Prince Harry has repeatedly said he wants a trial so that he can get "accountability" for other alleged victims of unlawful newsgathering of private information by NGN journalists.

NGN has denied there was any wrongdoing at The Sun or that executives across the group covered it up.

The Rupert Murdoch-owned empire has long admitted that journalists at the News of the World, closed down in 2011, did use unlawful techniques but has always denied that it was widespread.

This morning, lawyers for Prince Harry and former Labour MP Lord Tom Watson, the other remaining claimant, asked Mr Justice Fancourt to delay opening the case twice - meaning the court did not sit until 2pm.

David Sherborne, Prince Harry's barrister, said there was potentially a "good prospect" of an agreement that would save the court time.

"We are very close, there is an issue with time and gaining instructions," he said.

"It is not the only factor."

Anthony Hudson KC, for News Group Newspapers, added the parties needed more time because of "time differences" and said that both parties were involved in a "settlement dynamic".

Mr Justice Fancourt - who has repeatedly criticised both sides for long delays and spats over how the case should be conducted - refused to give them more time, saying that the case should start, even if there were still talks behind the scenes that could change the nature of the trial.

"I am not persuaded that if there is a real will to settle this that it could not have been done by today," said the judge.

News Group Newspapers' lawyers then asked for the court to sit in private - without the presence of the media - to hear more about what was going on.

The judge refused, saying he was not going to sit in "secret" - and then both Prince Harry's team and NGN's lawyers said they would ask senior judges to overturn the order to get underway.

President Donald Trump has said he plans to end "birthright citizenship" - which refers to automatic American citizenship granted to anyone born in the US.

Birthright citizenship is protected by the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution.

He has said he wanted to end it by an executive order in recent media interviews as well as in his previous term as president.

The plan was mentioned again in a briefing call by incoming White House administration officials on Monday.

The official provided no details on how the administration hopes to accomplish this.

Though he has vowed to end the practice, attempts to do so would face significant legal hurdles, and any executive order attempting to do so would likely immediately be overturned in court.

The bar to amend the Constitution is extremely high and requires approval from two-thirds of Congress, in both the House and Senate. It must also be ratified by three-fourths of states.

What is 'birthright citizenship'?

The first sentence of the 14th Amendment to the US constitution establishes the principle of "birthright citizenship":

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."

Immigration hardliners argue that the policy is a "great magnet for illegal immigration", and that it encourages undocumented pregnant women to cross the border in order to give birth, an act that has been pejoratively called "birth tourism" or having an "anchor baby".

How did it start?

The 14th Amendment was adopted in 1868, after the close of the Civil War. The 13th Amendment had abolished slavery in 1865, while the 14th settled the question of the citizenship of freed, American-born former slaves.

Previous Supreme Court decisions, like Dred Scott v Sandford in 1857, had decided that African Americans could never be US citizens. The 14th Amendment overrode that.

In 1898, the US Supreme Court affirmed that birthright citizenship applies to the children of immigrants in the case of Wong Kim Ark v United States. Wong was a 24-year-old child of Chinese immigrants who was born in the US, but denied re-entry when he returned from a visit to China. Wong successfully argued that because he was born in the US, his parent's immigration status did not impact the application of the 14th Amendment.

"Wong Kim Ark vs United States affirmed that regardless of race or the immigration status of one's parents, all persons born in the United States were entitled to all of the rights that citizenship offered," writes Erika Lee, director of the Immigration History Research Center at the University of Minnesota. "The court has not re-examined this issue since then."

Can Trump overturn it?

Most legal scholars agree that President Trump cannot end birthright citizenship with an executive order.

"He's doing something that's going to upset a lot of people, but ultimately this will be decided by the courts," said Saikrishna Prakash, a constitutional expert and University of Virginia Law School professor. "This is not something he can decide on his own."

Mr Prakash said that while the president can order the employees of federal agencies to interpret citizenship more narrowly - agents with the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, for example - that will inevitably invite legal challenges from people whose citizenship is being denied.

That could lead to a lengthy court battle that could ultimately wind up at the US Supreme Court.

A constitutional amendment could do away with birthright citizenship, but that would require a two-thirds vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate and approval by three quarters of US states.

How many people would it impact?

According to Pew Research, about 250,000 babies were born to unauthorised immigrant parents in the United States in 2016, which is a 36% decrease from a peak in 2007. By 2022, the latest year that data is available, there are 1.2m US citizens total born to unauthorised immigrant parents, Pew found.

But as those children also have children, the cumulative effect of ending birthright citizenship would increase the number of unauthorised immigrants in the country to 4.7m in 2050, think tank the Migration Policy Institute found.

In an interview with NBC's Meet the Press, Trump said he thinks that the children of unauthorised immigrants should be deported alongside their parents - even if they were born in the US.

"I don't want to be breaking up families," Trump said last December. "So the only way you don't break up the family is you keep them together and you have to send them all back."

What countries have it

More than 30 countries - including Canada, Mexico, Malaysia and Lesotho - practise automatic "jus soli", or "right of the soil" without restriction.

Other countries, like the UK and Australia, allow for a modified version where citizenship is automatically granted if one parent is a citizen or permanent resident.

After bracing for weeks for a trade war with the US, Canada has - for now - evaded tariffs that Donald Trump threatened to impose on the country as soon as he takes office.

But Trump said on Monday the tariffs on Canada and Mexico could come on 1 February as he ordered federal officials to review US trade relationships for any unfair practices - including relationships with Canada, Mexico and China.

The incoming president has pledged import duties of 25% on Canada and Mexico, as well as 10% on global imports and 60% on Chinese goods.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said on Tuesday: "'If the president does choose to proceed with tariffs, Canada will respond - and everything is on the table."

Canadian officials initially appeared relieved at the reprieve the review that Trump has ordered offered, but warned the tariff threat was still real.

Then in the Oval Office late in the evening, Trump told reporters he was considering 1 February as a date his administration might impose 25% levies on Canada and Mexico.

Canada is highly dependent on trade with the US, with roughly 75% of its exports heading south.

Trudeau, speaking to reporters on Tuesday morning, said there was "always going to be a certain amount of unpredictability and rhetoric coming out from this administration".

He said Canada offered the US "a safe, secure and reliable partner in an uncertain world".

In an appeal to Trump's promise of an American "golden age", Trudeau noted Canada is a source of commodities like energy and critical minerals the "American economy is going to need in order to grow".

In November, Trump said his administration would impose across -the-board tariffs on Canadian and Mexican goods in an effort to force the countries to crack down on illegal immigration and drug smuggling into the US.

Canada's Foreign Minister Melanie Joly last week had warned the tariffs could spark the "biggest trade war between Canada and the US in decades".

Ottawa is preparing counter-tariffs in response to the threat, reportedly worth billions of dollars.

Trudeau said he supports "the principle of dollar-for-dollar matching tariffs".

Members of Trudeau's cabinet are gathered in Quebec for two days of meetings focused on the US-Canada relationship.

Canadian officials say they will continue with their efforts to lobby US counterparts on the benefits of trade between the two nations, which totaled an estimated $909bn in 2022.

• LIVE: Follow BBC's live coverage
• ANALYSIS: Anthony Zurcher on the beginning of a new Trump era
• IN PICTURES: Key moments of the inauguration
• WATCH: Inauguration day in two minutes
• FASHION: Melania's striking hat and other eye-catching looks
• POLICIES: Trump vows to leave Paris climate agreement and 'drill, baby, drill'

Canada, the US and Mexico renegotiated a trilateral free trade deal during Trump's first term in office.

The presidential memo Trump signed after his inauguration directs federal agencies to assess how that deal affects American "workers, farmers, ranchers, service providers, and other businesses".

It also asked the commerce and homeland security secretaries to assess the "unlawful migration and fentanyl flows" from Canada and Mexico.

That review is due on 1 April.

While both the northern and southern US borders have reported unlawful crossings and drug seizures, the numbers at the border with Canada are considerably lower than those at the Mexico border, according to official data.

• Has Trump promised too much on US economy?
• Global growth forecast to flatline as tariffs add to strains

In December, Canada promised to implement C$1.3bn ($900m; £700m) worth of new security measures along its US border, including strengthened surveillance and a joint "strike force" to target transnational organised crime.

Tariffs are a central part of Trump's economic vision - he sees them as a way of growing the US economy, protecting jobs and raising tax revenue.

But many economists have warned the policy could lead to higher prices for Americans and pain for companies hit by foreign retaliation, and slow.

• LIVE: Follow BBC's live coverage
• ANALYSIS: The promise and peril of Trump's speech
• WATCH: The new president's day so far
• EXPLAINED: What Trump is doing on day one

Former Proud Boys leader Henry "Enrique" Tarrio and Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes have been released from prison, as President Donald Trump sets free more than 1,500 people charged for the US Capitol riot four years ago.

Within less than 24 hours of Trump pardoning or commuting sentences of those who tried to violently overturn the 2020 election, the riot's two most prominent leaders left prison. Trump is also dismissing charges against those charged, but not yet tried, for the riot.

"My son, Enrique Tarrio, has been released officially as of now!" Zuny Tarrio posted on X.

Rhodes, who was not pardoned but had his sentence commuted, is waiting at the jail for defendants to be freed.

Rhodes, a former US Army paratrooper and Yale-educated lawyer, had been charged for leading a contingent of his Oath Keepers members to Washington.

Though Rhodes did not enter the Capitol, he directed his members from outside, and was sentenced in 2023 to 18 years in prison.

Tarrio was found guilty of seditious conspiracy - a rarely used charge of planning to overthrow the government - over the riot. He was not in Washington DC during the riots but directed others involved.

He received a sentence of 22 years, one of the longest given.

Amid the pardons and commutations, Trump also signed an order directing the Department of Justice to drop all pending cases against suspects accused in the riot.

A leading advocate for those defendants - Edward R Martin - was also made the acting US Attorney for Washington DC, showing the depth of Trump's desire to end the years-long prosecutions. The Washington office was in charge of trying the cases connected to 6 January.

Democrats have condemned the release of more than 1,000 people as an attempt to rewrite history and sanitise the violence of the riot which led to multiple deaths.

Trump has described the day as "peaceful" and the jailed or imprisoned rioters as "hostages".